• Zwiebel@feddit.orgEnglish
    115·
    3 months ago

    Nooo stooop pls don’t build this 8.5GWh battery guys we need to build nuclear plants!!!

      • Zwiebel@feddit.orgEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        I think you misread. It has 85MW output power and stores 8.5GWh of energy. It literally says so in the article.

        Watt-hours and Watt is not the same

        • p1mrx@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          51·
          3 months ago

          8.5 GWh / 85 MW = 100 hours, or around 4 days. If they can build it cheap enough, this is the kind of battery we would need to replace nuclear for dealing with the day-to-day variability of renewables.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            3 months ago

            Nuclear doesn’t work that way, it’s not really compatible with renewables because it’s generating as close to 24/7 as possible. You can’t ramp it up and down to accommodate the variable output from renewables because it’s slow to react when compared to battery, pumped hydro, or NG peaker plants and because a nuclear plant is so expensive that having it not generating 24/7 means it’s not making the money it needs to be worth the initial investment.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      3 months ago

      I love nuclear because it means we get to use coal for 10 more years while we build it. That is good for my stonks.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    3 months ago

    Huh… A rust battery? That wouldn’t have been what I expected a long lasting battery chemistry to look like. You probably have to avoid using iron in any other part of the battery structure/electronics, I imagine the corrosion risk would be quite high.

    I wonder how their reliability compares to saltwater batteries or lead acid. Also, flow batteries seem like a holy grail for large scale storage, I’m curious how they compare to iron air.