I think people need to realize that not all batteries are chemical. There are many ways to store/recover electric energy: a motor/generator with weights, a pump/turbine with water, motor/generator with a spinning kinetic mass in a vacuum, etc.
But really, chemical batteries will be at the TW scale by 2030 and we will have lots of chemistries for lots of varied applications and demands.
The fact that lithium is used but iron flow is less popular is a fairly strong indicator that first and second response (which NPP cannot do) is more important than accounting for daily variability right now.
Similarly sodium ion will hit the market next year and hit similar scale to current Li ion is now in about 2025. Being a smidge heavier is hardly a deal breaker for utility uses, and the reduced fire danger should lower integration costs significantly.
This was the net cost of storage, including construction, power transformers, etc. Batteries are around $150 of that cost. Note that even zero cost batteries won't eliminate more than about a third of the total cost.
What are the production figures for iron flow batteries? Also, can you point me to a market that sells them? I can see places that sell lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries[1], but no such results for iron redox.
And we'll see how far sodium ion batteries go. Scaling from literally zero to 400 GWh in the span of two years is rather optimistic to put it lightly.
1. https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwioxYW9y4j7AhW9MK0...
And if you put a chemistry that isn't a fire hazard directly onto an MPPT that you have already paid for, how much does it cost?
Or what if you're simply building storage for daily variability rather than a first response peaking station picked as a straw man?
> And we'll see how far sodium ion batteries go. Scaling from literally zero to 400 GWh in the span of two years is rather optimistic to put it lightly.
The manufacturing process is designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. And has had billions spent on the parts that are not drop-in. This is like claiming someone expects Olkiluoto to go from zero nuclear power to gigawatts overnight some time early next year.
Also what's your alternative proposal? Lets examine it on the same basis.
The manufacturing chain for lithium batteries is indeed designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. Which is why we're only producing 400GWh per year. Because the lithium supply can't accommodate more production.
The alternative is to do what France has already done: serial production of the same designs of nuclear plants. American nuclear construction similarly experienced much lower costs when plants were built at scale [1]. Unlike lithium mining, which as never been done at even 2% the scale required for battery grid storage, countries have indeed succeeded in converting a mostly fossil fuel grid to nuclear power in a short amount of time [2]. Again, it's been done before, with even worse technology than we have now. You're willing to assume that batter production will increase by 50-80x when there is no precedence for that scale. Meanwhile the is precedence for nuclear power being deployed more cheaply when the same designs are built repeatedly. We only need to build 3.5 nuclear plants for each one that exists in the US to get to 100% hydro and nuclear. That's a lot more feasible than increasing battery output by 100x.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Mess...
Have a fleet with around 65% capacity factor that has correlated shutdowns right in the middle of an energy crisis? Offshore wind with no storage would be a better choice. At least you'll get _some_ energy during the lulls.
> The manufacturing chain for lithium batteries is indeed designed to fit existing lithium supply chains. Which is why we're only producing 400GWh per year. Because the lithium supply can't accommodate more production.
The supply chain for sodium ion is being built to be compatible existing lithium ion factories. Expansion of those 100s of GWh of production is already being done, and even if it wasn't, building the factory, the supply chain, and then the product takes around the same time as building NPP.
> Unlike lithium mining, which as never been done at even 2% the scale required for battery grid storage, countries have indeed succeeded in converting a mostly fossil fuel grid to nuclear power in a short amount of time
Now do the level of expansion of Uranium mining.
Don't forget you need to overbuild by a factor of 3 from average to provide peaking (otherwise you'll need those exact same 4hr batteries).
You'll need about 400,000 tonnes of enriched fuel or 3 million tonnes of natural Uranium for your first fuel load. This is over 40x the existing annual supply chain. Don't forget to build 10-40x as many centrifuges as exist. You'll probably also need to massively expand sulfuric acid production. Then (assuming you can only burn what you need..which no reactors can do on a scale of minutes) you'll burn the other 75% of known reserves in about two decades. Reprocessing will give you another five years. If you want power anywhere else there's under 6 years total (or rather you just can't because you can't load the reactors even once).
Now do the same for cadmium and silver and indium for control rods. Latest generation copper metallized solar cells use about an eightth of the silver for the same net power as a comparable NPP. Also the Zirconium for fuel rods.
> First of all, can you or can you not tell me where I can order some iron redox batteries? You write that they exist at the same price point as lithium ion, but I'm not even seeing them for sale at all let alone for the same price.
Go talk to ESS, a non-retail technology not being available at retail isn't an indicator of anything. Or Natron for some aqueous sodium ion currently being sold at pilot project prices. Or of you have enough money to jump the queue I'm sure CATL will let you put in an order for a few GWh in 2025. If you ordered a few GWh I'm sure form energy would sign a contract too -- although I'm less certain they can deliver (it seems about as probable as something like Vogtle).
Well, it is. Anyone can produce lithium batteries. Whereas with the magical batteries it's "ESS Inc is the only manufacturer and holder of patents on its flow batteries".[1]
Which is not how you want to quickly ramp up production and solve storage.
The targeted production is 750MWh per year which is nothing, really.
Their biggest planned project is to have 400MWh in Australia by 2026. I'll let you do the math on how laughable that is by yourself: https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables
Iron redox batteries as they currently are don't really exist: the production is low, and locked behind the patent lock of a single company.
[1] https://www.energy-storage.news/ess-inc-ramps-iron-flow-batt...
Compare to the state of FNR reactors, where there is a single reactor (yet to close the fuel cycle even experimentally) that doesn't catch fire constantly (if you believe the russian government).
I'll believe it when I see it.
> Compare to the state of FNR reactors
Let's see how many people in this thread were talking about FNR reactors. Oh, look: only you. Compare this to discussions where people argue in good faith.
