News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by JumpCrisscross on Monday October 14, 2024 @03:32PM (#41841027)
> is it really an either-or with solar and wind? We need massive amounts of clean electricity

No. This is a false dichtomy pushed, from what I can tell, by the gas lobby. It's solar and wind + nukes or gas.

Batteries work in theory but not in practice: production doesn't scale fast enough, and that was before LLMs brought a new and growing source of power demand to the table. (I'm ignoring that grid batteries compete with transport electrification. A combination of economies of scale and common bottlenecks in construction of battery plants, irrespective of chemistry, links the pursuits.)

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by mjamesaustin on Monday October 14, 2024 @04:26PM (#41841564)
Batteries are radically transforming California's power grid.

In the last few years, they have displaced a huge chunk of the natural gas power used in early evenings after sunset when solar drops off but demand is still high.

https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2024-08-25/b...

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by pfdietz on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:05PM (#41842003)
Why doesn't battery production scale fast enough? Be specific on what limits it.

I firmly believe battery production can scale up very fast. Indeed, that's exactly what's been happening.

Realize that to replace all the motor vehicles in the US with BEVs would need enough batteries to store at least 40 hours of the average US grid output. This is almost certainly much more than would be needed for the grid itself.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by justatdotin on Monday October 14, 2024 @10:04PM (#41844221)
I'm not sure that grid batteries should compete with transport electrification. One reason I haven't moved yet on batteries for the home is that I'm still interested to see what alternatives to lithium emerge. It seems to me that transport prioritises size and weight, whereas home and grid might take a hit on those measurements to maximise efficiency, durability, etc
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by JumpCrisscross on Monday October 14, 2024 @10:28PM (#41844357)
> not sure that grid batteries should compete with transport electrification

The bottlenecks are in processing materials, forming anodes and cathodes and packaging them into cells. Processes preserved across most chemistries. There is a reason the guys who built Li-on plants are pretty good at building LFP plants, and why the guys building LFPs are making announcements about sodium.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by pfdietz on Wednesday October 16, 2024 @10:24AM (#41859371)
Why can't processing be ramped up arbitrarily? There's no compelling limit on how many factories can be built.

This is the glory of industry: if the process is profitable, you can stamp out factories and generate ever larger profits, up to the point the market is saturated.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by Aachen on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @06:34AM (#41847100)
> One reason I haven't moved yet on batteries for the home is that I'm still interested to see what alternatives to lithium emerge

You could also buy a medium-sized lithium package now and already help with the transition, if you have the means, and then buy a full pack once the new hype tech becomes production-ready in 30 years (perhaps sooner but, with current warming, that's not something I'd wait on)