Surur t1_iuh2j0c wrote
Reply to comment by Lord_Snowfall in New solar capacity 10 times cheaper than gas, says intelligence company Rystad by EnergyTransitionNews
You obviously have your bias but what will you say when batteries are made of salt?
miklosp t1_iuhd0wr wrote
You can downvote /u/Lord_Snowfall as much as you want, he is currently right. Salt/graphene/iron/solid-state batteries will be great, once we can produce them at the quantity we need them. Annual installations grew, but rare metal prices have also skyrocketed and mining capacity is becoming a bottle neck.
I haven't seen any credible time-scale for storage scaling up to make solar/wind viable or cheap apart from peak hours.
We can hope this will change in next couple of decades. Currently germany is burning coal (and wood) after a decade and billions of investment in renewables.
Surur t1_iuhd6yd wrote
> he is currently right.
Good thing we are in r/futurology, right?
miklosp t1_iuhdytv wrote
Agree. And we're talking about how to get to a sustainable energy production in the future. Denying where we're currently and what's needed in the future won't help us.
Surur t1_iuhehrx wrote
>Denying where we're currently
So this was simply a lie.
> The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much;
I have no idea what you think you are defending. /u/Lord_Snowfall was simply wrong. In every point.
Let me break it down for you:
> Which isn’t an advancement in the technology.
This is a lie, since the fall in storage is largely due to LFP batteries, a new battery technology.
> The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much; and while people like to pretend it’s all renewable batteries aren’t
This is a lie, since the elements in batteries can be completely recycled and re-used. LFP batteries are constantly improving, such that 50% of new teslas are currently powered by them. This is due to improved power density.
> In fact the minerals are quite finite and China is the source for a lot of them.
Another lie. Lithium is abundant, and come from all over the world, mainly Australia and south America, currently, but potentially even USA.
So why are you supporting somewhat so ignorant?
Lord_Snowfall t1_iuhl6rs wrote
No; you pretending the tech has improved massively doesn’t make it true.
Lithium Phosphate Batteries are less energy dense than traditional Lithium-Ion batteries using other methods; and since we’re talking about them being used on scale as a reliable solution (I.E. being very energy dense and able to easily store mass amounts of power) being less energy dense is not an advancement.
No; the components cannot be completely recycled. In fact Lithium is considered non-renewable which is why we’re looking at things like Sodium Batteries. Even more importantly the parts that are recyclable don’t matter when they’re never recycled.
And no
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6433301
https://www.wardsauto.com/industry-news/expert-warns-china-calling-shots-ev-battery-materials
The materials do not simple come from all over the world and “mainly Australia and South America” they come mainly from China who, unlike the rest of the world, has actually built up the industry and capacity for it. And the materials they don’t source locally mainly go to China. Ignorance is pretending China isn’t dominating the game in batteries just because it’s an inconvenient fact.
Surur t1_iuhqybd wrote
> Lithium Phosphate Batteries are less energy dense
We are talking about stationary storage, so density does not matter much. If you don't understand this, what else don't you understand?
> No; the components cannot be completely recycled. In fact Lithium is considered non-renewable
Low, WTF?
> The researchers found that batteries they made with their new cathode-recycling technique perform just as well as those with a cathode made from scratch. In fact, batteries with the recycled cathode both last longer and charge faster.
> The materials do not simple come from all over the world and “mainly Australia and South America” they come mainly from China
You obviously have a major Dunning-Keurig effect going on, so further conversation with you will only be a waste of time.
Lord_Snowfall t1_iuhjkx6 wrote
Considering Sodium Batteries are less energy dense than Lithium Batteries with the benefit not being power level but cost and material availability; I won’t be saying that our battery tech has significantly advanced in terms of storage.
It’s still not like we’ll be able to replace the combustion engine in a Boeing 747 with Batteries when they’re sodium instead of lithium.
Or think of it like this: look at your phone and computer. Over the years how much has their processing power increased? How much has their storage increased? Compare that with how much their battery has increased. The original iPhone had a 1400 mAh lithium-ion battery and max 16 GB storage and 412 mhz 90nm processor. The 14 Pro Max has a 3.46 ghz 4nm processor, up to 1 TB of storage and 4323mAh Lithium-ion battery. The battery is simply the least improved part of the phone, and that’s because battery tech hasn’t really advanced that much.
Surur t1_iuhktqp wrote
This all obviously depends on your definition of advance.
Lower cost is definitely an advance in my book.
Lord_Snowfall t1_iuhlflm wrote
We were talking about using batteries for mass storage of power to power the power grid; which is storage capacity. sziehr’s comment was literally “It’s how I store for the no sun periods”. Cost isn’t really the issue; it’s having the capacity to actually store the necessary power which is storage which we haven’t really advanced on.
Edit: Since you responded then immediately blocked me in a sad attempt to avoid having your points addressed I’ll just add my reply here.
Not really. Cost is an issue and a big one, but not really the main one. Or at least not the only major one. Part of the cost issue is from not simply the battery, but the inefficiency. You need way more power than what you want to store and a battery for one house would be huge. And the batteries don’t last that long.
Building fleets of battery farms across the world to store energy just isn’t really feasible and no matter how cheap you make them they simply aren’t efficient enough to deal with things like intercontinental flights.
We’ve seen this with things like California where they built 4 massive battery farms just 2 years ago and still has to utilize rolling black outs.
As to your other comment:
Being Stationary doesn’t really change the game that much. Yes it ignores the weight/size issue for planes but space is still at a premium. Maybe you live in North Dakota and have all the space in the world but I’m not sure how you expect England or Spain or India to have the space to build massive fleets of battery farms.
For your Cathode thing, cool? Not sure what you think you’re proving but the Cathode is just one part and it’s Metal Oxide, not Lithium.
And I said the minerals for batteries, not one single mineral and the sites I linked you spell it out. Focusing on Lithium is meaningless except to pretend like you’re right when you’re not.
Surur t1_iuhq0kl wrote
Cost is the main issue.
[deleted] t1_iuhl1k1 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iuhl2u8 wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments