America's First Sodium-Ion Battery Gigafactory Announced. Cost: $1.4 Billion (msn.com) 154
Sodium-ion batteries are cheaper than lithium-ion batteries — and they're also more environmentally friendly. And "In the past few years, sodium-ion battery production has increased in the United States," reports the Washington Post, with a new factory planned to manufacture them "in the same way as lithium-ion batteries, just with different ingredients. Instead of using expensive materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt, these will be made of sodium, iron and manganese..."
Last month, sodium-ion battery manufacturer Natron Energy announced it would open a "gigafactory" in North Carolina that would produce 24 gigawatt hours of batteries annually, enough energy to charge 24,000 electric vehicles. But sodium-ion batteries are still early in their development compared with lithium-ion, and they have yet to hit the market on a massive scale.
"It's unlikely sodium-ion could displace lithium-ion anytime soon," said Keith Beers, polymer science and materials chemistry principal engineer at technical consultancy firm Exponent... The biggest limitation of sodium-ion batteries is their weight. Sodium weighs nearly three times as much as lithium, and it cannot store the same amount of energy. As a result, sodium-ion batteries tend to be larger. Jens Peters, an economics professor at the University of Alcalá in Madrid, said the energy density could be improved over time in sodium-ion batteries. But, he added, "what we found out so far in our assessments is that it is not a game changer."
Sodium-ion batteries are touted to be the environmentally friendly alternative to their lithium-ion counterparts, thanks to their raw materials. Sodium, iron and manganese are all abundant elements on the planet, so they require less energy to extract and cost less... Sodium-ion batteries also last longer than lithium-ion ones because they can withstand more charge cycles, said Wendell Brooks, co-CEO of Natron Energy. "Our product can have millions of cycles," said Brooks, "where lithium-ion would have three to five thousand cycles and wear out a lot faster...." Sodium-ion batteries aren't the best fit for smartphones or electric vehicles, which need to store lots of energy. However, one advantage is their low cost. And they could be a good candidate in situations where the size of the battery isn't a concern, like energy storage. "When something is built out to support grid or backup storage, it doesn't need to be very dense. It's staying put," Beers said.
Natron will invest nearly $1.4 billion in the factory "to meet the rapidly expanding demand for critical power, industrial and grid energy storage solutions," according to their announcement.
"Natron's high-performance sodium-ion batteries outperform lithium-ion batteries in power density and recharging speed, do not require lithium, cobalt, copper, or nickel, and are non-flammable... Natron's batteries are the only UL-listed sodium-ion batteries on the market today, and will be delivered to a wide range of customer end markets in the industrial power space, including data centers, mobility, EV fast charging, microgrids, and telecom, among others."
"It's unlikely sodium-ion could displace lithium-ion anytime soon," said Keith Beers, polymer science and materials chemistry principal engineer at technical consultancy firm Exponent... The biggest limitation of sodium-ion batteries is their weight. Sodium weighs nearly three times as much as lithium, and it cannot store the same amount of energy. As a result, sodium-ion batteries tend to be larger. Jens Peters, an economics professor at the University of Alcalá in Madrid, said the energy density could be improved over time in sodium-ion batteries. But, he added, "what we found out so far in our assessments is that it is not a game changer."
Sodium-ion batteries are touted to be the environmentally friendly alternative to their lithium-ion counterparts, thanks to their raw materials. Sodium, iron and manganese are all abundant elements on the planet, so they require less energy to extract and cost less... Sodium-ion batteries also last longer than lithium-ion ones because they can withstand more charge cycles, said Wendell Brooks, co-CEO of Natron Energy. "Our product can have millions of cycles," said Brooks, "where lithium-ion would have three to five thousand cycles and wear out a lot faster...." Sodium-ion batteries aren't the best fit for smartphones or electric vehicles, which need to store lots of energy. However, one advantage is their low cost. And they could be a good candidate in situations where the size of the battery isn't a concern, like energy storage. "When something is built out to support grid or backup storage, it doesn't need to be very dense. It's staying put," Beers said.
Natron will invest nearly $1.4 billion in the factory "to meet the rapidly expanding demand for critical power, industrial and grid energy storage solutions," according to their announcement.
