Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Yup. Correct. I did mention high energy density storage in my original comment.


sort by: page size:

but isn't that true for all high energy storage (to a certain degree)?

You probably misread my comment which was about energy storage.

Ah OK, I hadn't thought of potential energy in permanent storage.

>a high-density energy storage device

Like a tank full of pressurized air?


Well, it depends on who wrote the article. I see science journalists get this wrong frequently.

And really, as you say, everybody talking about storage systems should be quoting both energy and power.


> There's no actual storage density information, is there? Nothing in KJ/m^3 units.

Even if there was (to be honest, didn't read the journal article) this is something that can easily be hacked. Energy storage research papers regularly hack energy density numbers by reporting the kJ/cc values of a tiny (like order 1 g) fleck of nanoparticle dust, which totally misrepresents the physics that matters are scale (i.e. in an EV).

Scaling up stuff is hard, including when you're moving from micron scale to cm scale.


No, it's not. Energy density is only relevant for today's uses of batteries - car's, laptop and the like. If energy density was all that mattered pumped storage would be utterly useless as it energy density is abysmal. The reality is pumped storage is 80% efficient, and is good for 10's of thousands of cycles (basically unto the dam silts up), and base storage medium (water) is dirt cheap. As a consequence we store and discharge gigawatt hours of energy using pumped storage every day, which I suspect more than all those batteries with higher energy density combined.

If you want another comparison, there are more vehicles using lead acid batteries than there are using lithium - yet lead acid has a horrible energy density. (You are thinking this is wrong - but you are thinking cars. There are far more golf buggies and indoor forklifts and the like out there than there are cars.)

They say the voltage of this battery is around 1/2 that of lithium - which I suspect means much than half the density. But Aluminium is cheap, more common and lighter than lead, and they are talking 10's of thousands of cycles. If this works it will change the world - regardless of it's energy density.


Energy density per $ is not the metric for new transportation storage. Its kWh/pound that's critical. They don't mention it?

>I mean, they are all energy storage, but they aren't the chemical based batteries I thought you were talking about.

Good to clear up confusion. I mean batteries in the general sense, not just based on chemistry.

>But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand.

So far that hasn't been shown to be true. This is very much an open question, leaning towards 'no' because NOBODY got that level of storage working.


Indeed, I was specifically talking about batteries. But there are many other ways to store energy. They don't even need to be as efficient as batteries, as long as they are cheap/scalable.

Found an interesting study after some googling: https://www.lazard.com/media/438042/lazard-levelized-cost-of...


Which again, is basically a non-issue for grid-scale storage.

These aren't for laptops or cars.

Though they seem to trying to increase energy density, so they can become for cars. But not there yet.


Is combustible energy storage currently the densest known, short of nuclear power?

Sure, but not nearly enough for practical energy storage and retrieval.

You're arguing with a straw man. I never claimed storage technologies other than lithium batteries didn't exist. Electric cars continue to be a central example of the relatively recent increase in research into storage technologies.

And you still can't extrapolate indefinitely from an exponential curve. We don't know where the floor will be, or whether it will be low enough.


Not specifically. Energy storage?

What storage systems exist today that are capable of storing the amounts of energy we're talking about here?

Thank you for the correction.

It seems like this sort of energy could be very feasible with supercaps, lithium-ion, or lead acid, at that level.


It is 80-90% efficient and has higher energy storage.

Well, that's absolutely blown my mind -thank you.

Now I just want to know how they were dealing with power storage...

next

Legal | privacy