599
US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024 (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Sodium batteries require very little rare earths in comparison to lithium batteries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It really is too bad about the weak life cycle, poor charge/discharge rate, and incredibly low voltage that begin the story of "Why don't we just use sodium ion batteries?" and place it directly in the "tragedy" section of the book store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why are people so mad that batteries are better than dead dinosaur farts? What is the weird obsession with burning ooze and gasses from mother earth? We have better options?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why are people so mad that batteries are better than dead dinosaur farts? What is the weird obsession with burning ooze and gasses from mother earth? We have better options?

    Does it hurt being this ignorant or is it truly as blissful as they say?

    The fact that you don't understand battery materials are pulled from the ground in much the same way that oil and gas is speaks volumes about value of your opinions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

    Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it's gone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

    Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, is "infinitely recyclable". Literally defies physics.

    Lets also not forget that oil is recyclable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you're such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I'm not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

    No, nothing can be recycled to infinite. It is asinine to even attempt to assert that.

    But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery?

    Recycling Lithium batteries recovers approximately 20-96% of materials. This means best case scenario, which is not the norm in battery recycling, every time a battery is recycled 4% of the materials are lost.

    Doesn't take a math genius to see how quickly finite resources dry up with a 4% loss every single time a batteries life ends.

    I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

    Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

    I hope the simple math and explaination I used is understandable to you, but I am not expecting much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Like I thought, you're misunderstanding what you're reading.

    Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that's not because they aren't recoverable, that's because it's not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

    And that's just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren't great at reading either. So I'll ask it again.

    What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

    Like I thought, you have nothing meaningful to say. I won't waste further time with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    What? You're the one claiming that various metals aren't infinitely recyclable.

    It's true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

    Current recycling technology doesn't really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

    I'm just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn't need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it's useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you're being downvoted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

    I can't get over this. We're talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you're talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that's what makes sense.

    Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that's it's my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The information I've seen regarding deep discharge life-cycle for sodium ion is that the latest tech is actually extremely good, at least according to this. I don't see how the lower voltage is a problem, since for grid situations you'll have step-up transformers anyway, and the batteries can just be hooked up in series to increase the voltage.

    They use abundant materials, will be much cheaper than lithium ion, don't need to be actively cooled, and massively lessen the risk of rupture and fires.

    The low density per unit of weight isn't relevant for grid storage, so they seem pretty ideal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent