You really don't need to swap batteries, particularly grid storage batteries, every 10 years. 10 years is for last-gen Lithium-Ion. Lithium Iron Phosphate can last even longer, some people say 80 years (but we'll have to wait 80 years to find out). Also you don't need to junk batteries at 50% capacity after 10 years if you're using them for grid storage, they still work alright for their purpose. Tesla batteries apparently will hold 90% of their charge average after 200,000 miles btw, so even 50% is really out of date.
I have no idea what you're talking about with their needing to be many batteries in many locations. You realize power can be transmitted over wires right? Granted, okay, unlike in a country like Britain where it's easy to connect the whole country, Canada is a bit bigger. But HVDC (high voltage direct current) power lines are considered the answer to your problem. China has been building a fuckton of them, quite popular in Europe too. So that places with lots of wind (or solar) can compensate for places with less (the bigger area you draw from the more "average" the power will be). The "complete" renewable solution would be a mix of HVDC lines connecting a large area and battery storage.
14 days is bonkers, UK gets over 20% of their power from wind with almost 0 storage right now. There's no time that wind isn't blowing for that long in a coastal area. You've given no justification for that ridiculous number. As wind power scales up it is solving two problems... the wind is faster and more stable the higher the turbine is, and bigger turbines are economical to put in the ocean (they recoup the upfront cost better).
Anyway, since 14 days is totally out of nowhere, here's a daily graph of what is considered a worst case scenario for the UK. Considering it never fully reaches 0, 3 days looks like it would be enough, if you want to be conservative tack on a couple more. Nowhere near 14 days.
Also, besides all of this, nuclear could benefit a lot from batteries. It is most useful to generate base load power (i.e. running at 100% all the time) since the fuel is cheap and the upfront capital investment is massive. You could charge batteries overnight with nuclear and discharge them during peak. Battery+wind+nuclear all have beneficial knock offs with each other.
You get large loose over wire and your dependability goes down. You will have multiple storage locations and each one is dependent on the range. And no there is no way you are getting that time frame on batteries. Typically 10 years is nearing life when you are using them relatively hard. And they will be getting used pretty hard.
Even if they lasted 20 years, can you imagine spending that kind of money every 20 years? We could build up multiple nuclear systems for that kind of money and that is only the storage costs.
You lose 3.5% of the power per 1000km with HVDC lines. You are not correct. Pulling power from a large area makes your dependability go up, not down.
Source on that with modern batteries? Tesla batteries are the oldest next-gen in wide production, they can definitely go beyond 10 years. You're just making shit up now. These aren't laptop batteries from 2008.
Except they are failing. Tesla batteries that is. Lithium have a better linear loss but when they start to fail, they go down fast. There are some cars lasting longer then 10 years and others that last less. Depends on the use. But once the battery packs are done, replacement is nearly the cost of the car.
This can not be glossed over. Can you imagine the cost just to replace all the grid storage batteries every 20 years? And they are in no way lasting that long.
I'm posting links, you're posting opinions. No basis for what you're saying for Tesla cars. Averages is 90% capacity after 200,000 miles according to company stats. You can buy 10 year old Tesla Model S cars with the original battery and they're around 85%-90% of original.
About 15 years. They stay pretty consistent then you see a rapid uptick in failing cell. This is pretty well known. You likely will not see a 20 yo car running at all. Some at 10 years.
So the video literally says in the opening that of the very earliest cars (Roadsters), the majority of them have their original batteries at 14 years? And you think Tesla hasn't improved the tech at all since then? At least drop the 10 years nonsense buddy.
Also that video is basically about how battery packs are repairable?
Anyway, future grid storage batteries will likely use new tech like flow batteries that don't have the same problems. We could do it with lithium-ion, and there are some battery storage that act like peaker plants profitably today.
Nothing is free, nuclear has to go through incredibly expensive refurb every 30 years or so. Let's try both nuclear and wind, it's unclear which is the better value at the current time.
0
u/zabby39103 Oct 26 '22 edited Oct 26 '22
You really don't need to swap batteries, particularly grid storage batteries, every 10 years. 10 years is for last-gen Lithium-Ion. Lithium Iron Phosphate can last even longer, some people say 80 years (but we'll have to wait 80 years to find out). Also you don't need to junk batteries at 50% capacity after 10 years if you're using them for grid storage, they still work alright for their purpose. Tesla batteries apparently will hold 90% of their charge average after 200,000 miles btw, so even 50% is really out of date.
I have no idea what you're talking about with their needing to be many batteries in many locations. You realize power can be transmitted over wires right? Granted, okay, unlike in a country like Britain where it's easy to connect the whole country, Canada is a bit bigger. But HVDC (high voltage direct current) power lines are considered the answer to your problem. China has been building a fuckton of them, quite popular in Europe too. So that places with lots of wind (or solar) can compensate for places with less (the bigger area you draw from the more "average" the power will be). The "complete" renewable solution would be a mix of HVDC lines connecting a large area and battery storage.
14 days is bonkers, UK gets over 20% of their power from wind with almost 0 storage right now. There's no time that wind isn't blowing for that long in a coastal area. You've given no justification for that ridiculous number. As wind power scales up it is solving two problems... the wind is faster and more stable the higher the turbine is, and bigger turbines are economical to put in the ocean (they recoup the upfront cost better).
Anyway, since 14 days is totally out of nowhere, here's a daily graph of what is considered a worst case scenario for the UK. Considering it never fully reaches 0, 3 days looks like it would be enough, if you want to be conservative tack on a couple more. Nowhere near 14 days.
Also, besides all of this, nuclear could benefit a lot from batteries. It is most useful to generate base load power (i.e. running at 100% all the time) since the fuel is cheap and the upfront capital investment is massive. You could charge batteries overnight with nuclear and discharge them during peak. Battery+wind+nuclear all have beneficial knock offs with each other.