4 ms·

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 te

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...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > The alternative is to do what France has already done Have a fleet with around 65% capacity factor that has correlated shutdowns right in the middle of an energy crisis? Offshore wind with no storage would be a better choice. At least you'll get _some_ energy during the lulls. > 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 supply chain for sodium ion is being built to be compatible existing lithium ion factories. Expansion of those 100s of GWh of production is already being done, and even if it wasn't, building the factory, the supply chain, and then the product takes around the same time as building NPP. > 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 Now do the level of expansion of Uranium mining. Don't forget you need to overbuild by a factor of 3 from average to provide peaking (otherwise you'll need those exact same 4hr batteries). You'll need about 400,000 tonnes of enriched fuel or 3 million tonnes of natural Uranium for your first fuel load. This is over 40x the existing annual supply chain. Don't forget to build 10-40x as many centrifuges as exist. You'll probably also need to massively expand sulfuric acid production. Then (assuming you can only burn what you need..which no reactors can do on a scale of minutes) you'll burn the other 75% of known reserves in about two decades. Reprocessing will give you another five years. If you want power anywhere else there's under 6 years total (or rather you just can't because you can't load the reactors even once). Now do the same for cadmium and silver and indium for control rods. Latest generation copper metallized solar cells use about an eightth of the silver for the same net power as a comparable NPP. Also the Zirconium for fuel rods. > 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. Go talk to ESS, a non-retail technology not being available at retail isn't an indicator of anything. Or Natron for some aqueous sodium ion currently being sold at pilot project prices. Or of you have enough money to jump the queue I'm sure CATL will let you put in an order for a few GWh in 2025. If you ordered a few GWh I'm sure form energy would sign a contract too -- although I'm less certain they can deliver (it seems about as probable as something like Vogtle).

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...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > The alternative is to do what France has already done Have a fleet with around 65% capacity factor that has correlated shutdowns right in the middle of an energy crisis? Offshore wind with no storage would be a better choice. At least you'll get _some_ energy during the lulls. > 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 supply chain for sodium ion is being built to be compatible existing lithium ion factories. Expansion of those 100s of GWh of production is already being done, and even if it wasn't, building the factory, the supply chain, and then the product takes around the same time as building NPP. > 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 Now do the level of expansion of Uranium mining. Don't forget you need to overbuild by a factor of 3 from average to provide peaking (otherwise you'll need those exact same 4hr batteries). You'll need about 400,000 tonnes of enriched fuel or 3 million tonnes of natural Uranium for your first fuel load. This is over 40x the existing annual supply chain. Don't forget to build 10-40x as many centrifuges as exist. You'll probably also need to massively expand sulfuric acid production. Then (assuming you can only burn what you need..which no reactors can do on a scale of minutes) you'll burn the other 75% of known reserves in about two decades. Reprocessing will give you another five years. If you want power anywhere else there's under 6 years total (or rather you just can't because you can't load the reactors even once). Now do the same for cadmium and silver and indium for control rods. Latest generation copper metallized solar cells use about an eightth of the silver for the same net power as a comparable NPP. Also the Zirconium for fuel rods. > 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. Go talk to ESS, a non-retail technology not being available at retail isn't an indicator of anything. Or Natron for some aqueous sodium ion currently being sold at pilot project prices. Or of you have enough money to jump the queue I'm sure CATL will let you put in an order for a few GWh in 2025. If you ordered a few GWh I'm sure form energy would sign a contract too -- although I'm less certain they can deliver (it seems about as probable as something like Vogtle).