China urges citizens to trade in 'old lithium e-bikes' for newer lead acid electric bikes : technology

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 30 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

The safety thing is 100% true but only part of the picture.

E-bikes don’t need maximum energy density because they’re not gonna be used for long trips and are significantly lighter than cars and trucks.

China has many, many more electric vehicles than any other country and a ton of electricity production to run them. At some point it’s gonna become important to save the lithium batteries for the stuff that needs that high density power.

Maybe these better chemistries that will replace lithium are just around the corner. I certainly don’t count unhatched chickens.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 16 points 7 hours ago

Makes sense. Thanks, Gayhitler.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

E-bikes don’t need maximum energy density because they’re not gonna be used for long trips and are significantly lighter than cars and trucks.

Actually, ebikes need energy density the most. They tend to not have fast public charging. A lighter ebike has huge advantages, if only for maneuvering a couple of stairs or over a log, but also in suspension and handling + a huge difference in range/acceleration.

For an EV, you don't need "race car" performance, and heavy chemistries are ok. Bike performance just gets a huge boost from relatively minor cost to improve weight/range and performance.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Sodium Ion batteries would be a better weight compromise than going to shitty old lead batteries. The new sodium batteries have almost no downsides but aren't quite as energy dense as lithium types. So they might be great in a large vehicle that's already going to be heavy, not so much in a smaller car. Saving the lithium stuff for smaller things is best (phones, laptops, etc)

[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

EV’s already weigh more than most of their ICE equivalents. I don’t think we want even heavier chemistries in them. You could reduce the battery capacity to keep the weight down but then it’s a double hit to range.

Heck a Model S weighs more than a fair number of F150’s on the road.

Model S: 4,323-4,960 lbs

F150: 4,021-5,540 lbs

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Wait, what? I drain my battery every day. I need more energy density, not less. I do use my bike for long trips, driving a car during rush hour sucks, parking fees are insanely high and parking spots are rare. I sold my car and do everything by electric bike. But after 2 hours of cycling at 32km/h I need to charge.

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I meant the ~300 mile ranges common in electric cars. That’s a long trip. Plus if the car rolls to a stop by the side of the road you just gotta have it towed or charge it up in the field somehow, electric bikes have pedals.

It sucks to pedal a heavy ass ebike but you can do it in a pinch to get where you need to go.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, have fun peddling a heavy as fuck ebike when you're 1 hour 32km/h drive away from home. That's over 2h of super heavy cycling because you're going super slow.

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I have. It sucks but it’s possible and because I live in a mountainous area I avoid that problem by using less assist so everything lasts longer.

The broader point I was trying to make is that If you’re trying to allocate the limited raw materials to the types of transport that benefit people the most then pushing e-bikes to lead acid makes a lot of sense. Yeah, the bikes could benefit from a more power dense battery, but they have backup pedals and ultimately their rider is the majority of the loaded bikes weight.

Electric cars and trucks weigh at least ten times what a person does and are generally used for longer distances than e-bikes so it makes more sense to use very energy dense batteries in them.

Again, I’m speaking from a position that recognizes the proliferation of electric vehicles in China and recognizes that the raw materials used to make lithium batteries are finite and in high demand, not from the position of trying to optimize the e-bike.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

Seems like cars don't all need 300 mi range, but a 5 lb weight difference in a bike is huge.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Just get rid of cars and fix proper biking and public transportation infrastructure. No need for that many cars, electric or not. Lithium is finite, the mines are horrible. But we're getting nuclear diamond batteries soon, they are a massive upgrade.

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

China has very developed bicycle infrastructure and massive public transportation compared to almost anywhere else. There are fewer car owners per capita than other countries. It’s still a smart play to use the hand of state to take steps to allocate the more energy dense batteries to applications that require them.

As I said before: Maybe these better chemistries that will replace lithium are just around the corner. I certainly don’t count unhatched chickens.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Also isn't lead acid heavy as fuck for the energy stored? The difference there is more noticeable on a bike.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's heavy and bursty. It's really not great for sustained energy discharge, which is why it's used as a starter and not for hybrid engines at runtime.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm hoping sodium ion takes over the ebike market. It's less energy dense then the very best lithium batteries, but most ebikes aren't using the very best lithium batteries, anyway. They're cheaper and alleviate the safety concerns (which are mostly overblown, anyway).

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, I'd totally buy a sodium ion battery. I think they have something like 75% the energy density per mass vs lithium ion, which is totally fine for my use case (commuter).