So what are you proposing if not one of those two options?
You were literally the only one mentioning it in the whole thread. In the response to me talking about storage technologies and batteries. Do not pretend otherwise.
> There are no other nuclear technologies that even come close to the criteria of both existing and being scalable
Thank you for derailing the conversation away from * checks notes * discussion on batteries, but you can do it on your own, I'm not going to engage further.
The only viable option for expanding nuclear is much further from reality than existing battery technology that is in the process of commercialisation.
The peak of historic new nuclear production wasn't even at the scale of existing lithium ion production.
As such there is no better option other than the other main renewable storage technologies of electrolysers and PHES.
Given that most renewables average around 25-40% capacity factor when working well, 65% during a maintenance period is a pretty good thing!
> Now do the level of expansion of Uranium mining
The USA already generates 20% of it's electricity from nuclear power. 10% of global electricity generation is through nuclear power. Recycling alone would reclaim enough fissile material to offset the increase in generation. Where are you getting the figure for 40x increases in uranium production? The reality is 5-10x at most - probably less than that because nuclear electric power isn't the only application of uranium.
> Go talk to ESS, a non-retail technology not being available at retail isn't an indicator of anything.
It means the technology is immature and doesn't have a real cost history. If you can't buy meaningful quantities of it, the price could skyrocket the moment anyone tries to provision a gigawatt hour of storage. These new types of batteries aren't being sold in any significant number, that's the reality.
Not if it's correlated, takes months, and is unplanned. And each reactor takes 5-10x as much money and resources as the same gross power. Noone builds a utility solar plant claiming it will produce nameplate wattage at night. Nuclear is always sold as if it has 90-100% availability.
> The USA already generates 20% of it's electricity from nuclear power. 10% of global electricity generation is through nuclear power. Recycling alone would reclaim enough fissile material to offset the increase in generation. Where are you getting the figure for 40x increases in uranium production? The reality is 5-10x at most - probably less than that because nuclear electric power isn't the only application of uranium.
You need to load your reactors. Bringing them online takes around 6 years of fuel -- an AP 1000 takes 100t of enriched Uranium. Your 800GW-1.2TW (minimum required to meet peak electric loads without storage, but does not touch other energy) of reactors in the US will require a 700, tonnes of natural uranium. A single fuel load for enough PWRs to make all electricity 100% nuclear world wide will require all known reserves. This is including reprocessing (MOX only gives you 15% or so more). Then you still have the other 60% of primary energy to cover.
The nuclear industry has never been at the same scale as the current lithium battery and renewable industry. And it cannot be at the same scale because it is limited by critical resource reserves -- not just a temporary limitation on extraction of a critical resource for one possible chemistry. Just matching the scale of the existing industry by installing 50GW/yr (which you've asserted is 2% of what's needed) requires doubling uranium mining.
Should read 700,000 to 1,000,000
Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, current commercially demonstrated nuclear technology would quickly fail. Breeders would be needed to enable use of much more expensive uranium ores (or thorium), and those are not demonstrated at even your smaller scale.
> Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale,
Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ?
I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. There isn't a good reason to think that for renewables overall. In particular: limits on area are not sufficient, and limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all.
See, there's a difference between scaling and scaling.
It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both.
And yet, somehow, when we talk about scaling, it's suddenly "oh no, nuclear cannot scale to support the entire world, it's proof it cannot scale" when renewables can barely sustainably reach the existing scales.
> I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work.
I will remind you that the original comment I was replying to was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636
It was talking about storage solutions which are all but required for renewables. And literally none of those solutions have been proven to work at scale. Moreover, some of those solutions are at best theoretical.
But sure, do tell me how it's not a strong argument?
> limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all.
Yes. There are "many storage solutions". Go ahead and show me those that work at scale.
And literally no one was talking about the need or lack thereof of rare materials for that storage. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. It is now limited by availabity of fuel and cannot grow without new technologies.
Didn't know we are living in 1985.
> Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production
1. Are these batteries all used in grid energy storage, or are you taking the full output including things like batteries for remotes?
2. How many of those batteries are actually scalable solutions, deployed, and working. It's kinda funny how my opponents continuously try to steer away the conversation away from this.
3. Compare that to "nuclear power plants generate about a tenth of the world's electricity" which amounts to about 2 653 344 GWh [1]
> The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production.
Storage solutions are not even remotely near nuclear. Without storage renewables have to be significantly overprovisioned to be used reliably.
To repeat again.
It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear».
> Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale,
Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ?
----
Edit: don't bother. This discussion isn't in good faith, and being willingly derailed into discussing everything and anything other then the original statements I replied to.
I'm not going to engage in this conversation further.
----
Well we can compare to new capacity added in 2021 if you like? There were 5GW added. There were enough batteries made in 2021 for a 50 hour storage for every nuclear plant that came online with plenty to spare.
The point is that if renewables + batteries are not of sufficient scale, then nothing is. If the bar for pursuing a solution to a problem is that the problem already be solved, then noone will ever solve anything.
Lithium battery production is much closer than the scale of nuclear construction ever was. Having a tantrum when this is pointed out doesn't change it.
Do tell. Then how can it be that globally, in 2021, wind + solar delivered more energy to the grid than nuclear did? 10.31% of total world production vs. 9.94% for nuclear.
Anyone with even a passable knowledge of how grids work, and who isn't stuck arguing in bad faith, would recognize that providing 10% of the grid requires no overprovisioning or storage whatsoever.
It seems that this milestone that you claim is so impossible was already achieved.
The nuclear shills here have given me a lot more hope for a renewable future.
Another fun scaling fact. Loading the 50 or so advanced nuclear reactors required to meet the scale of last year's renewables would require doubling world uranium output.