12 ms·

I think people need to realize that not all batteries are chemical. There are many ways to store/recover electric energy: a motor/generator with weights, a pum

I think people need to realize that not all batteries are chemical. There are many ways to store/recover electric energy: a motor/generator with weights, a pump/turbine with water, motor/generator with a spinning kinetic mass in a vacuum, etc.

dmitriid 4y ago
People also need to realize that none of these solutions have been proven to work at scale.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pfdietz 4y ago
  So, like nuclear? Which also has not been proven to work at the scale needed to decarbonize the world. In particular, current commercial burner reactors are unsuitable for that, as the uranium runs out very quickly at that scale.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Not sure which world you've been living in, but nuclear has been proven to work at scale, while requiring significantly less area than solar or wind, and being able to be load bearing and load following.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      If the world's entire current primary energy demand were supplied with burner reactors -- about 6000 3MW(th) reactors -- the world's estimated uranium resource would last about five years. Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, current commercially demonstrated nuclear technology would quickly fail. Breeders would be needed to enable use of much more expensive uranium ores (or thorium), and those are not demonstrated at even your smaller scale.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Er, 6000 3GW(th) reactors.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ?
        pfdietz 4y ago
        I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. There isn't a good reason to think that for renewables overall. In particular: limits on area are not sufficient, and limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        > I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. See, there's a difference between scaling and scaling. It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. And yet, somehow, when we talk about scaling, it's suddenly "oh no, nuclear cannot scale to support the entire world, it's proof it cannot scale" when renewables can barely sustainably reach the existing scales. > I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. I will remind you that the original comment I was replying to was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 It was talking about storage solutions which are all but required for renewables. And literally none of those solutions have been proven to work at scale. Moreover, some of those solutions are at best theoretical. But sure, do tell me how it's not a strong argument? > limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all. Yes. There are "many storage solutions". Go ahead and show me those that work at scale. And literally no one was talking about the need or lack thereof of rare materials for that storage. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
epistasis 4y ago
And most of all, thermal storage, which we can achieve today with heat pumps and water heaters by simply insulating houses well, and then incentivizing a market protocol to let people take advantage of better pricing automatically, if they wish to. But really, chemical batteries will be at the TW scale by 2030 and we will have lots of chemistries for lots of varied applications and demands.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Sure, but none of those are even remotely competitive with lithium batteries - except for hydroelectricity, which requires the right geography for a dam or pumped storage.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  And iron flow batteries exist at the same price point (or significantly lower if we pretend your $500/kWh comparison was an accurate representation of medium term price trends) for 6-24 hr storage in spite of very immature production chains. The fact that lithium is used but iron flow is less popular is a fairly strong indicator that first and second response (which NPP cannot do) is more important than accounting for daily variability right now. Similarly sodium ion will hit the market next year and hit similar scale to current Li ion is now in about 2025. Being a smidge heavier is hardly a deal breaker for utility uses, and the reduced fire danger should lower integration costs significantly.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > And iron flow batteries exist at the same price point (or significantly lower if we pretend your $500/kWh comparison was an accurate representation of medium term price trends This was the net cost of storage, including construction, power transformers, etc. Batteries are around $150 of that cost. Note that even zero cost batteries won't eliminate more than about a third of the total cost. What are the production figures for iron flow batteries? Also, can you point me to a market that sells them? I can see places that sell lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries[1], but no such results for iron redox. And we'll see how far sodium ion batteries go. Scaling from literally zero to 400 GWh in the span of two years is rather optimistic to put it lightly. 1. https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwioxYW9y4j7AhW9MK0GHeOsAEwYABALGgJwdg&sig=AOD64_2wAI48_mf6U5ve9VPgjr0r70mlxg&ctype=5&q=&ved=2ahUKEwiG2_28y4j7AhURKn0KHYgEA8AQwg8oAHoECAQQCQ&nis=8&adurl= https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwioxYW9y4j7AhW9MK0...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > This was the net cost of storage, including construction, power transformers, etc. Batteries are around $150 of that cost. Note that even zero cost batteries won't eliminate more than about a third of the total cost. And if you put a chemistry that isn't a fire hazard directly onto an MPPT that you have already paid for, how much does it cost? Or what if you're simply building storage for daily variability rather than a first response peaking station picked as a straw man? > And we'll see how far sodium ion batteries go. Scaling from literally zero to 400 GWh in the span of two years is rather optimistic to put it lightly. The manufacturing process is designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. And has had billions spent on the parts that are not drop-in. This is like claiming someone expects Olkiluoto to go from zero nuclear power to gigawatts overnight some time early next year. Also what's your alternative proposal? Lets examine it on the same basis.