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 12 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

I don't think you realize just how fast lead acid batteries deteriorate when using their smaller charge capacities. In cars and many electronics they are used because they can be shamelessly charged to 100%, and they are supposed to maintain 100% or close to it. They require constant monitoring to be stored properly in a way that lasts. Using them up below 50% will decrease their lifespan significantly. Lithium batteries are quite different, they shouldn't be charged to 100% but in turn they can use a greater amount of their charge while holding more of it without significant deterioration. They have significantly longer lifespans when used properly. Before we had gasoline cars we had electric cars that used lead acid batteries, there's a reason they stopped being used.

What China wants to do is eliminate the older lithium ebikes because they were built with barely any safety regulation. To do this, they need to offer a cheaper option to their citizens, and the only way they can essentially do this without the original problem persisting is using lead acid batteries, because even a cheap lead acid battery with a cheap charger isn't going to fail spectacularly like the lithium ones. LiFePO4 are far safer than lithium while still having higher energy densities, but you won't see those get promoted because they would be costlier.

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago

Who would have thought a ml user named gay hitler would be wrong about everything.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

They should offer upgrade to newer lithium ebikes, LFP and sodium ion is not ideal for ebikes, but way better than SLA. Standards for BMS and pack soldering, and possibly a metal casing (like Lectric XP bikes) for holding battery, and metal case for home charging. There are safety standard designations (UL) used in US markets that may or may not be cash grabs, but seems like a good approach.

[–] Acters@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I know right, they are cheaping out because why bother subsidizing new bikes when trading in an old bike? Just sell a cheap shittier e bike. If only the citizens were able to pay the government some cash to help make their community more safe and better than before. /s

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 day ago (2 children)

newer

lead acid

Uh, wtf?

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, they should have just gone to the frontier of technology with carbon-air cells. It's weird, right? I thought China was a first mover in tech.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

No, they copy first movers.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago

No, they copy first movers.

the joked passed so far over the head of sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works that most observers thought it was an aeolian dust particle trapped in the outmost jetstream

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The headline means newly manufactured e-bikes with lead acid batteries.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

That doesn't explain why the new bikes have older technology than the bikes they're urging people to trade in.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 7 hours ago

The article provides a decent explanation.

[–] Nytarsha@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's in the article:

Over the last decade or so, China has seen a shift from older AGM batteries, which are heavy and bulky, toward lighter and longer-lasting lithium-ion batteries.

However, safety concerns regarding rare yet dangerous lithium-ion battery fires have put a pause on that proliferation. The government instituted new safety standards for lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes last year, but there’s also been a major pushback toward AGM batteries for the domestic market.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 6 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Do you know that LiFePO4 cells are the same price (in Europe), longer-lasting, lighter and safer than traction lead-acid ones? They pretty much have no disadvantages to lead-acid, and the need of a BMS (and heater if needing to charge below freezing or run below -4 °F/-20 °C) is no problem since those are a fraction of the cells' price. The only reason I see behind this move would be acute lithium shortage in China.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Same in the US too. LiFEPO4 storage batteries are available cheaper than lead-acid for equal or even higher capacity.

Until the trumptard tariffs wreck our markets at least

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

From what I can tell, lead acid batteries in Europe have taxes applied to them to pay for recycling. Other places don’t have these taxes so lead acid batteries are very cheap there.

Having said that, I watched a video of a guy in Bangladesh recycling lead acid batteries by hand just using simple tools and a pot to melt the lead over a wood fire and a simple mold to pour the lead plates.

It’s a very basic, easy thing to do. It’s just labour intensive so it ends up very expensive if you have to pay Europeans to do it.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Lead acid is LITERALLY the oldest known rechargeable battery type so I am not surprised you can make them with ancient tools if you're also OK with 19th century "safety standards".

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The process is simple and simple enough to do safely with automatic equipment without exposing workers directly to the lead. However Europe seems intent on phasing out lead acid batteries completely via suppression of demand with taxes.

Lead acid batteries truly are an example of an old and highly reliable technology with some tradeoffs. Yes, everyone knows lead is toxic, however modern battery designs are very well sealed so they never leak. The other tradeoff is that lead is very heavy such that lead acid batteries are too heavy for electric car use. However this last tradeoff doesn’t matter so much for stationary (such as a household) or low power (such as a motorcycle or ebike) use. In fact I would go so far as to argue that lead acid batteries are safer than lithium for some uses due to the latter’s fire risks.

