|
VictualSquid posted:It is massively of topic, but why do you think that investing money into power generation will cause massive inflation, while investing the same amount of money into the military, police and banking bailouts does not? I don't think investing into nuclear will cause inflation on its own (as long as cutbacks are made elsewhere, of course), there is no magic labor tree waiting to be shaken, if you want more nuclear plant operators, then those people need to stop what they are doing now, train up and get put in the service of the nuclear industry. You can pay everyone a billion dollars a day each, knock yourself out, it don't change that there is 8 billion people and most of them are doing something other than running or building a nuke plant or maintaining electrical powerlines. Yes, China will have more experts in a few years, and even more in a few more years after that, exactly! It takes time to ramp up and build up knowledge. China is very keen on ramping up nuclear and renewable generation and getting away from coal as soon as possible. Apart from technical considerations, they still have a population to keep satisfied and supportive of the government so caution is still in play and they are still the world's largest producer of nuclear power stations. Unfortunately, their own demand is so high that they are not really going to be able to support other countries buildout. Russia was starting to but they done gone hosed that up.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
VictualSquid posted:There is infinite money available if it is for something the government actually wants to do. Because the government can just invest the money they print Jesus. Money isn't resources. *Resources are finite*. If you go Zimbabwe and print trillion-dollar bills that doesn't mean you have a single dollar more stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I don't think investing into nuclear will cause inflation on its own (as long as cutbacks are made elsewhere, of course), there is no magic labor tree waiting to be shaken, if you want more nuclear plant operators, then those people need to stop what they are doing now, train up and get put in the service of the nuclear industry. You can pay everyone a billion dollars a day each, knock yourself out, it don't change that there is 8 billion people and most of them are doing something other than running or building a nuke plant or maintaining electrical powerlines. If you live in a country where there a people who are kept out of college due to financial trouble, then it is literally just a measure of money and a few years of time. I remember 2 similar technical education campaigns happening at my college while I was there. One for medical technology, one for renewable power generation. They both consisted almost entirely of state&industry money invested into teaching staff positions and advertising. Both worked at producing large amounts of experts, though in the first case the industry did not actually need them and they had to find jobs out of field. Now you say that such things are impossible for nuclear power specifically, consider me convinced that nuclear power is impossible and that 100% renewable is the only option. After all similar programs have already worked for renewables.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I don't think investing into nuclear will cause inflation on its own (as long as cutbacks are made elsewhere, of course), there is no magic labor tree waiting to be shaken, if you want more nuclear plant operators, then those people need to stop what they are doing now, train up and get put in the service of the nuclear industry. You can pay everyone a billion dollars a day each, knock yourself out, it don't change that there is 8 billion people and most of them are doing something other than running or building a nuke plant or maintaining electrical powerlines. China approved 100 GW of new coal plants last year. All of their total current and new nuclear is only 100 GW. They might get go 150 by like 2035, but that isn’t going to do poo poo for their current terawatt+ of coal generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:If you live in a country where there a people who are kept out of college due to financial trouble, then it is literally just a measure of money and a few years of time. I agree we can do more with just twisting the spending dial here and there, but renewables for all the dial twisting, is still low double digit penetration worldwide? To commission 500 new reactors in the next five years across 130 or so sites (which would be a fair amount of penetration but not enough to eliminate all the fossil fueled generation) is a pipe dream beyond the resources of the world, even with complete and unreasonable dedication. By the way, I am all for technical campaigns and I hope they were cheap/free and the people involved in the med tech campaign mostly obtained fulfilling employment. We need waaaay more of them, even outside nuclear. in a well actually posted:China approved 100 GW of new coal plants last year. All of their total current and new nuclear is only 100 GW. They might get go 150 by like 2035, but that isn’t going to do poo poo for their current terawatt+ of coal generation. Yes, my point is that they want to get away from coal as soon as possible, not that that they can and generate enough power to satisfy demand at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I agree we can do more with just twisting the spending dial here and there, but renewables for all the dial twisting, is still low double digit penetration worldwide? To commission 500 new reactors in the next five years across 130 or so sites (which would be a fair amount of penetration but not enough to eliminate all the fossil fueled generation) is a pipe dream beyond the resources of the world, even with complete and unreasonable dedication. We should build all the things at the fastest possible speed. The fact that you can theoretically imagine an impossible speed is not a good counterargument for me. Those efforts to train renewable engineers where barely a blip in the budget for those some of German state governments that participated. There is probably a point where more investments wouldn't lead to more outcomes, be we are very far away from that. And the impossibility of building enough of each solution to fully solve climate change is just an argument to do both, not neither. And additionally invest in support infrastructure that improve peak to actual production ratios.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
What resources are we actually lacking aside from capital for nuclear plans? It's not land; the US government can eminent domain its way past that barrier. It's not money, because the government can easily pay for it. It's not staff, because as a temporary measure the government could redeploy nuclear technicians from its fleet to oversee the training of new specialists. It's not uranium, steel, cement; as there's plenty of those that could be acquired. Maybe its those big thingies we were discussing earlier, but it seems like with enough money and effort the US government could acquire those. What resources do we lack if the US decided to invest a Manhattan Project level of relative effort into cracking climate change and had the political will?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:had the political will? Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play? So you agree?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So you agree? Yes, just like the last time you asked this question and I gave you exactly the same response. The "political will" is exactly the point. It's not profit motive that prevents us from rapidly building nuclear plants, it's that *people do not want to us rapidly build nuclear plants*. The reason we don't have an abundance of nuclear engineers in training is because *people do not want to become nuclear engineers*. The reason why we don't have any forges in this country anymore capable of turning out huge pressings and stampings is because *people preferred other companies overseas do that kind of thing*. This is all about the preferences people have, preferences which have been expressed via the political mechanism, rather than by what they say to a pollster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yes, just like the last time you asked this question and I gave you exactly the same response. The "political will" is exactly the point. It's not profit motive that prevents us from rapidly building nuclear plants, it's that *people do not want to us rapidly build nuclear plants*. The reason we don't have an abundance of nuclear engineers in training is because *people do not want to become nuclear engineers*. The reason why we don't have any forges in this country anymore capable of turning out huge pressings and stampings is because *people preferred other companies overseas do that kind of thing*. This is all about the preferences people have, preferences which have been expressed via the political mechanism, rather than by what they say to a pollster. I feel like a bunch of things are incorrect here; it isn't that "people" do not want us to build nuclear plants; because that pretends that "people" otherwise want us to solve climate change; the political will doesn't exist for that either. The problem isn't that there is a lack of will for specifically nuclear, its for everything. What we have happening now through spending bills like the IRA is basically less than the bare minimum 2 decades too late. We're not going to derive a market forces friendly solution to climate change in time to stop massive damage. I'm not even sure exactly if its even really true that "people" do not have the will either, the US government is heavily biased towards vast tracks of empty land and destroyed mountain ranges and poisoned swamps, and not towards the people living in the major metropolitan areas. If you had something like a 80-20 "Democratic" majority in the Senate, 7-2 liberal USSC majority, and a 350+ seat majority in Congress we'd probably have that nuclear power plant spending bill and then some; but we don't because of the way the US political structures are set up so the majority has an incredibly difficult time enforcing its will. I think its fair of course to point out "political will" as a problem; because often its suggest the problem is some material circumstance, like money, or specialists; when these aren't true. But the fact is though I think you're kinda missing the forest for the trees; first of all in the time period it would take to get the first nuclear power plants being built, almost certainly that would include incentives for more people to go to "Nuclear Engineering School"; and in the gap of time in which there might not be sufficient staff, that staff can be acquired either from