"Natron's high-performance sodium-ion batteries outperform lithium-ion batteries in power density and recharging speed, do not require lithium, cobalt, copper, or nickel, and are non-flammable... Natron's batteries are the only UL-listed sodium-ion batteries on the market today, and will be delivered to a wide range of customer end markets in the industrial power space, including data centers, mobility, EV fast charging, microgrids, and telecom, among others."
charge those cars w/ capacity! (Score:5, Interesting)
it would open a "gigafactory" in North Carolina that would produce 24 gigawatt hours of batteries annually, enough energy to charge 24,000 electric vehicles
swing... and a miss. by the author/editor.
The units match up, but this sentence really got away from them.
In any case, i guess these would be nice for home storage
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but the units don't even line up. If you think of this as - we'll put the batteries at supercharger stations so we can charge cars from solar power when it's dark -, then 24GWh is enough to charge 240,000 cars where a car is 100KWh (most are smaller but some are getting there and that number makes the calculation easy...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Home storage, and grid scale storage. But you need to get solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing ramped up as well, and develop deep water turbines.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Or remote/rural areas. Remote african tribes or Afghanistan tribal areas. Since the ingredients are so abundant they can be made closer to the deployment than having to ship li-ion halfway around the world. Have a log cabin up in the mountains? Solar power and one of these just might do the trick. Maybe a small windmill tower that doubles as your communication tower.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not clear how tricky those batteries are to make. It may well NOT be possible to export the manufacture to low-tech areas. (That's actually the way I'd bet.) And for mobile or portable uses Lithium batteries are probably better.
OTOH, containerized systems that charge themselves and supply power for use should be quite possible. Home scale systems should be possible. Small business scale systems should be possible. (Though it depends on what your business is. Probably not for something really ener
Re: (Score:2)
Natron's sodium batteries are too heavy for EVs; about 50Wh/Kg. However CATL has sodium batteries over 150Wh/Kg. They would be great as a primary battery in an EV (low cost; fast charge; long lifetime). For long trips a secondary range extender battery could be added. LMFP would be a more suitable chemistry for that. Together they could provide a 500 mile range.
Even 150 Wh per kg is way too low, unless that's final pack weight. That's barely half the energy that a lithium ion pack of comparable cell weight would provide, and doubling the weight of a pack will result in loss of probably O(40%) of your range.
If that 50 Wh/kg is correct, then Natron's batteries would be a complete joke for automotive use. That's only slightly better than lead-acid batteries. You'd end up with a Tesla Model 3 weighing as much as a long-range Model 3, but with a range measured in do
Not quite right (Score:4, Informative)
24GWh of annual capacity. Typical EV uses maybe 2000kWh. So that would be 12 million EVs, not 24,000. Except Na ion doesn’t work well for most EVs yet
Re: (Score:3)
24GWh/2k kWh = 12k, not 12 million. k to M to G
24 GWh/year implies enough batteries to produce 24 GW for 1 hour made in 1 year, not that that is the amount of energy you can feed through the batteries in a year.
Given that typical battery capacity of EVs is around 100kWh, I'm getting 240k EVs worth of production per year.
They are expected to charge EVs though in the sense of not being installed in cars (more like 60kWh limited range EVs in that case, due to the lower energy density), but being installed near
Re: (Score:2)
They clearly stated that the sodium batteries are not meant for the EV market.
"they could be a good candidate in situations where the size of the battery isn't a concern, like energy storage".
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't I have like three sentences saying that? Like 'not installed in cars', 'installed near EV chargers'.
Re: (Score:2)
You're quite right that the article (well, press release) talks about GW not GWh. That's a weird way to talk about annual battery capacity prodcution, if you ask me. I also agree that your approach to the calculation of saying how many EV batteries' worth of production is this makes more sense. Although I think your 100kWh figure as the typical battery size is way off. I think it's much closer to 60.
But if it's GW and not GWh, the maths is really simple: if you have 24GW of power available at any second, al
Re: (Score:2)
Searching, it says 83 kWh in the USA today, and trending up. More importantly, back of napkin calculating, 100kWh doesn't require me to bust out a calculator.
And a range of two orders of magnitude for EV charging makes using that as an estimate wierd/hard as well.
About the only EV capable of 1MW charging would be the Tesla Semi.
Re: (Score:2)
83kWh as an average for new cars is nuts. US addiction to giant vehicles is so out of control.
