6 ms·

It's a bit disappointing how the solar/wind folks neglect to consider the fact that such a storage system does not exist. Before one goes to the "but muh batter

It's a bit disappointing how the solar/wind folks neglect to consider the fact that such a storage system does not exist. Before one goes to the "but muh batteries" rebuttal, it's a useful exercise to see how much Lithium would need to be mined to provide reliable baseload power. Simon Michaux has already done this. It's worth a read through his reports [0]. Also, it's quite possible to reprocess spent fuel. France has been doing it for decades. [1] The price has not been enough to justify it, but eventually it will (or if other costs are imposed, like a tax on the mineral rights that would favor reprocessing fuel). [0] https://www.simonmichaux.com/gtk-reports https://www.simonmichaux.com/gtk-reports [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...

photochemsyn 3y ago
If you're not limited by the need to move around, then lithium doesn't make as much sense for power arbitrage technologies. There are literally dozens of such technologies capabale of storing intermittent solar/wind inputs in physical or chemical forms that can be pumped back out onto the grid as needed. It's so ridiculous to think that human civilization would collapse just because we will eventually run out of stuff to dig out of the ground and burn, when the biosphere has been humming along on sunlight for about three billion years. Why is this so hard to explain to people?
- ben_w 3y ago
  I agree, but we also need a storage system that can move around, and the aggregate scale of that is inherently more than enough for grid storage. This is why I'm not going to rule out hydrogen despite it having not worked out even back during the 1973 OPEC fuel crisis when alternatives were desperately needed and nuclear power (which is useful for among other things electrolysis) was The Future. (Also, on paper one doesn't need any grid storage, if only we could get governments to cope rates on a planetary grid. Texas doing it's own thing and Japan having two frequency zones shows how hard this would be in practice, but in principle it can work just fine).
- bdsa 3y ago
  How much energy does all of humanity use compared to the rest of the biosphere? Genuine question not intended to be leading, it's a very interesting point.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    It doesn't matter, the energy provided by the sun is mind numbingly insane. The total sunlight that hits the Earth in 2 minutes is more than whats needed to power the entire world for a year.
rahen 3y ago
>Also, it's quite possible to reprocess spent fuel. France has been doing it for decades. Wasn't that the SuperPhoenix and Astrid reactors? I thought both had been cancelled because of politics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)
- Maakuth 3y ago
  Those are breeder reactors. In breeders, less fissile materials are transformed into more fissile ones. That's interesting technology and very nice on paper, but there are practical challenges. Reprocessing is another thing entirely. It relies on the fact that used nuclear fuel is mainly not reusable due to accumulation of neutron poisons. In reprocessing, these poisons are removed so that the rest of the fuel can be reused. This too has many practical challenges as you end up with liquid radioactive materials and a lot of it is waste. So far it has proven more practical than breeders, though. Perhaps that is because the same processes can be used to extract materials for nuclear weapons.
  - rahen 3y ago
    Very informative, thank you. What about the MOX fuel they use, is this the product of that reprocessing technology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
    - Maakuth 3y ago
      Yes, I believe MOX is one option of what you can make from what's left from reprocessing. I think it's possible to make more conventional fuel there too, but then what are you going to do with the plutonium.
davedx 3y ago
> "but muh batteries" Thanks for arguing in such bad faith by default. But let's just say there are other ways of storing energy that don't need huge amounts of processed lithium. Have you perhaps heard of "muh pumped hydro", "muh flow batteries", "muh hydrogen", and the myriad of other less mature storage technologies currently being developed?
- mrmlz 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - davedx 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - bluGill 3y ago
      The world has already used most of the useful locations for hydro. It works well where there are abundant resources, but there are no more areas to put in hydro (even ignoring the local environmental disaster that hydro often is which means we probably wouldn't build it if it could). The locations that have and use it don't have any to spare for the rest of us to live places that are not a good location for hydro.
      - Workaccount2 3y ago
        Ok, then we can use hydrogen, or thermal storage, or non-litium chemistry batteries. The point is that there are many ways to store energy. The fact that there isn't enough lithium or not enough hydro sites doesn't change much.
        mrmlz 3y ago
        The problem is scale. Since the other responder didnt want to do napkin math - you could give it a go w.r.t to hydrogen. It gets very very expensive rather quickly. So very expensive you might start to wonder if you shouldn't have built a nuclear plant instead. Local factories etc. might see a need/use for hydrogen production (Swedish Hybrit comes to mind) but as a national grid stabilizer.. I'm doubtful

