On the one hand, I don't want to use too much jargon: conceptually, the story is already "translated" into today's English, as it is unlikely people hundreds of years in the future would speak nearly the way we do now. So, why not call them "batteries"? It's what we'd call them now.
But, on the other hand, when you're reading a story that takes place some five hundred years in the future, you don't expect that we're still using things called "batteries." You expect they're at least a bit different (and they are quite a bit).
I think "energy cell" might be better overall. It gets the point across without being to strange of a combination of words. Also, given how much more energy is in these "energy cells" than in today's batteries, perhaps some distinction is a good thing.
stabbydemonhorses
commented
7 years ago
On the one hand, I don't want to use too much jargon: conceptually, the story is already "translated" into today's English, as it is unlikely people hundreds of years in the future would speak nearly the way we do now. So, why not call them "batteries"? It's what we'd call them now.
But, on the other hand, when you're reading a story that takes place some five hundred years in the future, you don't expect that we're still using things called "batteries." You expect they're at least a bit different (and they are quite a bit).
I think "energy cell" might be better overall. It gets the point across without being to strange of a combination of words. Also, given how much more energy is in these "energy cells" than in today's batteries, perhaps some distinction is a good thing.