Agree on the rest of what you say. I could have made it look even sillier if I'd have included super slow charging, ie off typical domestic US circuits of 15A or 20A 120V.
Re:Not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
Typical EV uses maybe 2000kWh.
My EV uses 80kWh to fully charge from 0 to 100%.
People typically drive about 40 miles/day. At 0.25 kWh/mile, that's 10 kWh needed for an overnight charge.
24GWh is enough capacity to charge 2.4 million EVs daily.
2000 kWh may be what an EV uses in a year, but comparing that number to the storage capacity of the annual production of batteries is meaningless. EVs charge every day, not once per year.
Re: Not quite right (Score:2)
OK, an extended range EV has an 80 KWh battery pack that is good for 350 miles, per Tesla.
If the average owner drives 20K miles/year, that means such an EV would go thru 57 full charge cycles, or 57 x 75KWh or 4,275 KWh in a year (4 megawatts, give or take).
24 Gigawatts divided by 4 Megawatts is 6,000 cars per year.
I think my math is correct, but please check my numbers.
Re: Not quite right (Score:2)
If the average owner drives 20K miles/year, that means such an EV would go thru 57 full charge cycles, or 57 x 75KWh or 4,275 KWh in a year (4 megawatts, give or take).
24 Gigawatts divided by 4 Megawatts is 6,000 cars per year.
I think my math is correct, but please check my numbers
Found my typo - I went from 80 KWh battery capacity to 75 KWh battery capacity.
57 charge cycles times 80 KWh is close to 4,500 KWh, making the number of car/years tge batteries can charge 24,000 MWh divided by 4.5 MWh, or 5,333 car/years.
I knew my mistake as soon as I hit submit, apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming each battery is charged and discharged once per year.
In reality, they would be charged with solar energy during the daytime and supply power at night.
So, 5,333 * 365 = 2 million EVs.
That's how many EVs can be charged daily after one year of battery production.
After ten years, the factory will have produced enough batteries to charge 20 million EVs.
This is assuming 20k miles/year. In reality, the average American drives about 13k miles/year.
Re: (Score:3)
> Na ion doesnâ(TM)t work well for most EVs
You'll likely never use a sodium ion battery in your EV due to the mass penalty... except maybe for cheap NEVs that are more or less souped-up golf carts. Unnecessary mass is a great way to kill your range and reduce vehicle performance.
What you might do with them if they're inexpensive enough is have a large one installed on your property as storage, connected to the grid, solar, wind, or whatever so you can use more power from unreliable sources and mini
Re: Not quite right (Score:2)
You won't see these in any application that involves transporting the batteries under battery power - they weigh more than Sealed Lead Acid batteries and have less capacity than Lithium batteries.
In every practical measure (capacity, weight), current battery tech is superior, the difference is less rare earth metals are used in production.
Re: (Score:2)
> they weigh more than Sealed Lead Acid batteries
They do not. That is an incorrect conclusion you confused yourself into.
> the difference is less rare earth metals are used in production
It's hard to be less than zero, because there are zero rare earth metals in either lithium or sodium ion batteries.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think sodium electrolyte weighs more than lead?
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike Li-Ion, Na-Ion batteries can be discharged well below 20% without damage, so 1 kWh of Na-Ion is worth 1.25 kWh of Li-Ion. This reduces the energy density gap between Li-Ion and Na-Ion.
And Na-Ion can be charged in seconds [cleantechnica.com] like a supercapacitor instead of minutes like Li-Ion.
I think that plus the significantly greater number of charge/discharge cycles with Na-Ion offer a very reasonable compromise in exchange for less energy density, even for cars.
I could even see a mixture of both chemistries in the s
Re: (Score:2)
Are we sure that article wasn't AI written? It transitions from talking about NaIon batteries to supercapacitors not involving sodium at all, and doesn't bring it back.
Having separate battery chemistries isn't really necessary, as LiIon in amounts for useful ranges already have the necessary power capacity.
Instead, if NaIon is truly capable of supercapacitor level performance, it could instead be used for things like regenerative braking to reduce cycles on LiIon cells. But given that we're hearing about
Re: (Score:2)
Except Na ion doesnâ(TM)t work well for most EVs yet
You could do a combo storage with Na-Ion and Li-Ion or supercapacitors (and maybe even just normal capacitors too, though each additional storage stage increases the control system cost.) Or if you are building high-range models, you can make a broader bank that better delivers and receives current. And since the batteries are cheaper, that's more feasible. Not every EV needs to be capable of sub 3 second 0-60 times, either.
