3 ms·

And yet, battery costs are still rising: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Market-Spotlight/Battery-costs-rise-as-lithium-demand-outstrips-supply https://asia.n

And yet, battery costs are still rising: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Market-Spotlight/Battery-costs-rise-as-lithium-demand-outstrips-supply https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Market-Spotlight/Battery-c... Ingenuity can't change thermodynamics. There's a minimum amount of lithium necessary to hold a charge. Realistically the only reliable path of grid scale battery storage is a different batter chemistry, but none has proven as effective as lithium ion so far.

jeffbee 4y ago
The minimum amount of lithium necessary for utility-scale batteries is zero because many of them are made of lead-acid batteries, because nobody gives a damn how bulky and massive a battery is in fixed service. This has nothing to do with thermodynamics and everything to do with you parroting anti-renewable propaganda.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Lead acid batteries have much lower life cycles. Often around 300 cycles at 80% depth of discharge. True, bulk does not matter. But replacing your batteries every year absolutely does. That's why most battery storage projects use lithium batteries.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    So then it isn't a law of thermodynamics that a certain amount of lithium is required to hold a charge? The problem with your post that kicked off this tangent is that obviously human ingenuity includes the ability to look at other materials if necessary...
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Sure, you can look at completely different battery chemistries, like lead acid or iron. But so far they've all got detriments that make them less desirable than lithium based chemistries. Heck, you can zoom out and propose storage mechanisms other than electrochemical. That true, but again most of the talk is focused on lithium ion batteries because that's presently the most effective option.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > That true, but again most of the talk is focused on lithium ion batteries because that's presently the most effective option. "Most effective" varies between use cases. LiIon is fantastic for drones and personal electronics, but the reason it's used for cars is that Elon Musk is a very capable salesman and he bet on it — ten years ago, when Tesla was a cute startup but not a manufacturing behemoth, most of the talk I remember was still about hydrogen fuel cells. I think used car batteries are likely to be a significant part of the global power grid because there will be enough of them, and it's a good reuse option before they need to be fully recycled into new car batteries. If they're cheap enough to use directly in this way (and they seem to be already in some specific circumstances), great. If not, doesn't matter too much, there are too many alternatives for me to worry about it.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Recycling batteries means there's lower usable lifetime. The recycled batteries would be cheaper to source, but the more frequent replacement drives up labor costs. Recycling also doesn't alter the fundamental disparities in scale. Production needs to increase by close to two orders of magnitude to make any significant amount of grid storage. We're struggling to keep pace with just EV demand for batteries, adding just one hour of grid storage for the USA (about 500GWh) would eat up an entire year's worth of batter production. What alternatives are you talking about? The existing alternatives aren't presently being used because lithium based chemistries beats them in cost. Other storage systems like compressed air are in their infancy and it's unclear if they'll become cost effective enough. Let me re-use your logic: we don't need solar, or wind, or storage. We'll just use fusion. Fusion is making big strides each year. There's no limit to the number of ways we can squeeze together two hydrogen atoms, so if the tokamak doesn't work out there's too many alternatives for me to think about.
        jeffbee 4y ago
        > What alternatives are you talking about? The existing alternatives aren't presently being used because lithium based chemistries beats them in cost. This just isn't the case. There are many large-scale lead-acid energy storage installations.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
CATL seem to disagree with that last point https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-10-25/catl-aims-to-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023-101955814.html https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-10-25/catl-aims-to-mass-pr...
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  This is an entirely different battery chemistry, it's not even using lithium.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Which is enough to invalidate what you wrote: > There's a minimum amount of lithium necessary to hold a charge. Realistically the only reliable path of grid scale battery storage is a different batter chemistry, but none has proven as effective as lithium ion so far.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      The point is that the big order-of-magnitude gains in lithium ion batteries during the 1990s is not possible today, since they're already pushed near their limit. Given that the cement talks about a minimum amounts of lithium to hold a charge, good faith readers are capable of comprehending that this is talking about lithium based battery chemistries.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        So what scales better? Off river PHES is cheaper, but limited in scope. Electrolysis works but only for long duration. PWRs have no fuel supply if expanded. They also cost more and the historic highest construction is not to the same scale as the current renewable + lithium battery supply chain.

