4 ms·

Next generation nuclear or fusion would be amazing, but looking how things stand today, I would bet on cheap and reliable grid-storage batteries coming first. P

Next generation nuclear or fusion would be amazing, but looking how things stand today, I would bet on cheap and reliable grid-storage batteries coming first. Pairing renewables with cheap batteries solves energy for 80% of the world. Things like sodium-ion batteries look like they are getting close production, and don't contain hard-to-acquire materials.

mcbishop 5y ago
Iron-air batteries are another potential low-cost option for long-duration storage (e.g. https://formenergy.com/technology/ https://formenergy.com/technology/)
- megaman821 5y ago
  Flow batteries look interesting, but they have moving parts. That is probably fine for large utilities who can staff people to maintain these batteries. It is probably not fine for a small solar and battery install house or village.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    I don't think Form is making flow batteries. Alternatively you can use liquid metal batteries, they can be placed anywhere and need nothing with very low chance of fire. https://ambri.com/ https://ambri.com/
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    if big batteries are cheap, you don't need small ones. the reason small batteries are common now is that they are price competitive. if new batteries are developed that are cheap, but need large sizes, the cost of moving the power around is negligible.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      And, similarly for other storage methods.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It will be interesting to see whether Form's iron-air batteries end up priced out of the market as storage cost continues plummeting with no bottom in sight. I have not seen round-trip efficiency figures for iron-air, so guess it must be low. (I welcome correction.) Transportability of synthetic liquid storage media will make them attractive even where still more expensive than alternatives. Their cost will continue on down, too. It surprises most people that low round-trip efficiency in a storage medium doesn't matter much anymore.
ncmncm 5y ago
Batteries are the most expensive storage alternative. They have advantages for load-leveling, but beyond a few minutes or, in smaller grids, hours, other media will turn out better. Bigger utilities will prefer pumped hydro for short-term storage, anywhere it is practical. Synthetic chemical fuels -- hydrogen and ammonia -- are compelling for longer-term storage, despite their currently low round-trip efficiency. These can be synthesized and then shipped where needed, and may be produced continually even after local tankage is full, to be sold on as fuel, industrial feedstock, and fertilizer, generating revenue. Then, there is no downside to massive overbuilding of generating capacity: all capacity generates revenue, up to market saturation. Places slower to build out renewables will find these new fuels much cheaper than oil and natural gas, and will easily convert to burning them. Their round-trip efficiency will only ever increase, with continual progress in catalysis, eventually favoring fuel cells over reuse of existing turbines.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > Bigger utilities will prefer pumped hydro for short-term storage, anywhere it is practical. Is there any pumped hydro in flat land anywhere deployed on large scale? > Synthetic chemical fuels -- hydrogen and ammonia -- are compelling for longer-term storage, despite their currently low round-trip efficiency. Not really. > Then, there is no downside to massive overbuilding of generating capacity: all capacity generates revenue, up to market saturation. And then you need lots and lots of electrolysis that will all operate at low utility. I would be on batteries before I would on hydrogen.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Why do you dismiss hydrogen, ammonia and other forms of chemical storage without giving any arguments? Many people believe that they are suitable for the task.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I see that you missed the point about selling on chemical production after local tankage is full. A full battery is just full. A full tank can be shipped out and an empty dropped in. Tankage is much cheaper than batteries. Electrolysers will be idle only when you are drawing down from tanks.

mcbishop 5y ago

Iron-air batteries are another potential low-cost option for long-duration storage (e.g. https://formenergy.com/technology/ https://formenergy.com/technology/)

megaman821 5y ago
Flow batteries look interesting, but they have moving parts. That is probably fine for large utilities who can staff people to maintain these batteries. It is probably not fine for a small solar and battery install house or village.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  I don't think Form is making flow batteries. Alternatively you can use liquid metal batteries, they can be placed anywhere and need nothing with very low chance of fire. https://ambri.com/ https://ambri.com/
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  if big batteries are cheap, you don't need small ones. the reason small batteries are common now is that they are price competitive. if new batteries are developed that are cheap, but need large sizes, the cost of moving the power around is negligible.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    And, similarly for other storage methods.
ncmncm 5y ago
It will be interesting to see whether Form's iron-air batteries end up priced out of the market as storage cost continues plummeting with no bottom in sight. I have not seen round-trip efficiency figures for iron-air, so guess it must be low. (I welcome correction.) Transportability of synthetic liquid storage media will make them attractive even where still more expensive than alternatives. Their cost will continue on down, too. It surprises most people that low round-trip efficiency in a storage medium doesn't matter much anymore.

ncmncm 5y ago

Batteries are the most expensive storage alternative. They have advantages for load-leveling, but beyond a few minutes or, in smaller grids, hours, other media will turn out better. Bigger utilities will prefer pumped hydro for short-term storage, anywhere it is practical. Synthetic chemical fuels -- hydrogen and ammonia -- are compelling for longer-term storage, despite their currently low round-trip efficiency. These can be synthesized and then shipped where needed, and may be produced continually even after local tankage is full, to be sold on as fuel, industrial feedstock, and fertilizer, generating revenue. Then, there is no downside to massive overbuilding of generating capacity: all capacity generates revenue, up to market saturation. Places slower to build out renewables will find these new fuels much cheaper than oil and natural gas, and will easily convert to burning them. Their round-trip efficiency will only ever increase, with continual progress in catalysis, eventually favoring fuel cells over reuse of existing turbines.

panick21_ 5y ago
> Bigger utilities will prefer pumped hydro for short-term storage, anywhere it is practical. Is there any pumped hydro in flat land anywhere deployed on large scale? > Synthetic chemical fuels -- hydrogen and ammonia -- are compelling for longer-term storage, despite their currently low round-trip efficiency. Not really. > Then, there is no downside to massive overbuilding of generating capacity: all capacity generates revenue, up to market saturation. And then you need lots and lots of electrolysis that will all operate at low utility. I would be on batteries before I would on hydrogen.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Why do you dismiss hydrogen, ammonia and other forms of chemical storage without giving any arguments? Many people believe that they are suitable for the task.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I see that you missed the point about selling on chemical production after local tankage is full. A full battery is just full. A full tank can be shipped out and an empty dropped in. Tankage is much cheaper than batteries. Electrolysers will be idle only when you are drawing down from tanks.