4 ms·

> 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. Wher

> 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 ago
Then 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 ago
    FNRs 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?
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > FNRs came up as a direct response to suggesting decarbonising via nuclear. You were literally the only one mentioning it in the whole thread. In the response to me talking about storage technologies and batteries. Do not pretend otherwise. > There are no other nuclear technologies that even come close to the criteria of both existing and being scalable Thank you for derailing the conversation away from * checks notes * discussion on batteries, but you can do it on your own, I'm not going to engage further.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You replied to a conversation where the direct subject was nuclear vs. renewables & battery storage. The only viable option for expanding nuclear is much further from reality than existing battery technology that is in the process of commercialisation. The peak of historic new nuclear production wasn't even at the scale of existing lithium ion production. As such there is no better option other than the other main renewable storage technologies of electrolysers and PHES.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Then 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 ago
  FNRs 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?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > FNRs came up as a direct response to suggesting decarbonising via nuclear. You were literally the only one mentioning it in the whole thread. In the response to me talking about storage technologies and batteries. Do not pretend otherwise. > There are no other nuclear technologies that even come close to the criteria of both existing and being scalable Thank you for derailing the conversation away from * checks notes * discussion on batteries, but you can do it on your own, I'm not going to engage further.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You replied to a conversation where the direct subject was nuclear vs. renewables & battery storage. The only viable option for expanding nuclear is much further from reality than existing battery technology that is in the process of commercialisation. The peak of historic new nuclear production wasn't even at the scale of existing lithium ion production. As such there is no better option other than the other main renewable storage technologies of electrolysers and PHES.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]