Innumerate announcements are useless (Score:3)
Reporters are completely unable to clarify GW vs GWh. I don't know if the factory is going to produce "24 GW" of batteries that can put out 24 GW of power flow for however long a sodium reaction takes to discharge (they don't say, though it's really an important spec), or if it can produce 24 GWh worth of storage in a year.
I'm just so tired of reporters that are innumerate; physics-free, unable to distinguish between "Energy" and "Power".
So much fail (Score:2)
Last month, sodium-ion battery manufacturer Natron Energy announced it would open a "gigafactory" in North Carolina that would produce 24 gigawatt hours of batteries annually, enough energy to charge 24,000 electric vehicles. But sodium-ion batteries are still early in their development compared with lithium-ion, and they have yet to hit the market on a massive scale.
The word "charging" shouldn't have been used at all here. It implies that the factory is going to be producing energy when instead it's going to produce energy storage devices.
It's like confusing petrol with jerrycans.
The Tesla model S battery pack is 60-100kWh (depending on option chosen, YMMV)
24gigawatt hours == 24,000,000 kWh.
24,000,000 kWh / 60 kWh = 400,000
24,000,000 kWh / 100 kWh = 240,000
It's unclear from the "article" but it seems that the factory is currently in the planning stage, and is expected
Keep your puny "Giga" factory (Score:2)
Also, I need 10 Peta dollars to build it.
It's so innovative.
Powerwall competitor (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not seeing any mention of price per kwh, but surely it is competitive with lithium or they wouldn't invest in a plant to build them. For stationary use cases like home or industrial power backup it doesn't matter how heavy or large they are. If they charge/discharge reasonably fast, have more recharge cycles, are safer, and cost less it could be a strong competitor alongside Tesla Powerwall and Megapack.
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium ion batteries are in the early development stages. Their current capacity per 18650 cell is on par with a LiFePO4 by volume.
Sodium batteries might not be suitable for EVs, we have to realize that Lithium has atomic number 3 atomic weight of just under 6. Sodium has atomic number 11, and weight of nearly 23.
That means each sodium ion is nearly 5 times as heavy as a lithium ion, and the whole cell relies on the ions moving back and forth.
However, sodium is miles cheaper to obtain - we are dealing with
Re:Project will be canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there was a market for batteries that isn't "electric cars".
A market where energy density isn't a problem, where "cheap" and "number of charge cycles" dominates.
eg. Energy storage for solar farms and grid balancing - something that can have a huge impact on CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is where sodium ion batteries will be most useful. They're not as energy dense as lithium ion which is a problem for cars, but not really a problem when they're sitting on a patch of land. But I think there will be lots of applications for these kinds of battery and anywhere you see lithium batteries right now could potentially be sodium instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are sodium-ion batteries touted as an alternative to lithium-ion batteries when, because of their weight, they're clearly only an alternative to lead acid and metal-hydride batteries?
Re: (Score:3)
Why are sodium-ion batteries touted as an alternative to lithium-ion batteries when, because of their weight, they're clearly only an alternative to lead acid and metal-hydride batteries?
Because, at present lithium-ion and variants are being used as an alternative to lead acid and metal-hydride batteries for many applications.
For example the house-batteries on my solar system are LFP (lithium-Iron-Phosphate) - It would be perfectly reasonable to have Sodium batteries in that use as size and weight are not the highest priority for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium ion batteries are in the same form factor as lithium ion, e.g. 18650 and similar performance. They're meant to be a drop in replacement, albeit less dense. So a manufacturer can build a bank of them and pretty much everything else stays the same with similar performance, draw, recharge times etc. This is clearly not the case if we were talking of lead acid or NiMH batteries which are also way less energy dense by weight and volume.
Re:Project will be canceled (Score:5, Informative)
Despite the press hype, sodium ion hasn't proven itself able to beat li-ion in price per kWh (bulk grid energy storage), either.
