> And iron flow batteries exist at the same price point (or significantly lower if we pretend your $500/kWh comparison was an accurate representation of medium term price trends
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> The alternative is to do what France has already done
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).
> Have a fleet with around 65% capacity factor that has correlated shutdowns right in the middle of an energy crisis?
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.
> Given that most renewables average around 25-40% capacity factor when working well, 65% during a maintenance period is a pretty good thing!
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.
> Go talk to ESS, a non-retail technology not being available at retail isn't an indicator of anything.
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.
Then order some sodium batteries from CATL. They're building around a TWh/yr of production which uses the same infrastructure for both sodium and lithium.
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).
> Then order some sodium batteries from CATL. They're building around a TWh/yr of production
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.
FNRs came up as a direct response to suggesting decarbonising via nuclear. There are no other nuclear technologies that even come close to the criteria of both existing and being scalable (and FNRs are borderline on the first and have huge problems for the second). PWRs exist, but there is barely enough fuel for even the current generation at 10% or so of electricity. Let alone enough to provide primary energy.
So what are you proposing if not one of those two options?
> FNRs came up as a direct response to suggesting decarbonising via nuclear.
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.
You replied to a conversation where the direct subject was nuclear vs. renewables & battery storage.
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.
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...