Lithium batteries are not simple to recycle. They’re full of plastic which is wrapped in many fine layers like a roll of cling-film that’s been baked together. To recycle they probably have to be burned and the lithium re-smelted from them and then remanufactured in an energy and materials-intensive process.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago

Because new items can still use old technologies if it makes more sense to do so?

A 2025 vehicle with a manual radio sold for $30,000 might still sell better than a 2020 vehicle with a touchscreen dash for $25,000

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

However, safety concerns regarding rare yet dangerous lithium-ion battery fires have put a pause on that proliferation.

Urging citizens to buy new and inferior instead of increasing safety standards?

I'm Swiss (europe) and it's common knowledge here that chinese imported transportation devices can be russian roulette to use.

[–] pycorax@lemmy.world 10 points 21 hours ago

I'm Singaporean and we've had a ton of apartments burnt down because of these imported Chinese ebikes already.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are AGM batteries really inferior? Sure, they're heavier, but they aren't vulnerable to autoignition and thermal runaway. They also contain less conflict minerals than other types of batteries.

[–] hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

AGM are absolutely awful compared to even the absolute worst lithium batteries, and won't last long at all if regularly cycled below even 50% SoC. LFP chemistries are a bit worse for energy density compared to NCA/NCM chemistries, but they don't contain any nickel or cobalt, and won't autoignite in the same way other chemistries will. Absolutely ridiculous they're suggesting lead batteries over better lithium options.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I thought AGM were considered "deep cycle", as in designed for their full capacity to be used between charges.

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 6 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

There are some possibly inaccurate and definitely confusing statements in the reply you got, but the first part, that agm is a physical structure of the lead acid battery that can be tipped over without making a giant mess and that deep cycle is another function of design as opposed to a function of the lead acid chemistry is correct.

What’s left unsaid is that lead acid batteries which are damaged and not working right anymore have a much safer and lower tech recycling process than lithium ones do and that’s saying something because one of the parts is lead!

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] SnoopBob@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

AGM just means the acid is held inside a glass mat, like fibreglass structure so instead of liquid it's like a sponge. This gives it less maintenance and more shock absorption, can also be turned or tipped over without issue. It's still lead acid just not held in liquid form.

A lead acid based battery can be deep cycle or starter or both. Being deep cycle basically means the plates inside the are battery thicker, which allows it more tolerance for being depleted as well as generally more reserve.

A real easy way to understand it that I found (when explaining it to customers without a technical background.)

Imagine instead of electricity it's water. A deep cycle battery is simply a larger tank of water with a regular size pipe to get the water out. A starter battery is a regular size tank with a large pipe to get the water out.

So if you need to start a engine that needs a chunk of water(electricity) all at once to start it , a starter battery can provide it but doesn't have alot of reserve behind it so the pipe cant stay open very long.

The deep cycle can't provide the large rush of water at once(cca) but does have lots of reserve so the pipe runs longer.

Both suffer from reduced flow(voltage drop) as the tank empties. Imagine the pipe not able to be completely filled as the tank drained, you still get water but the rate is reduced as the pressure behind drops. Both suffer damage if left too empty or are drawn too low, a deep cycles design just gives it far more tolerance to that depleted state, allow it to be cycled more( charged from empty) more times before the battery fails.

Dual purpose batteries are basically large tank, large pipe.

It's worth noting that DC voltage only draws what it needs, you can hook up the largest battery bank to the smallest load with no issue as far as the size of the bank etc if everything is setup and function correctly.

Lithium suffers from none of these drawbacks. (As well as many more advantages) Gotta use the newer tech that is far safer though. Early Lithium and most cheap none reputable stuff is using the riskier tech with substandard QC.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago

Do we have enough mineral resources for all the batterie needs to be to fulfilled with lithium only?

I guess china needs lithium in other places more and cheap. Therefore made this initiative. Makes sense for china to protect their lithium stack. International trade in near future gonna be a mess.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 92 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I thought they would have been pushing for sodium ion batteries instead. Lead acid batteries are a bad choice for anything that needs to be cycled frequently.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz -1 points 4 hours ago

Traded-in e-bikes will be sent for dismantling and recycling

Maybe they need the batteries for something else...

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 46 points 1 day ago

They're a also bad choice for e-bikes because they're heavy as hell. I had an e-bike a while back that had two lead acid batteries, and they were about 15 lbs each. The added weight made it almost impossible to go uphill with the motor, so you'd have to pedal a much heavier bike up hills. Not a good experience at all.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 59 points 1 day ago

Last part of the article basically says sodium ion batteries are where they're going next.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots