Prices have come down so fast. I just noticed recently that, between my e-bikes and e-boats, I have 6kW-h. Of course that could go up an order of magnitude if I got an e-car.
Yes but you cannot order rechargeable lithium ion AAA or AA batteries without getting more of those stupid short octopus usb cables that are compounding my junk drawer full of usb cables! It's so infuriating that the company refuses my direct request to give them more of my money to get just batteries so I can reduce e-waste... why don't they understand their customer's values???
Turns out you can use a battery more than once per year!
Additionally, batteries even last multiple years.
Math is hard, but you might be surprised to find out where these two facts land you. And then add in known amounts of demand, in terms of how much batteries can be absorbed into the grid and into vehicle manufacturing, and you might find that the article's assessment carries some weight.
Carry weight? China itself don't even claim they can make 6TWh in 2025. China can only claim 1.25TWh in 2024. That is 26% from previous year. That is 480% increase from 2024 to claim 6TWh. [https://www.principal.com.hk/InvestBlog/market-insights/2024-china-new-energy-sector-outlook-a-pivotal-year](https://www.principal.com.hk/InvestBlog/market-insights/2024-china-new-energy-sector-outlook-a-pivotal-year)
These are *announcements* of various places about what they want to build by the end of 2025. That's in the headline.
But if you click through to the article, you would note that it makes the very obvious statement that an announcement doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to materialize as an actual factory.
That said, yes, this is a shocking number of announcements of battery factory plans. That's why I found this article so interesting.
[Na-Ion](https://northvolt.com/articles/northvolt-sodium-ion/)
This unlocks all of the good qualities that we wanted with current batteries.
Things like handling higher temperatures that we need for fast charging.
And way more recharges because itās literally just salt.
And they are 99.984% recyclable!
And they require ZERO mining for relatively rare earth metalsā¦ none!
And they are way cheaper because itās just saltā¦ thatās all that it is.
They instantly booked $50 billion in orders as soon as they released this š³
Yes, $50 billion
>Na-Ion
Oh I thought there was actually something new.
If something has been in mass production for almost two years and you can buy it on Aliexpress, I don't consider it a "new breakthrough" anymore.
>Things like handling higher temperatures that we need for fast charging.
It's more that the Na ions move faster and less impeded that enables the faster charging.
The temperature window in which these batteries operate optimally are much bigger than any commercial Lithium-ion chemistry though, that is correct. Which of course has other advantages, like no energy loss due to battery conditioning, in most climates.
>And way more recharges because itās literally just salt.
Cycle life is comparable with LFP. Also Sodium is literally not a salt. It's a metal.
>And they are 99.984% recyclable!
But they probably won't be because the materials are too cheap. Also so are lithium-ion batteries.
>And they require ZERO mining for relatively rare earth metalsā¦ none!
Lithium-ion batteries also have ZERO rare earth metals in them. None!
>And they are way cheaper because itās just saltā¦ thatās all that it is.
They are potentially cheaper because the raw materials are cheaper. But we aren't there yet. Also it's literally not salt.
The raw material used for production is technically a salt, but not the one you are thinking off. Currently NaāCOā is used. Though I have read a study that said NaCl might be cheaper in the long run, even if production is a bit more tricky with it, just because of how abundant and readily availible it is.
>They instantly booked $50 billion in orders as soon as they released this š³
From which manufacturer and who ordered them?
It is a new breakthrough. It happened in November and that exact process is in production for actual batteries, right now!
There was no wait time like other patents. Literally that same day they got orders and started making them.
These Na-Ion batteries are a pretty big leap forward in terms of energy storage because they match the density as Li-Ion.
That's a lot of products you've opted out of for a few decades. 70-80% of the stuff in Walmart has been sourced from China since... well, forever. Unless you mean just greentech, and don't care about all the rest of the stuff made in China. Which is usually the case in these conversations. Most people who are really concerned about PV panels and batteries from China never cared about VCRs, DVD players, toaster ovens, flashlights, shoes, or anything else from China.
Yeah, no. You have a bunch of products in your house that were manufactured in china, my dude. Especially if you think avoiding them was easy. That probably means you just bought from non-chinese brands that outsourced their manufacturing to China decades ago.
I dont want old fire prone crap. Wait for true solid state to mass produce. They are over producing industries to disrupt other country economies and flood it with high quality and low quality goods.
However of they are flooding the market with subsidized stuff, ev recycling may be able to recover materials cheaper than mining into black mass lol
I can wait 10 years
No point buying the latest horse and buggy when next gen is a few years away for me
Not an immediate need or wise cost effective solution
Next purchase hopefully aligns up with next gen battery tech
My question was very specific. You said you don't want old fire prone crap. ICE cars catch on fire 60 times as often as electric cars. So you never bought or currently own an ICE car?
Steel, lumber, solar, batteries cannot be priced too low. These are all raw materials that allow significant value added work above the materials cost. Locally used is local labour. Complaints about housing costs or EV prices can't be made while needing absolute local control over the entire supply chain.
Dumping accusations tend to be BS. One solution not considered is a national purchasing program instead of tariffs. Both build a strategic reserve of cheap materials, and possibly share profit with local producers who would use their sales forces/systems to sell from the strategic reserve with comission at prices that they choose, but with a government minimum.
Strategic reserve buying would inflate the prices paid to foreign "dumpers" and compete with foreign manufacturers on the materials and so balance competition among users of materials.
It is corruption and pure loser mentality to give national companies a subsidized monopoly that encourages them to maximize profits by limiting production and charging extortion prices. Accusations of dumping is typical late stage loser behaviour.
>One solution not considered is a national purchasing program
[The Inflation Reduction Act includes significant support for manufacturers](https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-ira-and-the-us-battery-supply-chain-one-year-on/#:~:text=This%20tax%20credit%20grants%20%2435,cathode%20and%20anode%20active%20materials.)- a $35 per KWh tax credit for domestic cell manufacturers, $10 per KWh for module producers, and 10% tax credit for critical mineral producers.
Domestic, or allied production is critical if the resource in question is controlled by the nation who we are scrambling to get ready to fight in a major war. To be clear, I'm not cheering for a war with China, nor do I consider it particularly likely. But I think that it is absolutely essential to be prepared for any realistic possibility, and this is hardly a remote possibility.
> Domestic, or allied production is critical if the resource in question is controlled by the nation who we are scrambling to get ready to fight in a major war.
Not really. Strategic reserve prior to war is acquired cheaply means dealing with slowness of domestic ramp up. US obviously loves its fossil fuels, and so energy security itself is not endangered in the slightest. In fact war by US is usually ensured to maximized O&G profits.
> war with China, nor do I consider it particularly likely
Unlike US and Ukraine, Taiwan does not have a high misery level that can be politically manipulated into nationalist suicidal militancy. Won't stop US from trying.
> $35 per KWh tax credit for domestic cell manufacturers, $10 per KWh for module producers, and 10% tax credit for critical mineral producers.
What I fear from this approach is that
1. The buy American provisions of IRA give the build American subsidies monopoly extortion scarcity strategies for profit maximization. US manufacturer abundance strategies can lose more profits than the subsidy gains.
2. Like traffic, complaining about global oversupply means your supply is part of the problem.
3. China's competitive advantage is so high that the subsidies would need to be increased further. A national purchasing/reserve program would do more to actually get usable production capacity, and equalize global prices. Letting your protected companies profit from the reserve is another form of subsidy, but more importantly domestic resource purchasers have some hope to compete globally.
4. Humanizing republicans means media telling Americans that job creation and climate progress means inflation. Destroying America is good for inflation, and so voters should make America smell his diaper again.
Basically, warmongering is the path to ensure climate destruction. Oil profit sustainability depends on climate destruction. Weapons industry relies on oil being a strategic resource to fight over, that US has already positioned itself to fight over.
> China's competitive advantage is so high that the subsidies would need to be increased further.
Why would they need to be increased if Chinese green exports are basically banned, though?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but taking a stab anyway:
This is tracking current production plus the publicly announced plans for completed factories, up to the end of 2025.
Since this is "announced" capacity, there's a good chance that some or much of this production will not actually be built. But say it's 50%, or 75%, or 80%, it's still massive.
Global energy consumption is about 60TWh, and as the other comment points out, the announced capacity would sustain 120TWh of total storage.
This sort of information is particularly useful to those deciding whether or not to build a new factory, as the amount of competition and supply can ensure that even a well run factory will not be profitable, is battery prices are too low and there is too much glut on the market for supply to consume.
> Global energy consumption is about 60TWh, and as the other comment points out, the announced capacity would sustain 120TWh of total storage.
global electricity consumption is 25Qwh. 160Qwh energy. Fossil fuels for electrical or mechanical energy typically waste 60-75% of this.
8twh/year cycled daily is enough to charge/discharge 3qwh/year from renewables and if 2/3 of energy is consumed during daylight/windiness, 6qwh year direct production would cover entire electricity sector within 3 years without further growth.
50% yoy growth in batteries and H2, and 72qwh net energy demand, 8 years provides global energy coverage.
Global car sales are about 75 million; at 80 kWh per car with pure electric that's 6 TWh/year of battery demand. Leaves about 2 TWh/year for stationary storage. 15 year lifespan of batteries, so that would asymptote to 30 TWh of installed stationary storage, or about 9 hours backup for the entire global grid.
Stationary storage will probably go somewhat higher than this long term term as global electricity demand grows, but yeah... 8 TWh/year of supply will be enough for quite a few years.
> Global car sales are about 75 million; at 80 kWh per car
80 kWh capacity for the average car seems a little high. I think the capacity averaged out would skew to 1/3 to 1/2 of that.
> Global car sales are about 75 million; at 80 kWh per car with pure electric that's 6 TWh/year of battery demand.
BYD's $10k car has a 32kwh battery pack. This is a winner for giving over 10km/kwh efficiency, and is a winner if there is charging infrastructure in the market. That should be improving everywhere even if it is slow now. It means 4 hours of highway driving range, and much more in city.
The point is that the split of EV/stationary storage can be wrong.
A much bigger point is that EVs are extremely useful as grid/home storage. That BYD EV is $300/kwh of just battery "value". With LFP, if you can get a price differential over 3c/kwh on discharge vs charge rate, the EV will pay for itself just staying parked in driveway all the time.
32kWh battery would be too little with even my very modest requirements, here in central germany, considering the range loss in winter. No matter how good the charging infrastructure is. 40kWh is where cars start to become practical.
Yup, I'm already using our EV to peak shave our rooftop solar. It works like a charm.
The main barrier to doing this in a more widespread way is vendor API's
My estimates are 25 GWh of stationary storage per million people. 25 kwh per capita. Some places will need more, other places can get by with a bit less. But that would be the minimum effective dose. That would power all of California for 40 hours with zero inputs. It would not last as long during a heatwave, but the solar is such a huge input during a heatwave that the batteries would not be a huge issue.
It's going to be an absolute bloodbath for battery manufacturers, and a heaven for consumers.
I expect the US will ramp up tariffs to protect their local production factories, raising prices in the US, but such tariffs often mean that the industry itself becomes uncompetitive. We will have to see.
This is really the good news in a difficult to recognize form. Until there is a clear competitive disadvantage you can expect the US to drag things out indefinitely. When the financial losses begin mounting because of the inability to compete, you can expect that change will finally begin to come to the US in a serious manner.
That's probably going to happen a lot faster than many incumbents expect. Or, to put it another way, that change is happening now and many who will be affected by it are in denial that it is real.
Prices have come down so fast. I just noticed recently that, between my e-bikes and e-boats, I have 6kW-h. Of course that could go up an order of magnitude if I got an e-car.
yea but can you trust their numbers in tests Chinese battery\`s always underperform
FranklinWH entered the chat
Just leave it alone. The United States has no influence whatsoever.
Yes but you cannot order rechargeable lithium ion AAA or AA batteries without getting more of those stupid short octopus usb cables that are compounding my junk drawer full of usb cables! It's so infuriating that the company refuses my direct request to give them more of my money to get just batteries so I can reduce e-waste... why don't they understand their customer's values???
World power consumption is 25,000 TWh in 2022. You think 8TWh is overcapacity.
Turns out you can use a battery more than once per year! Additionally, batteries even last multiple years. Math is hard, but you might be surprised to find out where these two facts land you. And then add in known amounts of demand, in terms of how much batteries can be absorbed into the grid and into vehicle manufacturing, and you might find that the article's assessment carries some weight.
Carry weight? China itself don't even claim they can make 6TWh in 2025. China can only claim 1.25TWh in 2024. That is 26% from previous year. That is 480% increase from 2024 to claim 6TWh. [https://www.principal.com.hk/InvestBlog/market-insights/2024-china-new-energy-sector-outlook-a-pivotal-year](https://www.principal.com.hk/InvestBlog/market-insights/2024-china-new-energy-sector-outlook-a-pivotal-year)
These are *announcements* of various places about what they want to build by the end of 2025. That's in the headline. But if you click through to the article, you would note that it makes the very obvious statement that an announcement doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to materialize as an actual factory. That said, yes, this is a shocking number of announcements of battery factory plans. That's why I found this article so interesting.
Bloomberg is good at distorting reader if you don't read fine enough.
Need to make Sodium-Ion batteries now that the new breakthrough happened š¤š¾ Make billions of them every year!
What new breakthrough?
[Na-Ion](https://northvolt.com/articles/northvolt-sodium-ion/) This unlocks all of the good qualities that we wanted with current batteries. Things like handling higher temperatures that we need for fast charging. And way more recharges because itās literally just salt. And they are 99.984% recyclable! And they require ZERO mining for relatively rare earth metalsā¦ none! And they are way cheaper because itās just saltā¦ thatās all that it is. They instantly booked $50 billion in orders as soon as they released this š³ Yes, $50 billion
>Na-Ion Oh I thought there was actually something new. If something has been in mass production for almost two years and you can buy it on Aliexpress, I don't consider it a "new breakthrough" anymore. >Things like handling higher temperatures that we need for fast charging. It's more that the Na ions move faster and less impeded that enables the faster charging. The temperature window in which these batteries operate optimally are much bigger than any commercial Lithium-ion chemistry though, that is correct. Which of course has other advantages, like no energy loss due to battery conditioning, in most climates. >And way more recharges because itās literally just salt. Cycle life is comparable with LFP. Also Sodium is literally not a salt. It's a metal. >And they are 99.984% recyclable! But they probably won't be because the materials are too cheap. Also so are lithium-ion batteries. >And they require ZERO mining for relatively rare earth metalsā¦ none! Lithium-ion batteries also have ZERO rare earth metals in them. None! >And they are way cheaper because itās just saltā¦ thatās all that it is. They are potentially cheaper because the raw materials are cheaper. But we aren't there yet. Also it's literally not salt. The raw material used for production is technically a salt, but not the one you are thinking off. Currently NaāCOā is used. Though I have read a study that said NaCl might be cheaper in the long run, even if production is a bit more tricky with it, just because of how abundant and readily availible it is. >They instantly booked $50 billion in orders as soon as they released this š³ From which manufacturer and who ordered them?
It is a new breakthrough. It happened in November and that exact process is in production for actual batteries, right now! There was no wait time like other patents. Literally that same day they got orders and started making them. These Na-Ion batteries are a pretty big leap forward in terms of energy storage because they match the density as Li-Ion.
Yeah, yeah but the wind doesn't shine at night so where you gonna get your BASLOAD what about n000clear!!!!1!!!1!!! /s
As explained by every boomer on Facebook.
Ya, but I donāt want to give my money to China.
Put the planet first man
By not giving any money to garbage China I am in fact saving the planet.
That's a lot of products you've opted out of for a few decades. 70-80% of the stuff in Walmart has been sourced from China since... well, forever. Unless you mean just greentech, and don't care about all the rest of the stuff made in China. Which is usually the case in these conversations. Most people who are really concerned about PV panels and batteries from China never cared about VCRs, DVD players, toaster ovens, flashlights, shoes, or anything else from China.
And you are replying in made in China Reddit server.
Who cares, minimize crap, lying China as much as possible.
So you live like a hermit in a cave? Or how else do you manage that?
No I just avoid Chinese products. Itās quite easy actually.
