5 ms·

> Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. About batteries, that's no longer true - lithium, nickel and cobalt prices have expl

by sofixa 5y ago

> Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. About batteries, that's no longer true - lithium, nickel and cobalt prices have exploded in recent months. Furthermore they're impractical ( you need massive space, and then you have a giant fire hazard) and most importantly, needed elsewhere. EV adoption is already stifled by lack of sufficient supply of batteries, and heavy duty vehicles are let to be electrified. Replacing all cars, buses, trucks, etc. ( and apparently trains in the US because they can't be bothered to electrify like normal countries) with EV versions will require a lot of batteries. And of course they have a limited lifecycle, and need to be replaced. And speaking of lifecycle, a nuclear reactor has 2-3 times ( at least) the life of a solar panel or wind turbine. About hydrogen, green hydrogen in any quantities is only theoretical at the moment. IMHO the best way forward is to hedge bets and do everything - build nuclear power plants ( and ffs don't close existing ones that can continue to operate to replace them with gas "temporarily" like the dimwits in Belgium are doing), expand renewables, invest in different potential solutions for storage. Fuel cells will probably have a part to play in transportation too, e.g. in aviation. However getting rid of the only low-CO2 baseload power source we have is shortsighted.

Joeri 5y ago
and ffs don't close existing ones that can continue to operate to replace them with gas "temporarily" like the dimwits in Belgium are doing Actually, Belgium has decided to keep open the two plants that are easy to continue to operate (easy is relative, they will still require a billion euro in maintenance work). They’re still closing the five that would require extensive multi-year downtime and costly renovation (like pouring new concrete) and replacing them with gas plants, but there’s not any real alternative anyway as they would have to shut down for multiple years so new gas plants are unavoidable. An interesting fact is that a few years ago there was a constitutional court decision that prevented keeping the plants open on anything less than a five year timeline from the moment of deciding, unless there is a risk of blackouts. The only reason the plants will be able to stay open in 2025 is therefore because of Putin.
- jupp0r 5y ago
  > but there’s not any real alternative anyway as they would have to shut down for multiple years so new gas plants are unavoidable. Of course there were alternatives. One would have had to anticipate this crisis a few years ago and could have built up renewables or new nuclear plants. Instead somebody made the decision to go with fossil fuels from Russia and here we are.
  - jabl 5y ago
    It's of course a complete coincidence that the "green" energy minister who was instrumental in the decision to shut down Belgian nuclear power is a lawyer whose main clients included, (drumroll... wait for it), Gazprom. Just like it's a complete coincidence that the head of the government responsible for shutting down German nuclear power, Gerhard Schröder, now is the chairman of Nord Stream, Gazprom as well as having been nominated to a director position at Rosneft.
ncmncm 5y ago
Everybody knows batteries are the most expensive storage. So, rising battery prices have no impact on utility-scale storage cost. A GW-scale electric ammonia synthesis plant is under construction in Norway. Hint, you don't built a GW-scale operation on unproven tech. We will need hundreds more of them. Every cent diverted to building nukes from building out renewables brings climate catastrophe nearer.
scythe 5y ago
>they're impractical ( you need massive space This isn't even close to true. A lithium-ion battery can store roughly 1 megajoule per liter, which I'm going to use because it makes the math easier. (Other batteries are slightly less dense, but the correction factor is small). Total global energy consumption is around 1 exajoule per day. That's a trillion liters to store a day's worth of energy, or one billion cubic meters. Assuming you can stack batteries ten meters high -- which seems doable -- a battery farm to store a day's worth of energy for the whole world would take up about 100 million square meters, or 100 square kilometers, slightly smaller than San Francisco. That's less than the amount of space currently taken up by solar or wind farms. Using zinc-bromine or other technologies will take up more space, but as you can see, a small reduction in energy density won't be that big of a deal.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Furthermore: iron is not getting more expensive. Massive iron-air battery factories are under construction now.
  - namibj 5y ago
    Got a link by chance to some such company, ideally with a sort of price tag attached?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      https://formenergy.com/technology/battery-technology/ https://formenergy.com/technology/battery-technology/ Last figure I saw was 1/4 the cost of Li batteries. (I guess lithium cells have got cheaper since they made that page.)
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  "Just build a 10m tall San Francisco sized battery farm lol smh" Congratulations on suggesting the most impractical, stupidly dangerous (mmmmh battery fires), impossible to make, single point of failure. At least it won't be attacked because it only lasts a single day anyways. Stick to philosophy and let actual engineers build a grid, thank you.

