• Ace@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    No but I’d prefer if journalists didn’t take the results of one experiment in the lab and write headlines about how cars will now have a 10,000 mile range and charge in 4.2 seconds and last for 75 million cycles

    I don’t think any of the mistrust from other comments in this thread is directed at researchers - it’s directed at the usually-sensationalised reporting. The “I’ll believe it when I see it” comments are because journalists have cried wolf too many times so now the headlines are just background noise.

      • Ace@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        41 minutes ago

        well maybe, but that’s exactly what crying wolf does. You hear “twice the enrgy density” so many times that you stop believing it, even if one day it really is true.

        If my car battery’s energy density had doubled every time I read a headline saying that a new battery tech will double energy density, it’d now have more energy storage than the sun.

        spoiler

        edit: assuming 6x10^43j energy capactiy in the sun and 3.6x10^8j (100kwh) in my car, it’d take 116 energy-doubling articles :)