5 ms·

I'm surprised nobody has posted the "revolutionary battery checklist" meme comment yet. It's exciting to see all these developments in clean-tech but the headli

by loufe 5y ago

I'm surprised nobody has posted the "revolutionary battery checklist" meme comment yet. It's exciting to see all these developments in clean-tech but the headlines always seem to mischaracterize the actual stage of development these technologies seem to be in.

AlexanderDhoore 5y ago
What is the "revolutionary battery checklist" meme comment?
- Escapado 5y ago
  This one I presume: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles. [ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels. [ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures. [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable. [ ] it has too short of a lifetime. [ ] its charge rate is too slow. [ ] its materials are too toxic. [ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode. [ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care. [ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then. [ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it. [ ] your claims are lies. ----------------------------------------------------------------
  - m_mueller 5y ago
    article actually seems to cover all this issues well (except maybe for ‘your claims are lies’), so I’m hopeful about this one.
    - xxs 5y ago
      >liquid-CO2 system has a round-trip efficiency of 75-80% You mean this part? Edit: this is pretty much theoretical Carno cycle and it has moving parts
      - m_mueller 5y ago
        I think even 60% efficiency would still be fine if the storage was cheap enough and scales well. Just build more solar cells or wind mills to compensate the inefficiency. Neither lithium-ion nor gravity based systems seem particularly scalable to me. So a good-enough system that’s scalable will be a winner in the long run I think.
      - jvanderbot 5y ago
        That's for heat conversion, no? This isn't about heat.
StreamBright 5y ago
And how much we miss on really interesting other concepts, because focusing on the wrong thing? It would be great to know.
cbmuser 5y ago
Even if the battery has 100% efficiency, the amount of electric energy one would need to store for a single day, on top of the normal power consumption, is just way too much. Nuclear reactions have the highest energy density of any of the technology available to mankind. Thus, with evergrowing energy needs, nuclear power will always remain the only scalable, carbon-free technology.
- nickik 5y ago
  The failure to properly use nuclear power might be the single saddest thing about modern technology use by humanity. In a 100 years you will look back and write Hacker News comments and say 'but they had the technology in the 60s, why were they not using it. It makes no sense'.
- pjc50 5y ago
  So you'd support the construction of twenty new reactors in Iran to help them meet their energy needs without burning so much oil?
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    Yes
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Ironically, the introduction of battery storage makes nuclear more price competitive with coal and gas since it can run at a steady state and the battery can smooth out the demand fluctuations. This is why a lot of pumped hydro is built in conjunction with nuclear. But since solar and wind get cheaper from the same effect, it doesn't really help nuclear much.
- mabbo 5y ago
  Nuclear is great for steady, base-loads, but it doesn't do variability well. Demand is highly variable throughout the day. Batteries, like this system, convert steady base load into variable output by storing energy. Fill up at night, then output when needed during the day. Batteries make nuclear energy more viable.

by loufe 5y ago

AlexanderDhoore 5y ago

What is the "revolutionary battery checklist" meme comment?

Escapado 5y ago
This one I presume: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles. [ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels. [ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures. [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable. [ ] it has too short of a lifetime. [ ] its charge rate is too slow. [ ] its materials are too toxic. [ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode. [ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care. [ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then. [ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it. [ ] your claims are lies. ----------------------------------------------------------------
- m_mueller 5y ago
  article actually seems to cover all this issues well (except maybe for ‘your claims are lies’), so I’m hopeful about this one.
  - xxs 5y ago
    >liquid-CO2 system has a round-trip efficiency of 75-80% You mean this part? Edit: this is pretty much theoretical Carno cycle and it has moving parts
    - m_mueller 5y ago
      I think even 60% efficiency would still be fine if the storage was cheap enough and scales well. Just build more solar cells or wind mills to compensate the inefficiency. Neither lithium-ion nor gravity based systems seem particularly scalable to me. So a good-enough system that’s scalable will be a winner in the long run I think.
    - jvanderbot 5y ago
      That's for heat conversion, no? This isn't about heat.

StreamBright 5y ago

And how much we miss on really interesting other concepts, because focusing on the wrong thing? It would be great to know.

cbmuser 5y ago

Even if the battery has 100% efficiency, the amount of electric energy one would need to store for a single day, on top of the normal power consumption, is just way too much. Nuclear reactions have the highest energy density of any of the technology available to mankind. Thus, with evergrowing energy needs, nuclear power will always remain the only scalable, carbon-free technology.

nickik 5y ago
The failure to properly use nuclear power might be the single saddest thing about modern technology use by humanity. In a 100 years you will look back and write Hacker News comments and say 'but they had the technology in the 60s, why were they not using it. It makes no sense'.
pjc50 5y ago
So you'd support the construction of twenty new reactors in Iran to help them meet their energy needs without burning so much oil?
- diordiderot 5y ago
  Yes
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Ironically, the introduction of battery storage makes nuclear more price competitive with coal and gas since it can run at a steady state and the battery can smooth out the demand fluctuations. This is why a lot of pumped hydro is built in conjunction with nuclear. But since solar and wind get cheaper from the same effect, it doesn't really help nuclear much.
mabbo 5y ago
Nuclear is great for steady, base-loads, but it doesn't do variability well. Demand is highly variable throughout the day. Batteries, like this system, convert steady base load into variable output by storing energy. Fill up at night, then output when needed during the day. Batteries make nuclear energy more viable.