overseas, or from the US Navy; which can also help rapidly ramp up production of those engineers. The point is, the world we want only requires the stroke of a pen, and there's no other obstacle. Ultimately it isn't really relevant that we don't have slam dunk majorities to pass slam dunk legislation, the point is there's an argument as to whether it is slam dunk even in a flat featureless nuclear plane with perfectly spherical atoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yes, just like the last time you asked this question and I gave you exactly the same response. The "political will" is exactly the point. quote:It's not profit motive that prevents us from rapidly building nuclear plants, it's that *people do not want to us rapidly build nuclear plants*. People can be induced to do things for profit. It happens all the time. As an example, there's these things called "stores." I bet if customers didn't pay the storekeepers wouldn't want to run them anymore! Goverment funding would make people want to rapidly build nuclear plants, because they get paid. Or maybe not! People just *decide* things, and we can never be sure why they decide things the way they do. quote:The reason we don't have an abundance of nuclear engineers in training is because *people do not want to become nuclear engineers*. We don't have an abundance of nuclear engineers in training because people don't want to become nuclear engineers, yes. People often enter into engineering programs because they expect to be able to get a job as an engineer afterwards. While they may or may not be interested in or like the work, the fact that engineering jobs are often paid is a sweetener to the deal. As such, not many people want to become nuclear engineers because there is barely a market for it, because we aren't building plants. If there were a lot of nuclear engineering jobs where they could get paid, it might make a difference. I'm no psychologist though, so you should take that with a grain of salt. quote:The reason why we don't have any forges in this country anymore capable of turning out huge pressings and stampings is because *people preferred other companies overseas do that kind of thing*. This is all about the preferences people have, preferences which have been expressed via the political mechanism, rather than by what they say to a pollster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Any voluntary human action is due to someone "deciding" it. Yes, exactly. A lot of people here don't understand this fundamental fact about people and how they respond to incentives. quote:People can be induced to do things for profit. It happens all the time Allow me to redirect your attention to what was posted upthread: spf3million posted:But if there were unlimited funds available (somehow capitalism stops applying to the power generation sector, something I could also get behind) then it's this 100%. This is the point at which I entered. This poster was explicitly advocating somehow making "capitalism stop applying to the power generation sector." My point is that ain't gonna fix poo poo, and your suggestion of incentivizing people to do things for profit is a direct contradiction to what spf3million was suggesting. In other words (And I'll use BBCode because ASCII emphasis causes you issues), you and I are on on the same side of this argument. The lack of political will is what stops us from doing anything that's physically realizable. We'd have had a manned mission to Saturn by 1970 if we had the political will to do it. We'd have a power sector based on advanced breeder reactors and wouldn't have burned coal since the mid-60s if we'd had the political will do to do it. "Aside from the political will, what stops us from doing X?" is a question that is basically always answerable by 'nothing except fundamental universal law.' Raenir Salazar posted:If you had something like a 80-20 "Democratic" majority in the Senate, 7-2 liberal USSC majority, and a 350+ seat majority in Congress we'd probably have that nuclear power plant spending bill and then some; What? The Democrats have been profoundly anti-nuclear for *decades*, and the anti-nuclear movement in this country has historically been leftist. It wasn't until 2020 that the Democratic party changed its official platform to: quote:To reach net-zero emissions as rapidly as possible, Democrats commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035 through technology-neutral standards for clean energy and energy efficiency. We will dramatically expand solar and wind energy deployment through community-based and utility-scale systems, including in rural areas. Within five years, we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 wind turbines, and turn American ingenuity into American jobs by leveraging federal policy to manufacture renewable energy solutions in America. Recognizing the urgent need to decarbonize the power sector, our technology-neutral approach is inclusive of all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. Nuclear gets mentioned once, as an afterthought, as part of a "technology-neutral" approach that includes carbon sequestration. What on earth makes you think that if only they had a supermajority they'd throw that out the window and go balls-out for nuclear? And if they did, what makes you think that the people who voted them into that supermajority based on them being anti-nuclear for decades and only now accepting some nuclear as part of a technological-neutral approach would reward them for that at the next election? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jun 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:China approved 100 GW of new coal plants last year. All of their total current and new nuclear is only 100 GW. They might get go 150 by like 2035, but that isn’t going to do poo poo for their current terawatt+ of coal generation. In that same timeline how many old coal plants are they shutting down? Seen here, there is a priority place on shutting down of older, smaller, and more polluting coal power plants. These are being replaced by fewer larger coal power plants. I've read that overall coal capacity is set to fall. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220306023 quote:Plants decommissioning remains the priority https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/china-cut-coal-use-power-plants-300gkwh-by-2025-2021-11-03/ GlassEye-Boy fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jun 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
marchantia posted:To be honest it's been 3 months since I listened so I don't remember fine points well enough to type up anything without having to Google a bunch of facts I've forgotten but here's a link to the transcript if you wanna read/skim without listening. Thanks for this. A fun listen. I absolutely hate the use of fracking in geothermal though. Voids make terrible heat transfer. Fracking makes voids. Geothermal should be more about a long lasting source vs a quick diminishing source.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
In his recent town hall, RFK Jr's 'numbers' on Nuclear Power costs are as bizarre as his numbers on vax injuries. Claimed it was like 10x the cost of the alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:In his recent town hall, RFK Jr's 'numbers' on Nuclear Power costs are as bizarre as his numbers on vax injuries. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1670770457136578564
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I never expected a real life Lucille Bluth meme How much could a car possibly cost... a million dollars?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
man, I didn't realise the gold content of a dollar bill had fallen so low, this is like the Roman Empire
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Gort posted:man, I didn't realise the gold content of a dollar bill had fallen so low, this is like the Roman Empire I needed to visit a Vomitorium after listening to RFK Jr. (yeah, I know that this is a myth)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I needed to visit a Vomitorium after listening to RFK Jr. As difficult as it is to believe, I assure you that RFK Jr is not a myth
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
I feel like today's Real Engineering on the German Nuclear idiocy relitigates the same nuclear back and forth that the thread goes through on the regular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF9kkB0UWYQ (Screw you Germany, nuclear is good)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I feel like today's Real Engineering on the German Nuclear idiocy relitigates the same nuclear back and forth that the thread goes through on the regular. It also doesn't answer any of the questions that it asked, and offers no solutions, so you're completely right 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:It also doesn't answer any of the questions that it asked, and offers no solutions, so you're completely right The only 2 solutions are to invent fusion power or get Germans to stop wanting wankishly perfect solutions to the point they choose objectively inferior ones with better lobbyists
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:The only 2 solutions are to invent fusion power or get Germans to stop wanting wankishly perfect solutions to the point they choose objectively inferior ones with better lobbyists Or for the German nuclear lobby to get better lobbyist, who don't unconditionally consider themselves subordinates to the fossil fuel lobby. Which is the actual reason Germans like fusion, it doesn't have that baggage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
After reading up a bit on small scale modular nuclear plants the idea seems neat, it seems to have the same cost problems as nuclear development does tho and it remains to be seen if the stated higher price per MWh can be fulfilled: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-30/mini-reactor-cost-surge-threatens-nuclear-s-next-big-thing The current US MWh price of nuclear of 373 dollars surprised me tbh, that's eye wateringly expensive and was more than I thought. Is this really the US average cost? And since people here seem to be upset about the German nuclear shut-off you'll be happy to hear that since the last plants were shut down, germany has had the lowest fossil fuel power generation in both may and june in the last decade. Even beat out 2020 which was of course a record low.  (Power generation side, consumption is significantly lower) Reasons are probably a mix of good solar and wind conditions in general, a relatively big amount of capacity expansion, and lower exports, which pushed emissions up last year due to needing more coal and gas plants active. The spot market prices have remained low as well, pushing out coal and to a lesser extent gas plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:After reading up a bit on small scale modular nuclear plants the idea seems neat, it seems to have the same cost problems as nuclear development does tho and it remains to be seen if the stated higher price per MWh can be fulfilled: I'm a little confused by the $373/MWHr figure, since later in the article they site research that says $120? quote:But new estimates show costs surged to almost $120 a megawatt hour this year, according to company data analyzed by the Institute for Energy Economics. Skyrocketing prices of commodities including steel, carbon fiber and copper drove the increase, according to the report. NuScale’s stock has tumbled a third a third this year. SMRs were never going to be $/MWHr leaders. efficiency is traded off for a reduction in capital requirements, which is probably the biggest barrier to expanding nuclear power (along with lead times for reactor pressure vessels). Take a bit of a hit in the profit vs levelized cost, but get it built more regularly in a much smaller time frame. Still pretty insane markup there. Either it's a rolling price flux (article cites carbon fiber inflation...which SHOULD also greatly impact the wind power, as the blades are entirely carbon fiber) or some kind of fantastic cascading failure in price-setting. Kinda thinking it's the former, there isn't a ton of reason to expect extremely mundane commodities to maintain inflation that results in a 700% increase over expected cost. Like, even voglte wasn't 700% bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2023 08:15
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm a little confused by the $373/MWHr figure, since later in the article they site research that says $120? That $120/MWh value is the updated projection for Nuscale specifically The $373/MWh figure is a mystery. Their own source (BloombergNEF) says that the average cost of nuclear power is between $33.50 and $50 per MWh depending on who you ask. The article even has a section talking about newer construction (which has cost considerably more than plants built in the 70s) and their worst example is still only $134/MWh
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FT/status/1676089998569873410?s=20 Is anyone well versed with batteries? How big of deal is this? How are off are newer batteries technologies? The reason I'm asking because this particular press announcement is different than others in that is particular specific on the current limitations with EVs and it's in the FT which is geared towards investors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That $120/MWh value is the updated projection for Nuscale specifically Yeah that's a weird article. I tried to look into bloombergNEF and it was nonsensical gobbledegook, like the Sebbins and Sebbins Employee Orientation video from Harvey birdman. Invest in Baltimization and Vintage Pointed Sticks I guess!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Is anyone well versed with batteries? How big of deal is this? How are off are newer batteries technologies? Revolutionary solid-state batteries have been just around the corner for over a decade. I'll believe they've rounded the corner when someone starts putting them in cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Well, it's mostly a matter of bringing the existing TRL high enough to engage in mass production. Remember, most of the "future tech" stuff already exists in a lab somewhere, it's just that it is impractical or uneconomical to bring to market. Toyota seems to have found a way forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Youll know its real when you see it advertised as included in an E-Rav4 and not a moment sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Is anyone well versed with batteries? How big of deal is this? How are off are newer batteries technologies? The fast charging part is largely moot because the grid and people’s home outlets (if they have a sfh home with a garage in the first place) can’t supply that kind of power, especially if electric cars become widely adopted. And lol if you think we will upgrade our infrastructure instead of letting it continue to degrade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Youll know its real when you see it advertised as included in an E-Rav4 and not a moment sooner. From what I’ve seen of Toyota electrics, It’ll be at least ten years after they release it in thirty nine eRav-4s that they sell from three dealerships in the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I’m no expert, but there’s been announcements of revolutionary battery tech breakthroughs on a regular basis for many years. They never seem to pan out. Instead of breakthroughs, lithium ion batteries just get continuous, slow, boring, incremental improvements. Sodium-ion seems to be maturing and is getting into some BYD vehicles. We'll soon know if it's successful. FORM should deploy their 100 journey iron-air grid storage battery soon - their factory is nearing completion. Fast charging is for stops along a longer trip - not for parking your car overnight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
