researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China developed all-solid-state batteries that match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China developed all-solid-state batteries that match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
Performance of all-solid-state device developed by Chinese researchers akin to that of advanced varieties, findings published in Nature Communications say.
The actual paper is here and Open Access.
👍
China is becoming the new world technology development leader.
Shouldn't be surprising given that China has a huge and well educated population. China outnumber USA STEM Grads 8 to 1 and project to be 15 to 1 by 2030. China has also overtaken the US both in quantity and quality of research. And of course, China has a huge advantage with the state playing a major role in guiding the type of technology China focuses on instead of leaving it to the markets. So, it should be no surprise that China is already surpassing the west technologically now, and the gap will only keep growing going forward.
The greatest appropriating committee, certainly. Development? Not yet
Sure, the chinese are just copying everything, they don’t research and develop new technologies. Mhm. Your 1980s racism needs an update.
50/200 is 25%, not 4%. Let's fix this title:
"Technology developed in other countries taken credit for by a Chinese company that has a nonviable product promised to eventually be the best, according to imaginary numbers."
Literally the first paragraph of the article explains that it is 4% of the cost:
Chinese scientists say they have developed a new solid-state battery technology to match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
You seem to be confusing the cost of materials with the overall cost of production.
I know what the article, with its many grandiose hypotheticals, says.
The problem with believing the article is that there's no evidence for it, and the numbers are obviously manipulated to prop up the Chinese team and denigrate all of the other people who already developed this technology.
There are no hard numbers, just vague superlative statements, no timeline of development, no acknowledgment of the other 50 companies that are already developing viable solid state batteries.
It's another silly statistically skewed China technology articles that doesn't bear any weight in the scientific world.
Could they blah blah blah? Yes they could blah blah blah. That's not exactly a newsworthy sentiment though.
And 7/200 is 3.5%, maybe you should read that article again…
You might want to read the paragraph again." Could.". " Great promise."
Yeah everyone's prototypes have great promise, why don't you try making them into a commercially viable product and then compare the real numbers?
It's not like this is the first country that's created a solid state battery, they're pretty late to the game.
That seven dollars is a hypothetical cost of raw materials alone. The lowest cost they have of a viable solid state batteries is $50 and that's from the US.
The $200 is from a theoretical upper cost of specifically the most expensive material somebody could use to make expensive ceramic batteries, ignoring the actual costs and materials of solid state batteries other countries and companies are using, except to say that those prices aren't important because they aren't commercially viable - problem is, that part of the article is incorrect as well. There are dozens of companies already making solid state batteries, nowhere near $200 per kilogram of raw material, more like $75 per produced commercially viable kilowatt hour (Nissan).
But 75 is higher than 7, you might say. $7 is an unverified lab while other companies and countries have actually produced what state batteries, publishing the actual cost, rather than silly self-congratulating imaginary numbers.
By your logic, we can go back to credit just about everything in existence to China giving paper and gunpowder inventions to the world. "White man" world of imperialism and warmongering would literally not exist without China.
Wow, that is an extraordinarily poorly worded non-sequiter. Can you perhaps complete your thought, explain what logic what you're referring to, why you brought race into the discussion, and what was wrong with the Chinese developing gunpowder and paper?
It seems like you're making up your own logical fallacy without evidence in the first sentence, and attributing it to me, but then agreeing with your own logical fallacy in the second sentence. Is that your dissonant perspective?
Percent is not two words.
Upvoting since I came searching for this after struggling to understand what battery could possibly be made 4 for $0.01 before it finally clicked for me how to properly read the title. Learned something new too, thanks for asking so I didn’t.