Chinese grid LFP cells last I saw were down to $44/kWh at a cell level in China, though $60/kWh at port in the US, and the cell level isn't at all the same as the final-product level. Sodium ion has a long way to go to get to that point. And indeed, it certainly wasn't helped by - at the time when all this hype and investment about sodium ion was going on - lithium was in a price spike. But that price spike has collapsed. [techopedia.com]
People talk constantly about the ion, but it's really more of a question about how the ion choice impacts the rest of the cell. It doesn't matter much that a single sodium ion is heavier than a single lithium ion when you take into account that in a lithium-ion cell, the lithium is only like 2-3% of the mass of the cell. And a lot of stuff is really bloody counterintuitive. For example, sodium has a higher atomic radius than lithium, and yet diffusivity rates are much higher with sodium (within the cathode and anode; slower within the electrolyte). And you probably wouldn't inherently think anything about the current collectors would change, but you have to use copper anode foils with lithium ion instead of cheaper / lighter alumium because lithium forms lithium-alumium alloys, while sodium doesn't readily alloy with alumium. By contrast, sodium doesn't form the sort of stable protective SEIs (solid-electrolyte interphase) that lithium does, which can lead to degradation and self-discharge. And there can be very big differences in the stability of traditional anode and cathode materials when the intercalation ion is sodium vs. lithium.
TL/DR, while it initially sounds like sodium ion cells would just basically be lithium ion cells with a different ion, in practice, sodium ion cells need very different materials than a lithium ion cell. These materials are less mature and we're not really sure where they're going to end up, and how cheap or what sort of cost or performance characteristics the cells are going to have with those materials.
BTW, I'd personally bet on sodium ion beating lithium ion on power cost per kW in grid storage well before it beats lithium ion in energy cost per kWh.
Re:Project will be canceled (Score:4, Interesting)
(Also, it probably doesn't matter with respect to this plant what happens with the choice of anodes, cathodes, and electrolytes, because this is surely just a cell manufacturing plant which doesn't include production of those materials on-site, and just imports them, and will by and large pretty much look like a li-ion cell manufacturing plant, just with alumium for both electrode foils rather than copper for the anode)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget though that prices are about to go to due to tariffs, so US manufacturing doesn't need to be so competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think its role in grid storage (of any size) is going to be huge. The resources are abundant which means they can be manufactured in many more places and implemented without long shipping costs. Even if its effectiveness in cars is inferior, it frees up the finite resources used in li-ion to remain dedicated to applications where size and weight are more critical.
Re:Project will be canceled (Score:4, Interesting)
If the sodium battery does not need nickel or cobalt that may be more important than the lithium. Nickel has lots of other uses.
As others have noted, weight doesn't really matter for home or grid energy storage. Size is quite negotiable too. Cost and chargers cycles matter, and for much of the country the ability to operate in cold weather will matter.
https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]
Note what the green line is up to today. There are 2800 MW of installed wind here, and 138 MW of solar. Since it's overcast and calm we're are in dunkelflaute mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/bu... [telegraph.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium ion batteries don't need nickel or cobalt either. That's what LFP is.
Nobody is talking about weight here. We're talking about cost per kWh, the key factor of relevance for stationary storage.
Re: (Score:2)
at the time when all this hype and investment about sodium ion was going on - lithium was in a price spike
Diversification is an investing strategy used to manage risk.
These materials are less mature and we're not really sure where they're going to end up, and how cheap or what sort of cost or performance characteristics the cells are going to have with those materials.
Which means this is a solid investment opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially. And also a potential way to lose a bunch of money. Your mileage may vary, this is not investment advice, etc etc.
Time will tell how it will play out, and I'm not going to speculate much beyond to say that I think it will play some role, but whether that's a bit player or whether it'll become predominant, it's too early to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially. And also a potential way to lose a bunch of money.
It seems unlikely that it will be a loss because the cost of lithium on track to rise because demand is projected to outpace supply. Technology like this is a 20 year investment so there are no fast returns on it. Anyway, like I said before, this is risk mitigation which means losses on one side or the other are expected.
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:2)
The cost of lithium has been falling. Dramatically.
There is no shortage of lithium in the world. It's just a question of the rates of expanding mining and refining vs the rate of cell deland growth.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of lithium has been falling. Dramatically.
It's been returning to pre-2021 levels but that doesn't mean it won't increase in the future. Furthermore, all countries have a vested interest in ensuring they cannot be easily manipulated by a single player. Risk management means losing a little money to prevent losing a lot of money.
It's just a question of the rates of expanding mining and refining
Exactly. The rate of demand is on course to exceed the rate of supply. Sodium is currently produced because it's used in the production of aluminum which makes scaling up trivial.
rate of cell deland growth
What do you mean by "cell deland growth"?
Re: (Score:2)
I figure it was a typo of "rate of cell demand growth".
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably where these will first see deployment. The question is, can they meet potential market demand producing "24 gigawatt hours of batteries annually"?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of oversupply of solar power in several places that will immediately make use of the cheapest enough storage technology.
And as it will stop being a "problem of oversupply"...
Re: (Score:2)
He can't if private investors are involved.
Re:Project will be canceled (Score:4, Interesting)
How naive. He'll have the fed. gov. to lean on private investors to pull their investments. And his prospective energy secretary will see the private investment as a threat. Asshole will sell it as.a "threat to national security", and his supporters will have been told what they believe. If he breaks any laws doing that, It will be an official act so he cannot be held accountable for it. The MAGA dolts on the Supreme Court will back him. Russia and China will cheer (for different reasons). Make Russia First Again!!
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Otherwise the entire green industry would already have collapsed, which it didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Project will be cancelled by the new administration. They want us to go back to oil and gas only.
The new administration will only last four years, businesses plan for much longer time frames than that. Pete Buttigieg already nailed it during an interview on Fox: the industry isn't going to reverse course just because we're sending a pro-fossil fuels president back to the White House. Heck, Trump owes one to Musk this time around and I'm sure he'll have more than a little influence on renewable energy and EV policies.
The political right can stick as many fingers as they want in the dyke, but it's not
what would elon say? (Score:2)
DJT is hardly likely to stamp on the toes of his new best buddy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He'll just cancel it anyway in return for the billions the damned oil companies gave him to finance his campaign!
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise the oil companies are making the most out of EV's and hybrids?
The old 2000's idea that somehow the "big oil" are being disrupted or whatever by little fly by night operations run by a mania like Tesla is well, aged.
The "big oil" are all waiting to make a killing on EV manufacture, li-ion battery recycling, they are already rolling in it and provide the main infrastructure used to recharge even the EV's they don’t actually make.
It's just a bit childish to think such huge monstrosities li
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Informative)
And this site contradicts your "figures", at least if we are comparing Democrats and Republicans (and they have a LOT more data than your cherry picked "figures"):
https://www.opensecrets.org/po... [opensecrets.org]
Chevron:
Democrats $83,000
Republicans, $864,000
ExxonMobil:
Democrats Kamala $131,000
Republicans Donald $335,750
Shell: they didn't list shell, but we'll poke in Koch Industries which are heavy into oil and gas:
Democrats $0
Republicans $1,631,500
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure is funny the above didn't post a citation link like you did, right?
71077345 (Score:2)
"Shell: they didn't list shell,"
Shell is a Dutch company, they shouldn't be donating to US politicians.
Re:71077345 (Score:5, Informative)
Shell is a Dutch company
Shell is a British company.
they shouldn't be donating to US politicians.
Shell is also a multinational only headquartered in Britain. Companies operating in different countries have a vested interest in managing the governments of those countries as they can impact them. Shell's registered USA subsidiary registered $37bn of revenue last year and employs 12000 people in America. You can safely bet both your testicles that they not only did donate to US politicians, but that they have a vested interest in doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Am i the only one concerned that these are very low figures for what they get the lobby industries?
You can sway policy decisions that impact millions, make billions, with such small amounts?
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you don't look at the cost of buying *entire* state legislatures.
And then factor in that basically nobody even knows who their state reps even are.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations routinely "support" both parties. They just hedge their bets.
They know that whoever wins, they can call on them for "favors".
Money has totally corrupted politics.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like these numbers are confirmed by opensecrets.
Chevron: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]
Exxon: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]
Shell: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon and Donald are BFFs, and Elon is in the grid storage business.
If sodium batteries mean more profit, Elon will be all over it.
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:4, Insightful)
And if Elmo gets in between that asshole and his money, then will get screwed. He has no commitments to anyone that cannot be broken for a price. He has no friends because he needs no friends. He's quite like Voldemort in that respect.
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:3)
He's not quite like In Voldemort in that respect
Well thank goodness he doesn't watch Real Housewives
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla makes lithium batteries. They sell grid-level systems based on lithium batteries because economies of scale and larger sales volumes lower prices and that makes his cars cheaper to make. (Not necessarily cheaper to buy, peasant...)
Grid storage sodium batteries would be a direct threat for Elon's business. He may or may not try to directly interfere, but I can't see him going out of his way to advocate for it - there's no incentive for him to do so.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Tesla importing LFPs for their lower-range models? That seems like a place they could use domestic Na-Ion instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't Tesla importing LFPs for their lower-range models? That seems like a place they could use domestic Na-Ion instead.
Only if they never want to sell another short-range car again.
The cells, then, weigh about 483 pounds for the extra 25 kWh, with the rest being invariant pack weight, presumably. Sodium ion batteries average about 160 Wh per kg versus 260 Wh per kg for Lithium ion. So if we take the 483 pounds and multiply times 260/160, you get 784 pounds per 25 kWh, or 1568 pounds of batteries in the pack instead of 966, or 600 pounds difference.
That
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon is what republicans think George Soros is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Elon is what republicans think George Soros is.
Yup. With these assholes every accusation is a confession.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if he's already picked a different solution.
It's not just an Elmo problem though. It's how 'capitalism' is a *terrible* future looking decision mechanism. 'Capitalism' is a fabulous tool to use to get to desired outcomes. But when it's picking the outcome it's entirely short sighted for short term profits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of banning sale of new ICE cars is so they DON'T have a slow natural death. Countries want them to be rid of them as quickly as possible and have set a date to focus minds on that objective. And we can see from all the bullshit and FUD from the auto & oil industries that they don't like this one bit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Countries want them to be rid of them
"Countries" don't want anything. Specific people want them, and at least in America, those people just got voted out of office.
The Democrats need to learn a hard lesson: Nudging with incentives works better than shoving with mandates.
Disclaimer: I drive an EV.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Trump does as expected then the rest of us are going to have to do something about it. I'll get modded to hell for saying it, and self imposed tariffs might reduce your emissions anyway due to the devastating effect on economic activity, but we may need to have some environmental stick and carrot on the international level.
Re: (Score:2)
we may need to have some environmental stick and carrot on the international level.
How do you expect to enforce that?
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:4, Insightful)
The same way we enforce all such rules. Trade rules, tariffs, sanctions.
If Trump does start this US vs The World trade war though, it might not be needed.
Re: (Score:2)
we may need to have some environmental stick and carrot on the international level.
How do you expect to enforce that?
US navy carrier groups?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Countries want them to be rid of them
"Countries" don't want anything. Specific people want them, and at least in America, those people just got voted out of office.
The Democrats need to learn a hard lesson: Nudging with incentives works better than shoving with mandates.
Disclaimer: I drive an EV.
What the half of the US public that voted for Trump wants is about to be run over the a sixteen wheeler truck of market forces. The people who just voted in Trump who can want ICE cars to be the future of transportation till the cows come home but while they and the Trump admin cling clinging onto ICE and fossil fuels the rest of the planet is having few to no issues transitioning to EV's that are cheaper to make, cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain that ICE vehicles and the rest of the world is a lot bi
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Interesting)
the rest of the planet is having few to no issues transitioning to EV's that are cheaper to make, cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain that ICE vehicles and the rest of the world is a lot bigger than the US.
This is the killer here! To the extent that the US auto industry is especially good at anything they have largely been better at making engines and transmissions. There have been some spectacular counterexamples, and many of them have been Fords, and I'm not trying to deny any of that. But the worst parts on some of the best engines are Bosch fuel system bits on both American and European vehicles after the 80s and especially after the 90s. And I say that as someone who is currently doing battle with a Sprinter van, which was built in Germany.
ZF has built a long series of pathetically fragile gearboxes, several of which were supposed to have lifetime transmission fluid as if such a thing existed. It does in a sense, in that the gearbox is likely to break catastrophically around the same time you're just getting around to a fluid change on a really quality American transmission like an Allison 2500. And as far as I can tell, all of the Euro engines are either really uninspiring or painfully expensive to maintain, and some are both. The last really reliable ones were made by Mercedes in the eighties.