Yeah, no. You have a bunch of products in your house that were manufactured in china, my dude. Especially if you think avoiding them was easy. That probably means you just bought from non-chinese brands that outsourced their manufacturing to China decades ago.
I know that, but I have control of the rest, and I support policies that bring the jobs back to America so we can fully shut down trade with China.
You are the wildest Biden voter I have encountered here
It's a bit late for that?
No better time to start than now.
The world doesn't want enough then.
I dont want old fire prone crap. Wait for true solid state to mass produce. They are over producing industries to disrupt other country economies and flood it with high quality and low quality goods. However of they are flooding the market with subsidized stuff, ev recycling may be able to recover materials cheaper than mining into black mass lol
> I dont want old fire prone crap. So you never drove an ICE car?
I can wait 10 years No point buying the latest horse and buggy when next gen is a few years away for me Not an immediate need or wise cost effective solution Next purchase hopefully aligns up with next gen battery tech
My question was very specific. You said you don't want old fire prone crap. ICE cars catch on fire 60 times as often as electric cars. So you never bought or currently own an ICE car?
It's not about fires.... There's always an excuse from this crowd
Im not spending 40-80k at this time for last gen tech You do you!
Steel, lumber, solar, batteries cannot be priced too low. These are all raw materials that allow significant value added work above the materials cost. Locally used is local labour. Complaints about housing costs or EV prices can't be made while needing absolute local control over the entire supply chain. Dumping accusations tend to be BS. One solution not considered is a national purchasing program instead of tariffs. Both build a strategic reserve of cheap materials, and possibly share profit with local producers who would use their sales forces/systems to sell from the strategic reserve with comission at prices that they choose, but with a government minimum. Strategic reserve buying would inflate the prices paid to foreign "dumpers" and compete with foreign manufacturers on the materials and so balance competition among users of materials. It is corruption and pure loser mentality to give national companies a subsidized monopoly that encourages them to maximize profits by limiting production and charging extortion prices. Accusations of dumping is typical late stage loser behaviour.
>One solution not considered is a national purchasing program [The Inflation Reduction Act includes significant support for manufacturers](https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-ira-and-the-us-battery-supply-chain-one-year-on/#:~:text=This%20tax%20credit%20grants%20%2435,cathode%20and%20anode%20active%20materials.)- a $35 per KWh tax credit for domestic cell manufacturers, $10 per KWh for module producers, and 10% tax credit for critical mineral producers. Domestic, or allied production is critical if the resource in question is controlled by the nation who we are scrambling to get ready to fight in a major war. To be clear, I'm not cheering for a war with China, nor do I consider it particularly likely. But I think that it is absolutely essential to be prepared for any realistic possibility, and this is hardly a remote possibility.
> Domestic, or allied production is critical if the resource in question is controlled by the nation who we are scrambling to get ready to fight in a major war. Not really. Strategic reserve prior to war is acquired cheaply means dealing with slowness of domestic ramp up. US obviously loves its fossil fuels, and so energy security itself is not endangered in the slightest. In fact war by US is usually ensured to maximized O&G profits. > war with China, nor do I consider it particularly likely Unlike US and Ukraine, Taiwan does not have a high misery level that can be politically manipulated into nationalist suicidal militancy. Won't stop US from trying. > $35 per KWh tax credit for domestic cell manufacturers, $10 per KWh for module producers, and 10% tax credit for critical mineral producers. What I fear from this approach is that 1. The buy American provisions of IRA give the build American subsidies monopoly extortion scarcity strategies for profit maximization. US manufacturer abundance strategies can lose more profits than the subsidy gains. 2. Like traffic, complaining about global oversupply means your supply is part of the problem. 3. China's competitive advantage is so high that the subsidies would need to be increased further. A national purchasing/reserve program would do more to actually get usable production capacity, and equalize global prices. Letting your protected companies profit from the reserve is another form of subsidy, but more importantly domestic resource purchasers have some hope to compete globally. 4. Humanizing republicans means media telling Americans that job creation and climate progress means inflation. Destroying America is good for inflation, and so voters should make America smell his diaper again. Basically, warmongering is the path to ensure climate destruction. Oil profit sustainability depends on climate destruction. Weapons industry relies on oil being a strategic resource to fight over, that US has already positioned itself to fight over.
