grundar t1_iuglbah wrote
Reply to comment by OriginalCompetitive in New solar capacity 10 times cheaper than gas, says intelligence company Rystad by EnergyTransitionNews
> Battery technology on utility scale has barely budged for years
That is not accurate -- annual installations grew by 4x in just the last 2 years (6.3GW vs. 1.6GW globally), in large part due to the 89% cost reduction in pack prices.
Total grid storage solution prices haven't fallen by as much due to the other components (and seem to have risen this year due to supply chain issues), but in general battery grid storage has been changing rapidly in both cost and (especially) scale.
manugutito t1_iuife1f wrote
I think while it's good to know the power these batteries can provide, the capacity is ultimately more important. I wager if they work at 6.3 GW they would use up the stored energy quite quickly. Such a system could be very useful e.g. in a nuclear+renewables scenario, i.e. to get rid of gas peakers. The batteries can take care of the peaks while nuclear ramps up/down with load following.
grundar t1_iuiiwiu wrote
> I wager if they work at 6.3 GW they would use up the stored energy quite quickly.
Yes -- they're typically 4h systems.
As a point of interest, 600GWh is modeled to be enough for 90% clean electricity for the entire US (sec 3.2, p.16), supporting 70% of electricity coming from wind+solar (p.4). That's 150GW of 4h systems, vs 15GW planned installation from 2021 to 2024, so a significant increase but not unreasonably so, especially with the rate of growth of battery manufacturing.
> The batteries can take care of the peaks while nuclear ramps up/down with load following.
That would absolutely be effective (and nuclear can absolutely load-follow if designed for it), but nuclear is being added at <1/10th the scale of renewables and will take 20 years to scale up, so simple logistics have already baked in wind+solar+batteries as the drivers of decarbonizing our energy supply.
It doesn't even really matter at this point if nuclear is better and cheaper; it's just not getting built in anywhere near large enough amounts to play a meaningful role in new decarbonization before about 2040.
(That being said, I do think the US and EU should start building nuclear again so they'll have an additional source of clean energy available to deploy at scale in the mid-century. It may end up not being needed, but better to have it available and not need it than to need it and not have it available.)
cyberdork t1_iuh6m4f wrote
Nice growth, but those are extremely tiny numbers for what’s actually needed.
Still_Study_6059 t1_iuhcdtb wrote
Always starts small though, doesn't it? If it grows by 4x times every 2 years for the foreseeable future, where are we in say 10 years?
Buttercream91 t1_iuhhkx0 wrote
We will be 102,400% better than we are today, or 1024 times better.
Still_Study_6059 t1_iuhsx11 wrote
And that's with the same pace, who knows what'll be invented by then.
Lord_Snowfall t1_iugo4ve wrote
Which isn’t an advancement in the 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. In fact the minerals are quite finite and China is the source for a lot of them.
In reality we should be building nuclear power plants and investing in Hydrogen Fuel Cells but nobody wants to do that so we pay lip service and keep relying on fossil fuels.
Surur t1_iuh2j0c wrote
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]
grundar t1_iugufoq wrote
> The simple and sad fact is battery technology isn’t improving that much
That is not accurate.
Compared to a decade ago batteries have 5x the energy density and 1/9th the cost while charging 20x as fast (17kW in 2010 vs. 350kW today).
> while people like to pretend it’s all renewable batteries aren’t. In fact the minerals are quite finite and China is the source for a lot of them.
That is not accurate.
The largest global source of lithium is Australia, which produces more of it than all other nations combined.
China is the major source of rare earth elements, but lithium batteries use no rare earth elements.
Some lithium battery chemistries use cobalt, but LFP does not, and LFP is expected to reach almost 50% market share in the next few years. It's also very well suited to grid storage, as its pros (longer cycle lifespan, greater thermal stability) are significant while its cons (lower energy density) are mostly irrelevant for grid storage.
> In reality we should be building nuclear power plants and investing in Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Neither one of those are being produced at a scale large enough to drive decarbonization over the next 10-20 years.
Like it or not, the only clean technologies being produced at a large enough scale to meaningfully drive decarbonization of global energy supply over the next 10-20 years are wind, solar, and (lithium) batteries. There are other excellent technologies that may have an impact later (notably next-gen nuclear), but those are being installed at <1/10th the scale and scaling those up will take 20 years, by which time most of the decarbonization work will have already taken place.
For a task as large as overhauling the world's energy supply, scaling up manufacturing capacity is a huge component of making it happen. That scaling has already taken place for wind and solar -- they will be 120% of new electricity added between now and 2030 -- and is taking place right now for batteries and EVs. That scaling has not taken place for nuclear ot hydrogen fuel cells, so the real-world logistical requirements of scaling mean that those technologies will not contribute significantly to decarbonization until around 2040.
It doesn't even matter if they're better techologies, it's just a matter of the sheer time it takes to build out supply chains, manufacturing capacity, and other logistics.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments