Daily Archives: December 11, 2024

Surprise: EV batteries might have a longer shelf live than once thought

Posted on by

[…]

new research suggests these batteries, once thought to have short-lived, inherently  expendable shelf-lives, may actually last significantly longer than expected. In some cases, properly cared for EVs may even outlive their fossil fuel counterparts. That’s potentially good news: longer-lasting EVs might buy manufacturers much-need time to fabricate components needed to meet increasing global demands.

The new findings, published today in the journal Nature Energy by researchers from the SLAC-Stanford Battery Center, suggest EV batteries may actually last about a third longer than previous forecasts. That means drivers could potentially keep driving their modern EV without replacing the battery for several additional years. The researchers note the shocking disparity in battery life estimates stems from fundamentally unrealistic testing environments that became an industry standard. When the researchers tested batteries for two years in ways they say are more closely aligned with how drivers actually use EVs day-to-day, the battery life expectancy improved significantly.

“We’ve not been testing EV batteries the right way,” Stanford associate professor and paper senior author Simona Onori said in a statement. “To our surprise, real driving with frequent acceleration, braking that charges the batteries a bit, stopping to pop into a store, and letting the batteries rest for hours at a time, helps batteries last longer than we had thought based on industry standard lab tests.”

SLAC-Stanford Battery Center states on its website that its ultimate goal is to “accelerate the deployment of battery and energy storage technologies at scale,” in an effort to address climate change. The research paper was primarily funded by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program and the Stanford Chevron Fellowship in Energy.

Related: [ ‘Everything has a cost:’ High-tech products and the new era of mineral mining ]

More ‘realistic’ driving led to less battery degradation

Researchers tested 92 commercial lithium ion EV batteries over two years across four different types of driving profiles. The industry standard approach uses a “constant rate of [battery] discharge” followed immediately by a recharge. In the real world, this would look like someone driving their vehicle until the battery is almost fully diminished and then plugging it in to charge completely. This process of constant battery expenditure and recharging resembles how most people use a smartphone.

Stanford school of engineering PhD student and paper coauthor Alexis Geslin told Popular Science these “constant current rates” were adopted as the testing default because it generally requires simpler hardware and is easier to implement for the lab user.

But that’s not how many drivers actually use their vehicles. EV owners, the researchers note, who drive their vehicle in short bursts to and from work or around town, may go several days or even a week without recharging. The researchers attempted to represent that more realistic, periodic driving method in one of the driving profiles. In the end, the more realistic profile resulted in an increased battery lifetime by up to 38%.

“This work illustrates the importance of testing batteries under realistic conditions of use and challenges the broadly adopted convention of constant current discharge in the laboratory,” the researchers wrote in the paper.

The findings similarly seem to contradict commonly held assumptions about what types of driving quickly degrades batteries. Though many drivers believe rapidly accelerating and braking degrades EV batteries faster than steady driving, the researchers found a correlation in their data suggesting sharp, short accelerations may actually lead to slower battery degradation. Pressing down hard on pedals with a lead foot didn’t seem to speed up battery aging. It may have actually had the opposite effect.

[…]

Source: Surprise: EV batteries might have a longer shelf live than once thought | Popular Science

Judge rejects The Onion’s bid for Infowars, changes the rules after the game is played

Posted on by

A US bankruptcy court has blocked the sale of Infowars to parody news site The Onion, ruling that the auction didn’t yield the best potential bids. At the same time, judge Christopher Lopez rejected claims by Infowars‘ owner, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, that any “collusion” was involved in the case.

The Onion reportedly outbid competitor First American United Companies, affiliated with a Jones business, for the rights to the site. Though its cash offer was lower, The Onion valued it at $7 million because Sandy Hook families would allow some of the proceeds to be distributed to other creditors.

However, the appeals judge said that the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee made a “good-faith error” by requesting final offers instead of allowing back-and-forth bidding between The Onion and First American. “This should have been opened back up, and it should have been opened back up for everybody,” Lopez said. “It’s clear the trustee left the potential for a lot of money on the table.”

