[7952]

But there comes a point where battery storage has all been used and prices go even higher. You sell at a x6 profit margin. And are able to sell at x3 profit margin for longer than the battery operators. And that assumes that 100% of the fuel would need to come from storage.

[rini17]

You are betting against batteries? That's becoming risky, Na-ion has the potential to be literally as cheap as dirt. And they are not flammable.

[7952]

I was not betting on anything. Just explaining why poor efficiency may still be economically viable.

I absolutely agree that we should bet on the battery industry. But there is a difference. With battery technology the cost of storing 1GWh is fully coupled to the cost of the equipment. That is not the case when you can store something. It could run for longer durations with the same cost in equipment. You just store more fuel.

Another factor here is industrial capacity. Battery production has amazing capacity for growth. But that is not a zero-sum game. Other parts of industry could also be scaled up.

Its interesting how similar this thread is to debates I have had with people about solar/wind/battery storage. We take one measure and then focus on that exclusively. Whilst ignoring the wider commercial, industrial and technical factors.

[rini17]

But "just store more fuel" means adding more containers with larger quantities of flammable material, how can it be done without increasing the cost of equipment? That's the issue here. Maaybe if they directly used the iron ore seam underground, but this isn't the case.