dmitriid 4y ago

People also need to realize that none of these solutions have been proven to work at scale.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pfdietz 4y ago
So, like nuclear? Which also has not been proven to work at the scale needed to decarbonize the world. In particular, current commercial burner reactors are unsuitable for that, as the uranium runs out very quickly at that scale.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Not sure which world you've been living in, but nuclear has been proven to work at scale, while requiring significantly less area than solar or wind, and being able to be load bearing and load following.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    If the world's entire current primary energy demand were supplied with burner reactors -- about 6000 3MW(th) reactors -- the world's estimated uranium resource would last about five years. Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, current commercially demonstrated nuclear technology would quickly fail. Breeders would be needed to enable use of much more expensive uranium ores (or thorium), and those are not demonstrated at even your smaller scale.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Er, 6000 3GW(th) reactors.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ?
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. There isn't a good reason to think that for renewables overall. In particular: limits on area are not sufficient, and limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        > I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. See, there's a difference between scaling and scaling. It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. And yet, somehow, when we talk about scaling, it's suddenly "oh no, nuclear cannot scale to support the entire world, it's proof it cannot scale" when renewables can barely sustainably reach the existing scales. > I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. I will remind you that the original comment I was replying to was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 It was talking about storage solutions which are all but required for renewables. And literally none of those solutions have been proven to work at scale. Moreover, some of those solutions are at best theoretical. But sure, do tell me how it's not a strong argument? > limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all. Yes. There are "many storage solutions". Go ahead and show me those that work at scale. And literally no one was talking about the need or lack thereof of rare materials for that storage. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

epistasis 4y ago

And most of all, thermal storage, which we can achieve today with heat pumps and water heaters by simply insulating houses well, and then incentivizing a market protocol to let people take advantage of better pricing automatically, if they wish to. But really, chemical batteries will be at the TW scale by 2030 and we will have lots of chemistries for lots of varied applications and demands.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Sure, but none of those are even remotely competitive with lithium batteries - except for hydroelectricity, which requires the right geography for a dam or pumped storage.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
And iron flow batteries exist at the same price point (or significantly lower if we pretend your $500/kWh comparison was an accurate representation of medium term price trends) for 6-24 hr storage in spite of very immature production chains. The fact that lithium is used but iron flow is less popular is a fairly strong indicator that first and second response (which NPP cannot do) is more important than accounting for daily variability right now. Similarly sodium ion will hit the market next year and hit similar scale to current Li ion is now in about 2025. Being a smidge heavier is hardly a deal breaker for utility uses, and the reduced fire danger should lower integration costs significantly.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > And iron flow batteries exist at the same price point (or significantly lower if we pretend your $500/kWh comparison was an accurate representation of medium term price trends This was the net cost of storage, including construction, power transformers, etc. Batteries are around $150 of that cost. Note that even zero cost batteries won't eliminate more than about a third of the total cost. What are the production figures for iron flow batteries? Also, can you point me to a market that sells them? I can see places that sell lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries[1], but no such results for iron redox. And we'll see how far sodium ion batteries go. Scaling from literally zero to 400 GWh in the span of two years is rather optimistic to put it lightly. 1. https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwioxYW9y4j7AhW9MK0GHeOsAEwYABALGgJwdg&sig=AOD64_2wAI48_mf6U5ve9VPgjr0r70mlxg&ctype=5&q=&ved=2ahUKEwiG2_28y4j7AhURKn0KHYgEA8AQwg8oAHoECAQQCQ&nis=8&adurl= https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwioxYW9y4j7AhW9MK0...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > This was the net cost of storage, including construction, power transformers, etc. Batteries are around $150 of that cost. Note that even zero cost batteries won't eliminate more than about a third of the total cost. And if you put a chemistry that isn't a fire hazard directly onto an MPPT that you have already paid for, how much does it cost? Or what if you're simply building storage for daily variability rather than a first response peaking station picked as a straw man? > And we'll see how far sodium ion batteries go. Scaling from literally zero to 400 GWh in the span of two years is rather optimistic to put it lightly. The manufacturing process is designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. And has had billions spent on the parts that are not drop-in. This is like claiming someone expects Olkiluoto to go from zero nuclear power to gigawatts overnight some time early next year. Also what's your alternative proposal? Lets examine it on the same basis.