Now, the trustee must work to resolve some of the disputes between creditors before making another attempt to sell Infowars. The trustee, Christopher Murray, said that First American only complained about the process after losing the bid.

Alex Jones was found liable in 2022 for nearly $1.5 billion in damages for spreading conspiracy theories about the 2012 shooting that killed 20 children and six adult staffers. One of the assets put up for sale was Jones’ Infowars site, and The Onion said it received the blessing of the families of the victims to acquire the site. It reportedly planned to transform the site into one with “noticeably less hateful disinformation,” and a gun safety nonprofit reportedly planned to advertise on the rebooted site. Last week, X said that The Onion wouldn’t be given Alex Jones’ Infowars X accounts, opening up a new can of worms about who owns social media handles.

Source: Judge rejects The Onion’s bid for Infowars

300 Artists Back Internet Archive in $621 Million Copyright Attack from Record Labels – over music older than the 1950s

Posted on by

[…]300-plus musicians who have signed an open letter supporting the Internet Archive as it faces a $621 million copyright infringement lawsuit over its efforts to preserve 78 rpm records.

The letter, spearheaded by the digital advocacy group Fight for the Future, states that the signatories “wholeheartedly oppose” the lawsuit, which they suggest benefits “shareholder profits” more than actual artists. It continues: “We don’t believe that the Internet Archive should be destroyed in our name. The biggest players of our industry clearly need better ideas for supporting us, the artists, and in this letter we are offering them.”

[…]

(The full letter, and a list of signatories, is here.)

The lawsuit was brought last year by several major music rights holders, led by Universal Music Group and Sony Music. They claimed the Internet Archive’s Great 78 Project — an unprecedented effort to digitize hundreds of thousands of obsolete shellac discs produced between the 1890s and early 1950s — constituted the “wholesale theft of generations of music,” with “preservation and research” used as a “smokescreen.” (The Archive has denied the claims.)

While more than 400,000 recordings have been digitized and made available to listen to on the Great 78 Project, the lawsuit focuses on about 4,000, most by recognizable legacy acts like Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, and Ella Fitzgerald. With the maximum penalty for statutory damages at $150,000 per infringing incident, the lawsuit has a potential price tag of over $621 million. A broad enough judgement could end the Internet Archive.

Supporters of the suit — including the estates of many of the legacy artists whose recordings are involved — claim the Archive is doing nothing more than reproducing and distributing copyrighted works, making it a clear-cut case of infringement. The Archive, meanwhile, has always billed itself as a research library (albeit a digital one), and its supporters see the suit (as well as a similar one brought by book publishers) as an attack on preservation efforts, as well as public access to the cultural record.

[…]

“Musicians are struggling, but libraries like the Internet Archive are not our problem! Corporations like Spotify, Apple, Live Nation and Ticketmaster are our problem. If labels really wanted to help musicians, they would be working to raise streaming rates. This lawsuit is just another profit-grab.”

Tommy Cappel, who co-founded the group Beats Antique, says the Archive is “hugely valued in the music community” for its preservation of everything from rare recordings to live sets. “This is important work that deserves to continue for generations to come, and we don’t want to see everything they’ve already done for musicians and our legacy erased,” he added. “Major labels could see all musicians, past and present, as partners — instead of being the bad guy in this dynamic. They should drop their suit. Archives keep us alive.”

Rather than suing the Archive, Fight for the Future’s letter calls on labels, streaming services, ticketing outlets, and venues to align on different goals. At the top of the list is boosting preservation efforts by partnering with “valuable cultural stewards like the Internet Archive.” They also call for greater investment in working musicians through more transparency in in ticketing practices, an end to venue merch cuts, and fair streaming compensation.

[…]

Source: Kathleen Hanna, Tegan and Sara, More Back Internet Archive in $621 Million Copyright Fight

How is it possible that there is still income generated from something released in the 1950s to people who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation and don’t put in any effort whatsoever to put out the content?