4 ms·

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

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.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      First of all, can you or can you not tell me where I can order some iron redox batteries? You write that they exist at the same price point as lithium ion, but I'm not even seeing them for sale at all let alone for the same price. The manufacturing chain for lithium batteries is indeed designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. Which is why we're only producing 400GWh per year. Because the lithium supply can't accommodate more production. The alternative is to do what France has already done: serial production of the same designs of nuclear plants. American nuclear construction similarly experienced much lower costs when plants were built at scale [1]. Unlike lithium mining, which as never been done at even 2% the scale required for battery grid storage, countries have indeed succeeded in converting a mostly fossil fuel grid to nuclear power in a short amount of time [2]. Again, it's been done before, with even worse technology than we have now. You're willing to assume that batter production will increase by 50-80x when there is no precedence for that scale. Meanwhile the is precedence for nuclear power being deployed more cheaply when the same designs are built repeatedly. We only need to build 3.5 nuclear plants for each one that exists in the US to get to 100% hydro and nuclear. That's a lot more feasible than increasing battery output by 100x. 1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Mess...

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.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    First of all, can you or can you not tell me where I can order some iron redox batteries? You write that they exist at the same price point as lithium ion, but I'm not even seeing them for sale at all let alone for the same price. The manufacturing chain for lithium batteries is indeed designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. Which is why we're only producing 400GWh per year. Because the lithium supply can't accommodate more production. The alternative is to do what France has already done: serial production of the same designs of nuclear plants. American nuclear construction similarly experienced much lower costs when plants were built at scale [1]. Unlike lithium mining, which as never been done at even 2% the scale required for battery grid storage, countries have indeed succeeded in converting a mostly fossil fuel grid to nuclear power in a short amount of time [2]. Again, it's been done before, with even worse technology than we have now. You're willing to assume that batter production will increase by 50-80x when there is no precedence for that scale. Meanwhile the is precedence for nuclear power being deployed more cheaply when the same designs are built repeatedly. We only need to build 3.5 nuclear plants for each one that exists in the US to get to 100% hydro and nuclear. That's a lot more feasible than increasing battery output by 100x. 1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Mess...