3 ms·
I can't give you dollar values, but I think there are some ideas that might be informative: 1. The cost of these iron flow batteries is almost entirely in oper
by Hermitian909 5y ago
I can't give you dollar values, but I think there are some ideas that might be informative:
1. The cost of these iron flow batteries is almost entirely in operations, the cost of battery material is negligible. It's early days so it's really hard to say how low ongoing costs for things like valves, pumps, control systems, etc. are going to be.
2. In principle, flow batteries shouldn't need to discharge at all. This is why researchers are confident they can create batteries with multi-month capacity.
- belorn 5y agoI think there is a misunderstanding. If a battery solution is going to produce revenue outside of subsidizes it need to generate power. The number I would look towards is how many time the battery need to be charged and then discharged in order to repay the operational and initial construction costs. No discharge would mean no revenue and so either I am misunderstanding you or you me. If the cost can be reduced so much that a single discharge is all that is required to both repay the production cost and charge costs (assuming reasonable sell price for the energy) then it would be like a fuel and could be stockpiled as much as could be expected to be used. If the technology is so much in early development that there aren't much concrete numbers, could you at least give a suggestion about where the costs are right now? How far the economics of nuclear is the technology? For context of why I am asking this, my country has set the date 2030 as the year when no more IC cars might be sold. We do not have a date for IC power plants and we really should have. It is wrong to continue to burn fossil fuels just because the alternatives are more expensive.