BEV are the one thing that really helps a grid, if planned appropriately. It is to a large degree dispatchable demand (there must be industry jargon for this). Make sure there are plenty of chargers where cars generally sit during the time when generation is normally curtailed. So for Australia, chargers at work for daytime upside down duck curve solar power, and at homes in France with nuclear normally winding back each night. Wind doesn't help/ benefit from this but wind is the bastard redheaded stepchild of generation and will only be a relatively small portion of the mix (unless paired with hydro or grid storage technology revolution in which case the whole dispatchable demand of BEV thing is moot) so don't bother trying to accommodate that. Last week I had meetings with fairly senior Total Energies (20 billion profit last year) people on the topic of what our business can do to meet GHG reduction commitments, a few things to come out of it (some I am reading between the lines, talking for them so no holding me to any of this); ~Total is already winding down petrol stations in Europe, replacing with electric only stations. ~African petrol stations will more than double over the next decade or so - most BEV materials etc will be prioritized to developing world commitments. ~ Tech for biofuel is available, but sourcing feedstock is the main issue (seen a cool green recycled waste to natural gas facility in Belgum but it was tiny output for the scale of the operation) ~FAVE is 1.3 cost of LFO, non first generation biofuel (ie, not crops grown for fuel specifically) is three times the cost of LFO, it's not going to get cheaper. ~Aviation industry will consume the worlds capacity in biofuel (so anyone tells you that jet travel is finished is not up to speed - it will continue, just that fuel component of tickets will become three times higher). ~Nothing cheaper for HFO engines and the like, it is either inherently high purity high cost biofuel or nothing ~Total is tipping about 3-5 billion a year into green fuel and generation a year. Wind farms, H2 generation, etc. Also, it was my first time being in an electric car (and self driving), some merc thing with 550 km range. Just awesome compared to any car I have been in before. Easy charging option in Europe too it looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2023 13:28
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Sodium-ion seems to be maturing and is getting into some BYD vehicles. We'll soon know if it's successful. FORM should deploy their 100 journey iron-air grid storage battery soon - their factory is nearing completion. Are you able to expand upon this? It seems like there is a ton investment into other batteries than lithium-ion but so much that I am thinking there's no way it's all for bullshit press releases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Are you able to expand upon this? Sure. MIT Technology Review has a fine writeup about the current state of Sodium-ion batteries. Essentially multiple Chinese companies have announced sodium-ion batteries to be put into vehicles in the near future MTR posted:In March, JAC Motors, an automaker based in China, released photos of a chartreuse car that it said was the world’s first vehicle built with sodium-ion batteries. The compact vehicle was fitted with a 25-kilowatt-hour battery made by another Chinese company, HiNa Battery, and a press release claimed the car’s range was up to 250 kilometers (155 miles). In April, China’s largest EV battery maker, CATL, announced it had developed a sodium-ion battery that it planned to release in a vehicle made by automaker Chery. In June BYD also announced a joint venture to commercialize their version of a sodium-ion battery.. There a couple of things to note. First these are large companies - CATL is the largest battery manufacturer in the world and BYD is the 3rd largest while also one of the largest EV companies. Certainly they can produce bullshit press releases but it's not just a professor and a grad student sitting in a university basement longing for grants. Second all of these seems to be aimed at small, cheap and relatively short range vehicles. None of them are trying to replace lithium batteries in the models common in Western markets so this will probably have very little use in the US and most of Europe. But there's a big world outside of those markets and China is well positioned to take sizable market shares there with remarkably cheap EV models.. It's perhaps reminiscent of the US experience with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries. In 2001 A123 was spun out of MIT to commercialize LFP batteries. It was given a $250 million grant by the Obama administration in 2009 while it announced partnerships with some US automakers. Then it promptly went bankrupt and was bought by a Chinese company. Today LFP batteries is the most commonly used EV battery and China essentially owns that market. The US was unwilling to (sufficiently) back a risky technology but China threw money at it until it worked and now the US gets their batteries from China while the US government is going to spend billions to try and bootstrap a domestic battery industry through the IRA. We'll see what happens. Form Energy has a metal-air battery they claim can deliver electricity for 100 hours. It's essentially a rust battery specifically designed for grid storage. As far as I can tell the energy density is bad but apparently reasonably efficient, long-lasting and cheap. Or so they say. They are building a $750 million plant in West Virginia and aim to be producing batteries in 2024. No idea how it will pan out but if it's an embarrassing failure it will also be an expensive one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 10:05
|
|