jeffbee 4y ago

The minimum amount of lithium necessary for utility-scale batteries is zero because many of them are made of lead-acid batteries, because nobody gives a damn how bulky and massive a battery is in fixed service. This has nothing to do with thermodynamics and everything to do with you parroting anti-renewable propaganda.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Lead acid batteries have much lower life cycles. Often around 300 cycles at 80% depth of discharge. True, bulk does not matter. But replacing your batteries every year absolutely does. That's why most battery storage projects use lithium batteries.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  So then it isn't a law of thermodynamics that a certain amount of lithium is required to hold a charge? The problem with your post that kicked off this tangent is that obviously human ingenuity includes the ability to look at other materials if necessary...
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Sure, you can look at completely different battery chemistries, like lead acid or iron. But so far they've all got detriments that make them less desirable than lithium based chemistries. Heck, you can zoom out and propose storage mechanisms other than electrochemical. That true, but again most of the talk is focused on lithium ion batteries because that's presently the most effective option.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > That true, but again most of the talk is focused on lithium ion batteries because that's presently the most effective option. "Most effective" varies between use cases. LiIon is fantastic for drones and personal electronics, but the reason it's used for cars is that Elon Musk is a very capable salesman and he bet on it — ten years ago, when Tesla was a cute startup but not a manufacturing behemoth, most of the talk I remember was still about hydrogen fuel cells. I think used car batteries are likely to be a significant part of the global power grid because there will be enough of them, and it's a good reuse option before they need to be fully recycled into new car batteries. If they're cheap enough to use directly in this way (and they seem to be already in some specific circumstances), great. If not, doesn't matter too much, there are too many alternatives for me to worry about it.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Recycling batteries means there's lower usable lifetime. The recycled batteries would be cheaper to source, but the more frequent replacement drives up labor costs. Recycling also doesn't alter the fundamental disparities in scale. Production needs to increase by close to two orders of magnitude to make any significant amount of grid storage. We're struggling to keep pace with just EV demand for batteries, adding just one hour of grid storage for the USA (about 500GWh) would eat up an entire year's worth of batter production. What alternatives are you talking about? The existing alternatives aren't presently being used because lithium based chemistries beats them in cost. Other storage systems like compressed air are in their infancy and it's unclear if they'll become cost effective enough. Let me re-use your logic: we don't need solar, or wind, or storage. We'll just use fusion. Fusion is making big strides each year. There's no limit to the number of ways we can squeeze together two hydrogen atoms, so if the tokamak doesn't work out there's too many alternatives for me to think about.
        jeffbee 4y ago
        > What alternatives are you talking about? The existing alternatives aren't presently being used because lithium based chemistries beats them in cost. This just isn't the case. There are many large-scale lead-acid energy storage installations.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

CATL seem to disagree with that last point https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-10-25/catl-aims-to-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023-101955814.html https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-10-25/catl-aims-to-mass-pr...

Manuel_D 4y ago
This is an entirely different battery chemistry, it's not even using lithium.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Which is enough to invalidate what you wrote: > There's a minimum amount of lithium necessary to hold a charge. Realistically the only reliable path of grid scale battery storage is a different batter chemistry, but none has proven as effective as lithium ion so far.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The point is that the big order-of-magnitude gains in lithium ion batteries during the 1990s is not possible today, since they're already pushed near their limit. Given that the cement talks about a minimum amounts of lithium to hold a charge, good faith readers are capable of comprehending that this is talking about lithium based battery chemistries.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      So what scales better? Off river PHES is cheaper, but limited in scope. Electrolysis works but only for long duration. PWRs have no fuel supply if expanded. They also cost more and the historic highest construction is not to the same scale as the current renewable + lithium battery supply chain.