3 ms·
> 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 en
by 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).
- dmitriid 4y ago> Go talk to ESS, a non-retail technology not being available at retail isn't an indicator of anything. Well, it is. Anyone can produce lithium batteries. Whereas with the magical batteries it's "ESS Inc is the only manufacturer and holder of patents on its flow batteries".[1] Which is not how you want to quickly ramp up production and solve storage. The targeted production is 750MWh per year which is nothing, really. Their biggest planned project is to have 400MWh in Australia by 2026. I'll let you do the math on how laughable that is by yourself: https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables Iron redox batteries as they currently are don't really exist: the production is low, and locked behind the patent lock of a single company. [1] https://www.energy-storage.news/ess-inc-ramps-iron-flow-battery-production-capacity-to-500mwh-signs-12gwh-australia-deal/ https://www.energy-storage.news/ess-inc-ramps-iron-flow-batt...
- Schroedingersat 4y agoThen order some sodium batteries from CATL. They're building around a TWh/yr of production which uses the same infrastructure for both sodium and lithium. Compare to the state of FNR reactors, where there is a single reactor (yet to close the fuel cycle even experimentally) that doesn't catch fire constantly (if you believe the russian government).
- dmitriid 4y ago> Then order some sodium batteries from CATL. They're building around a TWh/yr of production I'll believe it when I see it. > Compare to the state of FNR reactors Let's see how many people in this thread were talking about FNR reactors. Oh, look: only you. Compare this to discussions where people argue in good faith.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoFNRs came up as a direct response to suggesting decarbonising via nuclear. There are no other nuclear technologies that even come close to the criteria of both existing and being scalable (and FNRs are borderline on the first and have huge problems for the second). PWRs exist, but there is barely enough fuel for even the current generation at 10% or so of electricity. Let alone enough to provide primary energy. So what are you proposing if not one of those two options?