5 ms·

Yes. Also for grid- level storage space and weight are not at a premium - so cheap, comparatively in efficient solutions like sodium-ion batteries or redox flow

by N1H1L 6y ago

Yes. Also for grid- level storage space and weight are not at a premium - so cheap, comparatively in efficient solutions like sodium-ion batteries or redox flow systems is where the field is moving to.

AstralStorm 6y ago
These are really expensive on a scale needed for powering current world with solar and there's nothing to suggest we'll stop there. I'm not sure you understand the scale involved. We're talking billions tons sodium. Millions tons aluminum and steel. Hence the 10x.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Let's see... producing 1 kg of sodium metal uses about 10 kWh of electrical energy. 1 TWh would produce 100,000 tonnes of sodium. A billion tonnes of sodium would involve 10,000 TWh. World primary energy consumption is below 20 TW, so you're proposing batteries capable of storing hundreds of hours of world energy demand. This is a gross overestimate -- batteries would be used diurnal leveling, with perhaps 12 hours of storage needed, and that just for the grid. Industrial power demand in a renewable world would likely be more dispatchable, and any demand for thermal energy would use bulk thermal storage, not chemical batteries. If you meant sodium compounds, not sodium metal, note that annual world production of sodium chloride is about 200 million tonnes. Oh, and about "millions of tons of aluminum and steel": 2019 world steel production was 1.89 BILLION tonnes. Aluminum production in 2018, 60 million tonnes. The world economy is very large. An energy infrastructure capable of powering that economy will also be large, be it renewable, nuclear, or unicorn power.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Yes. It's not impossible. Just really damn hard to pull off. Sodium chloride is useful for many things beside batteries, if we were to use that as the source. Say, sulphur as well, other traces too. 10x batteries make this a no brainer and super easy to implement, and economical. Heck, 3x batteries even. You need to make and place enough panels too, doable but needs a lot of political will. And will of course take some time as well. I think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse though. Fix the immediate problem with a few smaller nuclear plants and work real hard on our own pace to replace them with renewables. If fusion comes in the meantime, great. In the meantime, we can use the spare resources to remove other sources of GHG vent. (Say optimize transportation.) See the other branch on how I view fusion. I see DD or enhanced DT fusion as endgame and mostly a space technology. (Fusion engines would be rather nice. Think 50x better ion engines, the technology is related.) Few hundred years of work.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      > Yes. It's not impossible. Just really damn hard to pull off. Yes, any global energy system will be extremely expensive. Trillions of dollars worth of expensive. That it is a lot of work is not a showstopper. I don't see nuclear being part of that solution, though. Why waste money on something that is demonstrably inferior? It had its chance. We don't need to invest in losers. Fusion is not an endgame. Fusion is bullshit. It's Rube Goldberg on stilts. From an engineering point of view, it's pretty much the opposite of attractive. Keep It Simple, Stupid is not just a slogan. DT fusion makes no sense in space. The energy comes out as neutrons, which get turned to heat. You can make heat with fission in space much more easily, and with much less reactor mass, than you can with fusion. The notion that fusion is somehow good for space comes from science fiction more than anything. It's a trope, not a good idea.
      - jnxx 6y ago
        > Fusion is bullshit. Especially because the Tritium fuel problem is not solved, and nobody has the faintest idea how to solve it. The materials needed to breed Tritium in something different from the Sun (or thermonuclear weapons) just do not exist for now.
      - N1H1L 6y ago
        At this point fusion is an elaborate high energy physics stimulus package.
  - N1H1L 6y ago
    Max we are looking at 1000 TWh, that's two days of global energy demand. Rule of thumb we need 300gm of sodium per kWh. That's 3 billion metric tons. Which is a lot - but for the entire global energy demand it's peanuts

by N1H1L 6y ago

AstralStorm 6y ago

These are really expensive on a scale needed for powering current world with solar and there's nothing to suggest we'll stop there. I'm not sure you understand the scale involved. We're talking billions tons sodium. Millions tons aluminum and steel. Hence the 10x.

pfdietz 6y ago
Let's see... producing 1 kg of sodium metal uses about 10 kWh of electrical energy. 1 TWh would produce 100,000 tonnes of sodium. A billion tonnes of sodium would involve 10,000 TWh. World primary energy consumption is below 20 TW, so you're proposing batteries capable of storing hundreds of hours of world energy demand. This is a gross overestimate -- batteries would be used diurnal leveling, with perhaps 12 hours of storage needed, and that just for the grid. Industrial power demand in a renewable world would likely be more dispatchable, and any demand for thermal energy would use bulk thermal storage, not chemical batteries. If you meant sodium compounds, not sodium metal, note that annual world production of sodium chloride is about 200 million tonnes. Oh, and about "millions of tons of aluminum and steel": 2019 world steel production was 1.89 BILLION tonnes. Aluminum production in 2018, 60 million tonnes. The world economy is very large. An energy infrastructure capable of powering that economy will also be large, be it renewable, nuclear, or unicorn power.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Yes. It's not impossible. Just really damn hard to pull off. Sodium chloride is useful for many things beside batteries, if we were to use that as the source. Say, sulphur as well, other traces too. 10x batteries make this a no brainer and super easy to implement, and economical. Heck, 3x batteries even. You need to make and place enough panels too, doable but needs a lot of political will. And will of course take some time as well. I think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse though. Fix the immediate problem with a few smaller nuclear plants and work real hard on our own pace to replace them with renewables. If fusion comes in the meantime, great. In the meantime, we can use the spare resources to remove other sources of GHG vent. (Say optimize transportation.) See the other branch on how I view fusion. I see DD or enhanced DT fusion as endgame and mostly a space technology. (Fusion engines would be rather nice. Think 50x better ion engines, the technology is related.) Few hundred years of work.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    > Yes. It's not impossible. Just really damn hard to pull off. Yes, any global energy system will be extremely expensive. Trillions of dollars worth of expensive. That it is a lot of work is not a showstopper. I don't see nuclear being part of that solution, though. Why waste money on something that is demonstrably inferior? It had its chance. We don't need to invest in losers. Fusion is not an endgame. Fusion is bullshit. It's Rube Goldberg on stilts. From an engineering point of view, it's pretty much the opposite of attractive. Keep It Simple, Stupid is not just a slogan. DT fusion makes no sense in space. The energy comes out as neutrons, which get turned to heat. You can make heat with fission in space much more easily, and with much less reactor mass, than you can with fusion. The notion that fusion is somehow good for space comes from science fiction more than anything. It's a trope, not a good idea.
    - jnxx 6y ago
      > Fusion is bullshit. Especially because the Tritium fuel problem is not solved, and nobody has the faintest idea how to solve it. The materials needed to breed Tritium in something different from the Sun (or thermonuclear weapons) just do not exist for now.
    - N1H1L 6y ago
      At this point fusion is an elaborate high energy physics stimulus package.
- N1H1L 6y ago
  Max we are looking at 1000 TWh, that's two days of global energy demand. Rule of thumb we need 300gm of sodium per kWh. That's 3 billion metric tons. Which is a lot - but for the entire global energy demand it's peanuts