Skip to main content
Topic: General Discussions (Read 114542 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #600
Yep, Madame Curie was a genius. How did she die again?
A lack of information.

Same as people now.

Batteries are not sustainable long term. Its a medium term solution.

Pound for pound, Nucleur power (and the waste created) absolutely demolishes anything else in terms of output vs waste.

Handled appropriately, it will do the world of good.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #601
Or maybe you could say Mme Curie unfortunately was at the cutting edge of new rather than mature technology. Nuclear power is now very mature whereas renewables and battery technologies will improve rapidly. Confining the comparison of nuclear and fossil fuel energy generation to only existing renewables & battery technology is misleading.


Re: General Discussions

Reply #603
Quote
If progress has been steady all this time, there’s obviously more on the way (stay tuned on that). First, there will be more in the incremental vein, as we have yet to reach the theoretical limits of lithium-ion. For example, when Tesla laid out its plans last year, there were many little things that added up to a hoped-for increase of around 50 percent in vehicle range and decrease of around 50 percent in per-kilowatt-hour cost. That came from cathode material tweaks, a high-silicon-content anode, a larger cylindrical cell design, a redesigned battery pack, and new manufacturing methods. Who knows how long it will take for all this to materialize, though Elon Musk claimed it would only be around three years.

Beyond the incremental, less predictable battery revolutions are also coming to placate the impatient. (Just don’t expect flying cars to be close behind.) The race to develop solid-state batteries that ditch liquid electrolytes—and perhaps also the bulk of the anode—seems to be heating up. That could bring sudden improvements in safety, longevity, or energy density.

Researchers have also long been chasing lithium-air batteries that could realize a huge jump in energy density. And beyond lithium, there are other entirely different chemistries in development out there. At some point, one of them should click for one application or another.

Lithium-ion or not, an explosion of grid-scale battery installations is coming as prices continue to fall. The nascent art of lithium-ion battery recycling is also sure to mature and expand, improving the sustainability of these batteries by recovering and resetting their chemical building blocks.

Adopt cold-fusion-like skepticism of any of these future-looking statements as you please, but today’s batteries aren’t those of 20 or even 10 years ago. The same thing is bound to be true in another 10 years—even if that progress doesn’t come in a single, giant leap with global fanfare.

Eternally five years away? No, batteries are improving under your nose, ArsTechnica

 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #604
Batteries still have a very real issue. They need to be charged. 

Oh by the way, they've found a way to make nuclear waste into batteries.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #605
And it only took them 70 years to do it. Imagine how much better (and how recyclable) non-nuclear batteries will be in the year 2060 ...


Re: General Discussions

Reply #607
None of the above addresses the fundamental problems, batteries all degrade over time then must be dealt with somehow, as do solar PV, as do catalysts in fuel cells. None of them are currently recycled, at the moment the nascent art of recycling is a dream.

Most of those pushing for these types of renewable energy would seem to have a conflict, and willfully ignore the filthy nature of the consuming solution they push. It is the same old filthy consumption model that Henry Ford marketed, rows and rows of panels and battery packets all mass produced assembled and sold for the consumers guilt free green pleasure. Just don't look under the mat! 
The Force Awakens!


Re: General Discussions

Reply #609
Still waiting for steggall to switch over to an ev like she promised.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #610
Batteries still have a very real issue. They need to be charged.
Yep it's an absurdity, they talk like solid state and higher energy densities are all on the same page, when in fact they are different sides of the ledger. Most of the functional ultra high energy research batteries are single use, and the solid state solutions need to be towed on a trailer behind a Toyota Leaf to get people 200 km!
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #611
batteries all degrade over time then must be dealt with somehow, as do solar PV, as do catalysts in fuel cells. None of them are currently recycled, at the moment the nascent art of recycling is a dream.
So recycling batteries & solar PV is pie in the sky stuff but recycling nuclear waste is a done deal:
Nuclear energy waste is evolving too.  They are finding ways to reuse spent fuel, rather than simply store it.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #612
So recycling batteries & solar PV is pie in the sky stuff but recycling nuclear waste is a done deal:
No not at all, but by volume for the amount of fission energy delivered the fission waste is minuscule, not even in the register.

The recycling issue for PV / battery is more analogous to developing fusion as the nuclear solution.

The renewable investment risk is huge, if they crack fusion the renewables  are worthless overnight! They must think fusion is a go and safe, they are now building a new pilot within the boundaries of greater London. That's a true bet by someone with deep pockets!
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #613
Not if you include lethality in the equation. Putin doesn't even need much polonium to do the job.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #614
And it only took them 70 years to do it. Imagine how much better (and how recyclable) non-nuclear batteries will be in the year 2060 ...
the world has come a long way in the last 20 years.   Technology advances very quickly but I see more merit in advances in nuclear than I do in renewables.   Flooding the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels is noble but it just needs to have baseload somewhere in that equation.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson