36 ms·

Why do you need increased storage density for grid level storage?

by N1H1L 6y ago

AstralStorm 6y ago
Because we don't have enough batteries. Lithium as a minable element is too limited to have enough without increased capacity. (If lithium fusion were ever available, we'd run out in 2000 years or so. Batteries take more.) Even redox batteries are, as you need rather pure salts. Even pump storage, cheapest option, would require tons of concrete, which means we'd have serious lime shortage. (Once we run out of natural mountains to use.) Plastics cannot be used as they're either not strong enough or require too much fossil fuels. Any of these problems can be attacked, and they're all about as easy and solvable. Prediction would give about 40 years until that battery capacity is reached. Fusion could be there just as soon. This is not to say we should stop developing renewables, but we need 100% clean power yesterday. Or rather 20 years ago. Currently the only open path is nuclear with enough other renewables (expected 25%-33% is doable depending on location). We're talking gigawatthours of battery capacity installed and running per city. Even if you have everyone an electric car with best available batteries, that would maybe come close. (And the network would have to be heavily as adapted. I've accounted for battery wear and manufacturing with recycling of said batteries.) Top end sodium-sulphur batteries would work too, in equivalent amount. (They do like 250 kWh per bank. Car lithium-ion do ~120 kWh, but you probably want to drive them in the morning.) Mind you the renewables to power them won't materialize overnight either. You get to pay energy and material to make them and modify the grid to adapt to them. Since we're late as all hell, the only way right now is to nuclear. We can decommission it in 50 years easily enough as needed. We had the technology to go full renewable since 80s...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  We don't have enough lithium for DT fusion then, either. If we assume fusion reactors have a wall loading of 1 MW/m^2, and assume 50 cm of LiPb in the blanket, then fusion reactors capable of supply (as heat) 10 TW would need the 6Li from 80 million tonnes of lithium. Current Li reserves are a fraction of this. That ARC reactor design, if extended to world energy demand, would require 100x known beryllium resources.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Yes. Fusion is not short game and should not be treated as one. Not funded like it either. It will be very useful when we get to space, for example, unless we figure out something better. Much fewer problems with it than with nuclear up there. (Especially with getting fuel.)
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Why would it be useful when we get to space? When we get to space, we'll be 1 AU from the Sun. At that distance, solar is vastly superior to fusion. And DT fusion will always be inferior to fission in space.

Why do you need increased storage density for grid level storage?

by N1H1L 6y ago

Why do you need increased storage density for grid level storage?

Because we don't have enough batteries. Lithium as a minable element is too limited to have enough without increased capacity. (If lithium fusion were ever available, we'd run out in 2000 years or so. Batteries take more.) Even redox batteries are, as you need rather pure salts. Even pump storage, cheapest option, would require tons of concrete, which means we'd have serious lime shortage. (Once we run out of natural mountains to use.) Plastics cannot be used as they're either not strong enough or require too much fossil fuels. Any of these problems can be attacked, and they're all about as easy and solvable. Prediction would give about 40 years until that battery capacity is reached. Fusion could be there just as soon. This is not to say we should stop developing renewables, but we need 100% clean power yesterday. Or rather 20 years ago. Currently the only open path is nuclear with enough other renewables (expected 25%-33% is doable depending on location). We're talking gigawatthours of battery capacity installed and running per city. Even if you have everyone an electric car with best available batteries, that would maybe come close. (And the network would have to be heavily as adapted. I've accounted for battery wear and manufacturing with recycling of said batteries.) Top end sodium-sulphur batteries would work too, in equivalent amount. (They do like 250 kWh per bank. Car lithium-ion do ~120 kWh, but you probably want to drive them in the morning.) Mind you the renewables to power them won't materialize overnight either. You get to pay energy and material to make them and modify the grid to adapt to them. Since we're late as all hell, the only way right now is to nuclear. We can decommission it in 50 years easily enough as needed. We had the technology to go full renewable since 80s...

pfdietz 6y ago
We don't have enough lithium for DT fusion then, either. If we assume fusion reactors have a wall loading of 1 MW/m^2, and assume 50 cm of LiPb in the blanket, then fusion reactors capable of supply (as heat) 10 TW would need the 6Li from 80 million tonnes of lithium. Current Li reserves are a fraction of this. That ARC reactor design, if extended to world energy demand, would require 100x known beryllium resources.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Yes. Fusion is not short game and should not be treated as one. Not funded like it either. It will be very useful when we get to space, for example, unless we figure out something better. Much fewer problems with it than with nuclear up there. (Especially with getting fuel.)
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Why would it be useful when we get to space? When we get to space, we'll be 1 AU from the Sun. At that distance, solar is vastly superior to fusion. And DT fusion will always be inferior to fission in space.