photochemsyn 3y ago

If you're not limited by the need to move around, then lithium doesn't make as much sense for power arbitrage technologies. There are literally dozens of such technologies capabale of storing intermittent solar/wind inputs in physical or chemical forms that can be pumped back out onto the grid as needed. It's so ridiculous to think that human civilization would collapse just because we will eventually run out of stuff to dig out of the ground and burn, when the biosphere has been humming along on sunlight for about three billion years. Why is this so hard to explain to people?

ben_w 3y ago
I agree, but we also need a storage system that can move around, and the aggregate scale of that is inherently more than enough for grid storage. This is why I'm not going to rule out hydrogen despite it having not worked out even back during the 1973 OPEC fuel crisis when alternatives were desperately needed and nuclear power (which is useful for among other things electrolysis) was The Future. (Also, on paper one doesn't need any grid storage, if only we could get governments to cope rates on a planetary grid. Texas doing it's own thing and Japan having two frequency zones shows how hard this would be in practice, but in principle it can work just fine).
bdsa 3y ago
How much energy does all of humanity use compared to the rest of the biosphere? Genuine question not intended to be leading, it's a very interesting point.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  It doesn't matter, the energy provided by the sun is mind numbingly insane. The total sunlight that hits the Earth in 2 minutes is more than whats needed to power the entire world for a year.

rahen 3y ago

>Also, it's quite possible to reprocess spent fuel. France has been doing it for decades. Wasn't that the SuperPhoenix and Astrid reactors? I thought both had been cancelled because of politics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)

Maakuth 3y ago
Those are breeder reactors. In breeders, less fissile materials are transformed into more fissile ones. That's interesting technology and very nice on paper, but there are practical challenges. Reprocessing is another thing entirely. It relies on the fact that used nuclear fuel is mainly not reusable due to accumulation of neutron poisons. In reprocessing, these poisons are removed so that the rest of the fuel can be reused. This too has many practical challenges as you end up with liquid radioactive materials and a lot of it is waste. So far it has proven more practical than breeders, though. Perhaps that is because the same processes can be used to extract materials for nuclear weapons.
- rahen 3y ago
  Very informative, thank you. What about the MOX fuel they use, is this the product of that reprocessing technology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
  - Maakuth 3y ago
    Yes, I believe MOX is one option of what you can make from what's left from reprocessing. I think it's possible to make more conventional fuel there too, but then what are you going to do with the plutonium.

davedx 3y ago

> "but muh batteries" Thanks for arguing in such bad faith by default. But let's just say there are other ways of storing energy that don't need huge amounts of processed lithium. Have you perhaps heard of "muh pumped hydro", "muh flow batteries", "muh hydrogen", and the myriad of other less mature storage technologies currently being developed?

mrmlz 3y ago
[flagged]
- davedx 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bluGill 3y ago
    The world has already used most of the useful locations for hydro. It works well where there are abundant resources, but there are no more areas to put in hydro (even ignoring the local environmental disaster that hydro often is which means we probably wouldn't build it if it could). The locations that have and use it don't have any to spare for the rest of us to live places that are not a good location for hydro.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Ok, then we can use hydrogen, or thermal storage, or non-litium chemistry batteries. The point is that there are many ways to store energy. The fact that there isn't enough lithium or not enough hydro sites doesn't change much.
      - mrmlz 3y ago
        The problem is scale. Since the other responder didnt want to do napkin math - you could give it a go w.r.t to hydrogen. It gets very very expensive rather quickly. So very expensive you might start to wonder if you shouldn't have built a nuclear plant instead. Local factories etc. might see a need/use for hydrogen production (Swedish Hybrit comes to mind) but as a national grid stabilizer.. I'm doubtful