5 ms·
Given your seeming misunderstanding of chemistry, I'm not going to debate any further, but for the sake of others reading, I'll point out that there are two ele
by askvictor 4y ago
Given your seeming misunderstanding of chemistry, I'm not going to debate any further, but for the sake of others reading, I'll point out that there are two elements above Lithium (Hydrogen and Helium), and that Lithium is a (solid at room temperature) metal makes all the difference. And the fact that Lithium not being burnt as a fuel like H2 (thus requiring fuel storage and refueling), but instead as part of a compound that is used for energy storage.
- _hypx 4y agoYou are misreading my statement. There is literally only one element directly above lithium on the periodic table. I was not referring to atomic mass. Hydrogen is not burned in a fuel cell. It works the same way as lithium does in an li-ion battery. However, you can use hydrogen in a combustion engine, also as a compound for energy storage. Also, "fuel storage and refueling" is a huge advantage because you don't need to worry about slow recharging. This is often seen as an advantage.
- CydeWeys 4y agoWhat argument do you think you're making here by referring to the layout of the periodic table? You might rather refer to a color-coded periodic table which shows which elements are gases and which are solids at room temperature. That's a much more relevant concern than whatever you're trying to say.
- _hypx 4y agoThe point is that any material below lithium on the periodic table will likely result in a lower energy density battery chemistry. If you want something fundamentally superior than li-ion, there's really only one option. Hence why any replacement for li-ion is likely to heavily emphasize hydrogen.