by sofixa 5y ago

Joeri 5y ago

and ffs don't close existing ones that can continue to operate to replace them with gas "temporarily" like the dimwits in Belgium are doing Actually, Belgium has decided to keep open the two plants that are easy to continue to operate (easy is relative, they will still require a billion euro in maintenance work). They’re still closing the five that would require extensive multi-year downtime and costly renovation (like pouring new concrete) and replacing them with gas plants, but there’s not any real alternative anyway as they would have to shut down for multiple years so new gas plants are unavoidable. An interesting fact is that a few years ago there was a constitutional court decision that prevented keeping the plants open on anything less than a five year timeline from the moment of deciding, unless there is a risk of blackouts. The only reason the plants will be able to stay open in 2025 is therefore because of Putin.

jupp0r 5y ago
> but there’s not any real alternative anyway as they would have to shut down for multiple years so new gas plants are unavoidable. Of course there were alternatives. One would have had to anticipate this crisis a few years ago and could have built up renewables or new nuclear plants. Instead somebody made the decision to go with fossil fuels from Russia and here we are.
- jabl 5y ago
  It's of course a complete coincidence that the "green" energy minister who was instrumental in the decision to shut down Belgian nuclear power is a lawyer whose main clients included, (drumroll... wait for it), Gazprom. Just like it's a complete coincidence that the head of the government responsible for shutting down German nuclear power, Gerhard Schröder, now is the chairman of Nord Stream, Gazprom as well as having been nominated to a director position at Rosneft.

ncmncm 5y ago

Everybody knows batteries are the most expensive storage. So, rising battery prices have no impact on utility-scale storage cost. A GW-scale electric ammonia synthesis plant is under construction in Norway. Hint, you don't built a GW-scale operation on unproven tech. We will need hundreds more of them. Every cent diverted to building nukes from building out renewables brings climate catastrophe nearer.

scythe 5y ago

>they're impractical ( you need massive space This isn't even close to true. A lithium-ion battery can store roughly 1 megajoule per liter, which I'm going to use because it makes the math easier. (Other batteries are slightly less dense, but the correction factor is small). Total global energy consumption is around 1 exajoule per day. That's a trillion liters to store a day's worth of energy, or one billion cubic meters. Assuming you can stack batteries ten meters high -- which seems doable -- a battery farm to store a day's worth of energy for the whole world would take up about 100 million square meters, or 100 square kilometers, slightly smaller than San Francisco. That's less than the amount of space currently taken up by solar or wind farms. Using zinc-bromine or other technologies will take up more space, but as you can see, a small reduction in energy density won't be that big of a deal.

ncmncm 5y ago
Furthermore: iron is not getting more expensive. Massive iron-air battery factories are under construction now.
- namibj 5y ago
  Got a link by chance to some such company, ideally with a sort of price tag attached?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    https://formenergy.com/technology/battery-technology/ https://formenergy.com/technology/battery-technology/ Last figure I saw was 1/4 the cost of Li batteries. (I guess lithium cells have got cheaper since they made that page.)
ohgodplsno 5y ago
"Just build a 10m tall San Francisco sized battery farm lol smh" Congratulations on suggesting the most impractical, stupidly dangerous (mmmmh battery fires), impossible to make, single point of failure. At least it won't be attacked because it only lasts a single day anyways. Stick to philosophy and let actual engineers build a grid, thank you.