3 ms·

He considers LFP in his more recent work and you still run into mineral constraints. Even if you take his 4 week buffer to 48 hours. > 1kg of lithium gets you

by evilos 4y ago

He considers LFP in his more recent work and you still run into mineral constraints. Even if you take his 4 week buffer to 48 hours. > 1kg of lithium gets you 1kW of diurnal storage for a decade or two, whereas 1kg of Uranium gets you 1kW of power production for at most 8 years That is an absolutely cursed comparison. What forms of these elements are you talking about? Why are you comparing energy storage to energy generation? It doesn't matter. We have enough U and Th to power humanity for millennia. We only use 0.7% of the U we mine for fucks sake. We're not even trying. > There were multiple news items about... Oh please, the news is saying we've solved nuclear fusion. The report was constrained to tech that was commercially available in volume. Come back to me when we're pumping out gigawatt hours of storage. Pumped hydro is great, there's not enough suited geography for it. No we can't just dig the reservoirs anywhere because then the energy payback goes negative.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Even if you take his 4 week buffer to 48 hours. Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal and still assumes all low grade heat and all energy that will eventually drive an electrolyser will be stored in a battery for no reason. Any report that suggests an electrolyser needs guaranteed 100% uptime backed by chemical storage has the same amount of credibility as a report that suggests all PV will be polysilicon or thin film. > That is an absolutely cursed comparison. What forms of these elements are you talking about? Why are you comparing energy storage to energy generation? Because you are trying to say that storage is a constraint to using renewable generation. And the form to compare doesn't matter. It's the elemental material you need to extract used in technology that is currently commercially viable. > It doesn't matter. We have enough U and Th to power humanity for millennia. We only use 0.7% of the U we mine for fucks sake. We're not even trying. Fertile material isn't fissile material. Even in a closed fuel cycle (which is not a thing that exists in reality) you still need startup fuel material, and none of the proposed over unity breeder scenarios have a fast enough doubling time to be useful. That's a very nice double standard where the technology that actually exists and has a tens of GWh/yr supply chain already 90% built has to have already solved the problem to be feasible, but vague hand waving at reactor designs and fuel cycles that don't even exist as a prototype get a pass. > Pumped hydro is great, there's not enough suited geography for it There are thousands of TWh of sites with suitable geography. Only a fraction of a percent need to pass environmental feasibility to cover the plurality of storage. > The report was constrained to tech that was commercially available in volume. Then why did he repeatedly say thing like sodium ion has yet to show industrial scale feasibility mere weeks after CATL announced that they were building out an industrial scale pipeline having already finished proving feasibility? Why not include Zinc Bromide that was developed in the university whose logo he put on the report?
- evilos 4y ago
  > Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. > That's a very nice double standard where the technology that actually exists and has a tens of GWh/yr supply chain already 90% built has to have already solved the problem to be feasible, but vague hand waving at reactor designs and fuel cycles that don't even exist as a prototype get a pass. You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. > Then why did he repeatedly say thing like sodium ion has yet to show industrial scale feasibility mere weeks after CATL announced that they were building out an industrial scale pipeline having already finished proving feasibility? Why not include Zinc Bromide that was developed in the university whose logo he put on the report? You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. Once you have your ammonia, hydrogen, and ethylene supply chains mature, then you can just burn some of those in the handful of areas where a dunkelflaute can't be managed with 12hr storage and dispatchable loads. > You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. Putting U235 in a burner ractor just lengthens the time before your burner can come online. There is not enough viable uranium for a single fuel load to provide primary energy in existing designs. Your serial production of Gen III+ reactors cannot put a dent in world emissions before it needs to change course to breeders and all your new built reactors are mothballed for 20 years while fuel supplies are bred. > You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means. Your statement about what was in the paper was a lie as evidenced by the statements made in the paper referring to industrial feasibility. Those statements were a lie as evidenced by industrial feasibility being already proven. Why does your reasoning about the transition from an imaginary PWR supply chain to an imaginary Gen IV supply chain not apply to transition from a real TWh/yr battery supply chain transitioning into a real drop in replacement already mostly built that uses the same equipment?

by evilos 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Even if you take his 4 week buffer to 48 hours. Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal and still assumes all low grade heat and all energy that will eventually drive an electrolyser will be stored in a battery for no reason. Any report that suggests an electrolyser needs guaranteed 100% uptime backed by chemical storage has the same amount of credibility as a report that suggests all PV will be polysilicon or thin film. > That is an absolutely cursed comparison. What forms of these elements are you talking about? Why are you comparing energy storage to energy generation? Because you are trying to say that storage is a constraint to using renewable generation. And the form to compare doesn't matter. It's the elemental material you need to extract used in technology that is currently commercially viable. > It doesn't matter. We have enough U and Th to power humanity for millennia. We only use 0.7% of the U we mine for fucks sake. We're not even trying. Fertile material isn't fissile material. Even in a closed fuel cycle (which is not a thing that exists in reality) you still need startup fuel material, and none of the proposed over unity breeder scenarios have a fast enough doubling time to be useful. That's a very nice double standard where the technology that actually exists and has a tens of GWh/yr supply chain already 90% built has to have already solved the problem to be feasible, but vague hand waving at reactor designs and fuel cycles that don't even exist as a prototype get a pass. > Pumped hydro is great, there's not enough suited geography for it There are thousands of TWh of sites with suitable geography. Only a fraction of a percent need to pass environmental feasibility to cover the plurality of storage. > The report was constrained to tech that was commercially available in volume. Then why did he repeatedly say thing like sodium ion has yet to show industrial scale feasibility mere weeks after CATL announced that they were building out an industrial scale pipeline having already finished proving feasibility? Why not include Zinc Bromide that was developed in the university whose logo he put on the report?

evilos 4y ago
> Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. > That's a very nice double standard where the technology that actually exists and has a tens of GWh/yr supply chain already 90% built has to have already solved the problem to be feasible, but vague hand waving at reactor designs and fuel cycles that don't even exist as a prototype get a pass. You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. > Then why did he repeatedly say thing like sodium ion has yet to show industrial scale feasibility mere weeks after CATL announced that they were building out an industrial scale pipeline having already finished proving feasibility? Why not include Zinc Bromide that was developed in the university whose logo he put on the report? You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. Once you have your ammonia, hydrogen, and ethylene supply chains mature, then you can just burn some of those in the handful of areas where a dunkelflaute can't be managed with 12hr storage and dispatchable loads. > You're conflating my explanation for why U/Th supplies are not a concern with your assumption for what my proposed solution is. PWRs are sufficient for today and can be built today. We can and should work on new reactors and fuel cycles that don't just leave 90% of the energy on the table. US energy usage alone is 26,400 TWh a year. 10's of GWh a year may as well not get out of bed. Putting U235 in a burner ractor just lengthens the time before your burner can come online. There is not enough viable uranium for a single fuel load to provide primary energy in existing designs. Your serial production of Gen III+ reactors cannot put a dent in world emissions before it needs to change course to breeders and all your new built reactors are mothballed for 20 years while fuel supplies are bred. > You must a different idea of what "in-volume" means. Your statement about what was in the paper was a lie as evidenced by the statements made in the paper referring to industrial feasibility. Those statements were a lie as evidenced by industrial feasibility being already proven. Why does your reasoning about the transition from an imaginary PWR supply chain to an imaginary Gen IV supply chain not apply to transition from a real TWh/yr battery supply chain transitioning into a real drop in replacement already mostly built that uses the same equipment?