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.
I am certainly not surprised.
I don’t think anybody who’s been paying attention is, but seems to be a shock for a lot of people in the west who’ve internalized the narrative that China just steals western tech and makes cheap stuff.
So the cyberpunk future of the 80’s of foreign mega corporations are coming true.
With a healthy mix of state owned enterprise. :)
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.
Nobody said the Chinese are copying everything, but goodie for you for making up an argument that no one is making.
You should read your own articles after you use Google - the largest problem with your inaccurately titled and researched article is that the conclusions of that single, uncorroborated and unconditional headline (it wasn’t really a study) is based purely on the number of articles published, not on any actual technology or world content. China is by far the largest publisher of pseudoscientific articles, and there is no regulation on the validity of the data presented in those articles. Chinese researchers admit to pushing out their articles at the expense of quality, and the people tasked with identifying the false data within those scientific articles are overwhelmed by the amount of false articles. The Chinese scientific community turns out. You can read about that here:
https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/chinas-fake-science-industry-how-paper-mills-threaten-progress/
They publish false articles using duplicate and fudged data. That’s not racist, that’s academically and scientifically damaging and Irresponsible.
The greatest appropriating committee, certainly. Development? Not yet
🥱
Or they read the same thing from Japan a few months ago.
Really, different countries are doing research on solid-state batteries, who’da thunk.
What does that have to do with China allegedly being an „appropriation committee“?
They just copied the Japanese breakthrough, what does that have to do with China copying things?
Those two reports have literally nothing in common except the words „breakthrough“ and „solid-state batteries“, lol.
You absolutely don’t understand anything at all, so please just stop talking. Thank you.
Yeah beyond being about breakthroughs specifically about solid electrolytes, nothing in common. lol
So you thought you’d add your own inaccurate numbers, okay.
Stay out of my inbox now, thx.
Nope. Those are the numbers from the article.
So if you don’t believe their imaginary numbers, the point is moot.
Even if you do believe their imaginary numbers, their math is wrong, or at the very least willfully inaccurate.
You keep messaging me! Thank you for your support.
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.
None of these criticisms are rational. This response to an otherwise boilerplate news article speaks to an extreme anti-China bias.
Just because you feel threatened by Chinese technological developments doesn’t warrant baselessly acting as though they are hoaxes.
The headline is based on false numbers.
The article ignores existing solid state battery technology, and only talks about this “discovery,” glamorizing it by use of said imaginary numbers.
This is not a hoax. This is simply an unsubstantiated, obviously biased blurb about an inconsequential experiment, that has strangely been posted to a community related to world news.
Using false numbers and ignoring the scientific context of any developmental technology is scientifically a responsible and certainly not world news.
The article is not boilerplate since it is deliberately misleading with its data and its statements.
Even if it were boilerplate, do you want to support propagandizing a single country’s boilerplate articles among relevant world news?
That’s what Yogi(op) is doing.
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.
What does anything of that have to do with you quoting 50/200 as 25% not 4% 😂
The fact that the headline is using inaccurate numbers to draw incorrect conclusions and then tout those false findings as an achievement.
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.
Ah in your country it’s two words. If you don’t mind me asking, what country are you from?
I’m from Canada, and I see both usages. As the article says, colloquial usage tends to be one word, but legalese usage will sometimes use two.
Ah nice. Enjoy your 100 per cent maple syrup.
