| > Mining rates are growing quickly. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-wor... > there are competing materials for new battery tech besides lithium And which of those are mass-production ready and are being deployed? Maybe one day, one of them will. Until such time, this argument is about the situation as-is. > when you have large over supplies of energy you can pursue hydrogen. The over supply would need to be truly enormeous, because Hydrogen is a cryogenic gas. It needs to be pressurized and cooled, both of which requires a constant expenditure of energy which is lost as usable power. It also carries [safety risks][1], and is [infamously hard to keep under control][1]. > commercial viability absolutely matters. Long term, preventing climate change matters more. Alot more. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety [2]: https://gizmodo.com/nasa-hydrogen-leaks-sls-rocket-space-shu... |
Sodium ion batteries are doing just fine. The drawbacks are not significant. Lithium is simply cheap enough to be preferable at the moment and likely will continue to be.
> The over supply would need to be truly enormeous, because Hydrogen is a cryogenic gas.
It is. Negative energy prices at peak generation times are increasingly a thing.
> Long term, preventing climate change matters more. Alot more.
Having 5x more energy available to do useful work, per dollar, is going to enable a lot more… useful work. if you’re willing to increase the cost of energy by 5x, then you should probably also be willing to just raise the price of energy during off generation hours to try and align usage to generation and mitigate the battery necessity altogether. Because that would STILL be cheaper for customers than the high prices you’re introducing by suggesting we go for nuclear