> And which of those are mass-production ready and are being deployed? Maybe one day, one of them will. Until such time, this argument is about the situation as-is.
Sodium ion batteries are doing just fine. The drawbacks are not significant. Lithium is simply cheap enough to be preferable at the moment and likely will continue to be.
> The over supply would need to be truly enormeous, because Hydrogen is a cryogenic gas.
It is. Negative energy prices at peak generation times are increasingly a thing.
> Long term, preventing climate change matters more. Alot more.
Having 5x more energy available to do useful work, per dollar, is going to enable a lot more… useful work. if you’re willing to increase the cost of energy by 5x, then you should probably also be willing to just raise the price of energy during off generation hours to try and align usage to generation and mitigate the battery necessity altogether. Because that would STILL be cheaper for customers than the high prices you’re introducing by suggesting we go for nuclear
Again, this discussion is about the as-is situation. If and when Na-ion enters mass production on a comparable scale, I will happily discuss it.
> Negative energy prices at peak generation times are increasingly a thing.
That does not indicate that we over-produce to a degree that would make H2 as a storage vector viable. Plus, alot of over-capacity has more to do with lagging infrastructure (e.g. Germany has enormeous problems getting SOlar power to where it is needed) than it has with actual net-overproduction.
> f you’re willing to increase the cost of energy
Again: Economic concerns lose lose long term to environmental and physical ones.
Sodium ion batteries are mass produced at a comparable scale today
Your complaint about hydrogen seems indefensible in light of industry forecasters all saying hydrogen is likely to grow pretty darn fast over the next two decades
> Again: Economic concerns lose lose long term to environmental and physical ones.
My dude, Economics is the allocation of scarce resources. The most efficient way per dollar to remove carbon from our systems is by definition the most efficient way to do so.
Given a fixed budget, choosing a less efficient method will result in removing carbon more slowly. Even if you want to say “fuck the budgets man”, those newly inflated budgets are still better off spent on the more efficient tools
> Sodium ion batteries are mass produced at a comparable scale today
Since we were talking about economic viability:
"The global Lithium-ion Battery Market in terms of revenue was estimated to be worth $56.8 billion in 2023 and is poised to reach $187.1 billion by 2032" [Source][1]
"The global sodium-ion battery market was valued at USD 0.5 billion in 2023, and is projected to reach USD 1.2 billion by 2028" [Source][2]
Please explain how a difference between 0.5bn and 56.8bn constitutes "comparable scale".
1) they are mass produced which was your original point of contention
2) they are growing very fast
3) 1:100 is pretty comparable. Utility storage batteries are only commercially feasible within the past several years. Sodium batteries aren’t a great choice for EVs so those numbers aren’t apples to apples as we’ve largely been talking about utility scale power.
4) the biggest reason sodium is not growing even faster is because lithium is better and cheaply available in large supplies.
And so we are here again. If you have x billion dollars, and you want to remove the most carbon; you would very likely remove more carbon, faster, by building a battery plant of either variety than building a nuclear plant.
The limiting factor of our clean power right now is in fact just hooking it up to the transmission grid tbh
Sodium ion batteries are doing just fine. The drawbacks are not significant. Lithium is simply cheap enough to be preferable at the moment and likely will continue to be.
> The over supply would need to be truly enormeous, because Hydrogen is a cryogenic gas.
It is. Negative energy prices at peak generation times are increasingly a thing.
> Long term, preventing climate change matters more. Alot more.
Having 5x more energy available to do useful work, per dollar, is going to enable a lot more… useful work. if you’re willing to increase the cost of energy by 5x, then you should probably also be willing to just raise the price of energy during off generation hours to try and align usage to generation and mitigate the battery necessity altogether. Because that would STILL be cheaper for customers than the high prices you’re introducing by suggesting we go for nuclear