Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by manicdee on Monday March 01, 2021 @07:16PM
(#26310339)
> Average lifetime of those batteries are about 7 years before a full replacement.
Based on what?
> Everyone also seems to clearly ignore how detrimental they are to the environment. There's huge swathes of toxic wastelands created from mining the materials needed.
Ah, you're one of those people.
Never mind, carry on.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by magikaram on Monday March 01, 2021 @09:48AM
(#26303219)
I happened to read an article a few weeks back regarding Aluminum-Air batteries, and a potential use in EVs, yet while they might not be ideal for EVs, a potential ability for use in the grid might be convenient.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by MaxBarraclough on Monday March 01, 2021 @07:24AM
(#26302084)
> Average lifetime of those batteries are about 7 years before a full replacement.
The significance of this is a function of our ability to recycle them.
Everyone also seems to clearly ignore how detrimental they are to the environment. There's huge swathes of toxic wastelands created from mining the materials needed.
So cost, lifecycle and externalised environmental damage is what I would say is missing here.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-tr...
Late edit: Batteries certainly have their place in smoothing out the grid inputs, I don't want to come across as saying they are not useful when they certainly are. In South Australia the newly installed grid scale batteries have paid themselves off within a few years.
The article linked makes clear the engineering tradeoffs involved, and as a society we should always base these decisions on the numbers over emotion. Think there is a bright future for small modular reactors in remote and rural areas if communities are willing to accept them.