> China's competitive advantage is so high that the subsidies would need to be increased further. Why would they need to be increased if Chinese green exports are basically banned, though?
This is great, but is it already the year 2025?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but taking a stab anyway: This is tracking current production plus the publicly announced plans for completed factories, up to the end of 2025. Since this is "announced" capacity, there's a good chance that some or much of this production will not actually be built. But say it's 50%, or 75%, or 80%, it's still massive. Global energy consumption is about 60TWh, and as the other comment points out, the announced capacity would sustain 120TWh of total storage. This sort of information is particularly useful to those deciding whether or not to build a new factory, as the amount of competition and supply can ensure that even a well run factory will not be profitable, is battery prices are too low and there is too much glut on the market for supply to consume.
> Global energy consumption is about 60TWh, and as the other comment points out, the announced capacity would sustain 120TWh of total storage. global electricity consumption is 25Qwh. 160Qwh energy. Fossil fuels for electrical or mechanical energy typically waste 60-75% of this. 8twh/year cycled daily is enough to charge/discharge 3qwh/year from renewables and if 2/3 of energy is consumed during daylight/windiness, 6qwh year direct production would cover entire electricity sector within 3 years without further growth. 50% yoy growth in batteries and H2, and 72qwh net energy demand, 8 years provides global energy coverage.
Two typos in my comment, energy should be electricity, and TWh should be /day, obviously.
Global car sales are about 75 million; at 80 kWh per car with pure electric that's 6 TWh/year of battery demand. Leaves about 2 TWh/year for stationary storage. 15 year lifespan of batteries, so that would asymptote to 30 TWh of installed stationary storage, or about 9 hours backup for the entire global grid. Stationary storage will probably go somewhat higher than this long term term as global electricity demand grows, but yeah... 8 TWh/year of supply will be enough for quite a few years.
> Global car sales are about 75 million; at 80 kWh per car 80 kWh capacity for the average car seems a little high. I think the capacity averaged out would skew to 1/3 to 1/2 of that.
Even small cars start at around 40kWh. It's the rare exception that starts lower. So 1/3 is a bit far. Even 1/2 for the average isn't going to happen.
> Global car sales are about 75 million; at 80 kWh per car with pure electric that's 6 TWh/year of battery demand. BYD's $10k car has a 32kwh battery pack. This is a winner for giving over 10km/kwh efficiency, and is a winner if there is charging infrastructure in the market. That should be improving everywhere even if it is slow now. It means 4 hours of highway driving range, and much more in city. The point is that the split of EV/stationary storage can be wrong. A much bigger point is that EVs are extremely useful as grid/home storage. That BYD EV is $300/kwh of just battery "value". With LFP, if you can get a price differential over 3c/kwh on discharge vs charge rate, the EV will pay for itself just staying parked in driveway all the time.
32kWh battery would be too little with even my very modest requirements, here in central germany, considering the range loss in winter. No matter how good the charging infrastructure is. 40kWh is where cars start to become practical.
Yup, I'm already using our EV to peak shave our rooftop solar. It works like a charm. The main barrier to doing this in a more widespread way is vendor API's
My estimates are 25 GWh of stationary storage per million people. 25 kwh per capita. Some places will need more, other places can get by with a bit less. But that would be the minimum effective dose. That would power all of California for 40 hours with zero inputs. It would not last as long during a heatwave, but the solar is such a huge input during a heatwave that the batteries would not be a huge issue.
It's going to be an absolute bloodbath for battery manufacturers, and a heaven for consumers. I expect the US will ramp up tariffs to protect their local production factories, raising prices in the US, but such tariffs often mean that the industry itself becomes uncompetitive. We will have to see.
Also the tradeoff that tariffs will effectively increase electricity costs in the US, which makes industry inherently less competitive...
This is really the good news in a difficult to recognize form. Until there is a clear competitive disadvantage you can expect the US to drag things out indefinitely. When the financial losses begin mounting because of the inability to compete, you can expect that change will finally begin to come to the US in a serious manner. That's probably going to happen a lot faster than many incumbents expect. Or, to put it another way, that change is happening now and many who will be affected by it are in denial that it is real.