https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1347
On 2/6/23 9:44 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1347
Progress! Does that density mean smaller batteries as one might think?
With extraction and desalination at the Salton Sea California might be
energy independent.
I also assume it could be years before a practical application but those present three thousand pound batteries aren't ideal.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 7:44:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/6/23 9:44 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1347
Progress! Does that density mean smaller batteries as one might
think? With extraction and desalination at the Salton Sea
California might be energy independent.
Batteries aren't an energy source
it's really hard to imagine what a doubling of battery use in our transportation energy system would do. A set of batteries in the car.
A set of batteries in the grid to store it so it's available to
charge our car batteries at night.
Salton sea has some mountains nearby. I'd be more inclined to look
for a hydroelectric storage solution or even a hydrogen system
that lasts over doubling the battery demand which still need
frequent replacement. Since the source is limitless and free
(solar), efficiency at that point of the system isn't that great a
concern. Consider solar panels are 25% at best.
I also assume it could be years before a practical application but
those present three thousand pound batteries aren't ideal.
Of course new battery tech on the horizon always makes current e-car
buyers a bit foolish as their car becomes relatively worthless.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 24:48:06 |
Calls: | 6,707 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,239 |
Messages: | 5,352,253 |