4 ms·
They aren’t better. The allure is cheaper input materials, potentially very long lifespans and creating a hedge against the boom and bust cycle of the lithium
by ViewTrick1002 1y ago
They aren’t better.
The allure is cheaper input materials, potentially very long lifespans and creating a hedge against the boom and bust cycle of the lithium market.
- toast0 1y agoCheaper and longer lifespan is certainly better for some applications. Less charge density by weight and volume is not better, but may be an acceptable tradeoff.
- danans 1y ago> They aren’t better. > The allure is cheaper ... When it comes to grid energy storage, cheaper (while also safe and performant) is better, don't you think?
- tim333 1y agoYeah but it depends on what is setting the price. The manufacturing process is similar for lithium or sodium so if that is maxed out you may as well use lithium. If there's spare capacity sodium may make more sense due to material costs, or for specialist low temperature uses.
- jillesvangurp 1y agoLower cost, safer, longer cycle times, better operating temperature ranges, etc. They are better in many ways. People obsess about energy density but that's not the only thing that is important. On that front the lower energy density is offset by the reduced need for costly and weighty cooling and safety mitigation. For example NMC and LFP usually require complex cooling solutions with cooling liquids, heat pumps, hoses, etc. Peak Energy is planning to deploy a passively cooled battery in deserts. No protection from the elements. Freezing cold at night. Blazing sun during the day. Cooling solutions with all their mechanical components are the single most likely thing to fail and cause issues for storage solutions. Skipping that is a big reliability win and it reduces cost as well.