3 ms·

Lithium is not, in fact, the only viable battery chemistry. CAT-L, the world's largest maker of batteries, is today ramping up production of sodium batteries. N

Lithium is not, in fact, the only viable battery chemistry. CAT-L, the world's largest maker of batteries, is today ramping up production of sodium batteries. Numerous other chemistries are also being fielded, at $billions scale. Pumped hydro storage is not, in fact, geographically dependent: there are a lot of hills (which you knew). Compressed air is used in production (which you knew). Hydrogen electrolysis is operated in the millions of tons (which you knew). Relying on falsehoods is a strange way to argue. It depends on your audience remaining ignorant.

pfdietz 4y ago
And then there are various thermal storage schemes. Pumped thermal (reversible thermal cycle with hot and cold storage) could have up to a 75% round trip efficiency with cheap materials and no geographical restrictions. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  And has anyone actually built an electrical thermal storage system - not district heating - with 75% round trip efficiency? Or is this just more marketing hype?
Manuel_D 4y ago
I don't care about company hype and marketing. Get back to me when I can actually buy a sodium battery and throw it on a test load to see if it's living up to the promises. It's not available yet, that's the reality. Tech that's 5 years away has a nasty habit of staying 5 years a way for a lot longer than that. I got a real kick when you insisted hydroelectricity storage is not geographically dependent and immediate followed by saying it needs hills. And it requires more than just hills. It needs a hill, with a reservoir on top, and another reservoir at the base of the hill to collect the water, and another body of water to fill said reservoirs. The conditions for hydroelectric storage are way more specific than "it needs a hill". I agree, relying on falsehoods are a bad way to argue. That's why it's bad to insist that storage is an easy problem to solve to try and make the case for intermittent sources.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  And a nuke plant needs an unused containment vessel. Betting that the biggest battery manufacturer in the world will default on billions of dollars in orders for sodium batteries, next quarter, would be a courageous position to take. But I doubt you are shorting CAT-L.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > Get back to me when I can actually buy a sodium battery and throw it on a test load to see if it's living up to the promises. Sure, right after you get back to to inform us about the approved and operating permanent nuclear waste storage facility in the US with all the waste waiting in temporary holding facilities having been placed there.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    We already have it. Yucca mountain was built and could receive waste, but Congress blocked it legislatively.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Yucca mountain is, in fact, not an "approved and operating permanent nuclear waste storage facility in the US with all the waste waiting in temporary holding facilities having been placed there". It is not even "approved and operating".
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        It's ready to receive waste, it's just political grandstanding withholding approval. It would also be a waste to seal up non-reprocessed fuel since it's a future source of fissile material. Regardless, nuclear waste is a non-issue entirely. We disposable of chemicals far more toxic that never decay all the time, but people get their arms worked up over the word "nuclear".

pfdietz 4y ago

And then there are various thermal storage schemes. Pumped thermal (reversible thermal cycle with hot and cold storage) could have up to a 75% round trip efficiency with cheap materials and no geographical restrictions. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054

Manuel_D 4y ago
And has anyone actually built an electrical thermal storage system - not district heating - with 75% round trip efficiency? Or is this just more marketing hype?

Manuel_D 4y ago

I don't care about company hype and marketing. Get back to me when I can actually buy a sodium battery and throw it on a test load to see if it's living up to the promises. It's not available yet, that's the reality. Tech that's 5 years away has a nasty habit of staying 5 years a way for a lot longer than that. I got a real kick when you insisted hydroelectricity storage is not geographically dependent and immediate followed by saying it needs hills. And it requires more than just hills. It needs a hill, with a reservoir on top, and another reservoir at the base of the hill to collect the water, and another body of water to fill said reservoirs. The conditions for hydroelectric storage are way more specific than "it needs a hill". I agree, relying on falsehoods are a bad way to argue. That's why it's bad to insist that storage is an easy problem to solve to try and make the case for intermittent sources.

moloch-hai 4y ago
And a nuke plant needs an unused containment vessel. Betting that the biggest battery manufacturer in the world will default on billions of dollars in orders for sodium batteries, next quarter, would be a courageous position to take. But I doubt you are shorting CAT-L.
einpoklum 4y ago
> Get back to me when I can actually buy a sodium battery and throw it on a test load to see if it's living up to the promises. Sure, right after you get back to to inform us about the approved and operating permanent nuclear waste storage facility in the US with all the waste waiting in temporary holding facilities having been placed there.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  We already have it. Yucca mountain was built and could receive waste, but Congress blocked it legislatively.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Yucca mountain is, in fact, not an "approved and operating permanent nuclear waste storage facility in the US with all the waste waiting in temporary holding facilities having been placed there". It is not even "approved and operating".
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      It's ready to receive waste, it's just political grandstanding withholding approval. It would also be a waste to seal up non-reprocessed fuel since it's a future source of fissile material. Regardless, nuclear waste is a non-issue entirely. We disposable of chemicals far more toxic that never decay all the time, but people get their arms worked up over the word "nuclear".