4 ms·

Batteries. Batteries are the number one technical problem right now. A battery with energy density approaching crude oil would revolutionize the world beyond ev

Batteries. Batteries are the number one technical problem right now. A battery with energy density approaching crude oil would revolutionize the world beyond even what the Internet did. We really don't have an energy generation problem, we have an energy storage problem.

philipkglass 9y ago
"Batteries" is a pretty good answer, but I'd argue that getting cost down is more important at this point than raising energy density. Tesla proves that you can make long-range vehicles with today's battery energy density. The batteries are just too expensive at present to deliver an under-$20k-USD vehicle that can sustain 5 hours of freeway driving between charges. For grid scale storage, which would be needed to get to really high penetration levels of renewable electricity, energy density is even less important. A paltry 50 watt-hours/kg would be perfectly fine if the battery also offers low capacity fade per deep discharge cycle and low costs. A battery with really high energy density, but per-kWh costs higher (or at least no lower) than today's batteries, would be revolutionary for aircraft and an extremely welcome improvement for mobile electronic devices. But I don't think that it would have the same breathtaking macro-impacts on world energy systems as making much cheaper batteries could.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- shoo 9y ago
  > For grid scale storage, which would be needed to get to really high penetration levels of renewable electricity, energy density is even less important. A paltry 50 watt-hours/kg would be perfectly fine if the battery also offers low capacity fade per deep discharge cycle and low costs. For grid scale storage there's also options like pumped hydro storage. Cost / kwh can be much lower than batteries, depending on site and scale. Might need to start with a budget of $50m-500m though.

philipkglass 9y ago

"Batteries" is a pretty good answer, but I'd argue that getting cost down is more important at this point than raising energy density. Tesla proves that you can make long-range vehicles with today's battery energy density. The batteries are just too expensive at present to deliver an under-$20k-USD vehicle that can sustain 5 hours of freeway driving between charges. For grid scale storage, which would be needed to get to really high penetration levels of renewable electricity, energy density is even less important. A paltry 50 watt-hours/kg would be perfectly fine if the battery also offers low capacity fade per deep discharge cycle and low costs. A battery with really high energy density, but per-kWh costs higher (or at least no lower) than today's batteries, would be revolutionary for aircraft and an extremely welcome improvement for mobile electronic devices. But I don't think that it would have the same breathtaking macro-impacts on world energy systems as making much cheaper batteries could.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
shoo 9y ago
> For grid scale storage, which would be needed to get to really high penetration levels of renewable electricity, energy density is even less important. A paltry 50 watt-hours/kg would be perfectly fine if the battery also offers low capacity fade per deep discharge cycle and low costs. For grid scale storage there's also options like pumped hydro storage. Cost / kwh can be much lower than batteries, depending on site and scale. Might need to start with a budget of $50m-500m though.