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
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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)