As you say, if you don't have to build engines, and your transmission is a simple reduction gear, those advantages go away. An electric motor is ludicrously simpler than an ICE. Europe is generally quite good at the sheet metal parts, and at suspensions (those stupid looking Audi multi-multi-link suspensions are a little numb, but work amazingly well otherwise, and most everything else is at least competent) so shifting to EVs has to be a massive boon to them. And our big goofy "American" ICEVs are generally bigger than they need to be here, so they are ridiculous in Europe. Hence why GM and Ford built so many vehicles for Europe that we never saw here...
Re: (Score:2)
the rest of the planet is having few to no issues transitioning to EV's that are cheaper to make, cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain that ICE vehicles and the rest of the world is a lot bigger than the US.
This is the killer here! To the extent that the US auto industry is especially good at anything they have largely been better at making engines and transmissions. There have been some spectacular counterexamples, and many of them have been Fords, and I'm not trying to deny any of that. But the worst parts on some of the best engines are Bosch fuel system bits on both American and European vehicles after the 80s and especially after the 90s. And I say that as someone who is currently doing battle with a Sprinter van, which was built in Germany.
ZF has built a long series of pathetically fragile gearboxes, several of which were supposed to have lifetime transmission fluid as if such a thing existed. It does in a sense, in that the gearbox is likely to break catastrophically around the same time you're just getting around to a fluid change on a really quality American transmission like an Allison 2500. And as far as I can tell, all of the Euro engines are either really uninspiring or painfully expensive to maintain, and some are both. The last really reliable ones were made by Mercedes in the eighties.
As you say, if you don't have to build engines, and your transmission is a simple reduction gear, those advantages go away. An electric motor is ludicrously simpler than an ICE. Europe is generally quite good at the sheet metal parts, and at suspensions (those stupid looking Audi multi-multi-link suspensions are a little numb, but work amazingly well otherwise, and most everything else is at least competent) so shifting to EVs has to be a massive boon to them. And our big goofy "American" ICEVs are generally bigger than they need to be here, so they are ridiculous in Europe. Hence why GM and Ford built so many vehicles for Europe that we never saw here...
The US looks set to become an ICE vehicle museum along with Germany where they also have a ‘you’ll have to wrench it from my cold dead hands’ attitude to ICE engine motor vehicles. Everyone else have no issues with benefitting from cheap Chinese EVs and far lower running costs.
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
I must have missed the legislation Biden signed that banned ICE...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>> Biden signed that banned ICE
And which legislation would that be? There was no such thing.
Re: (Score:3)
That was my point. The post I replied to said
The Democrats need to learn a hard lesson: Nudging with incentives works better than shoving with mandates.
I was asking for what EV mandates the democrats passed.
Re: Project will be canceled (Score:3)
Silly rabbit.
Stuff doesn't have to be true for Fox News to report it and Trump supporters to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans in general, really. The US advertising industry is the world's most advanced mind-control organization in the history of civilization. They've managed to convince people of incredibly absurd things, like using our tax dollars to fund and arm a genocide is a non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Nudging with incentives works better than shoving with mandates
There already are incentives in the US, and currently no mandates. So what are you nattering about?
Re: (Score:2)
"Countries" don't want anything. Specific people want them, and at least in America, those people just got voted out of office.
After California, the next two states with the highest number of EVs are both deeply red. I live in Florida (#2 for EV registrations) and despite the fact that this is a red state and gas is relatively cheap here, EVs are all over the place. Probably because these days, there are actually a few EVs that are a damn bargain compared against the average selling price of a new vehicle in the US (presently about $48k).
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you believe anything he says?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The normal sequence of things in California is that the government puts forth aggressive mandates and then goes back and forth with industry. The government backs down when they realize that it's not possible. But, unless you are very familiar with the gamesmanship of California politics, you tend to think that a mandate is a mandate. And the California mandate has had profound effect on the automobile industry already even if it gets pulled back. So, yes, California is essentially outlawing ICEs.
I don't think you know what the word "essentially" means. In this sense it is more like "functionally" than anything else, as what the actual effect is what matters. So California is essentially not outlawing ICEs, in that 1) they have only mandated a percentage of just a little over 1/3 BEVs and 2) your own statement is that they will back down.
I agree that it is unreasonable to be able to sell that many BEVs. I simply cannot use an affordable one myself, and I know the same applies to lots of other people
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is that the cost of not massively switching to EVs (and the rest of the green changes) is far far far more expensive. (of course the *real* cheap solution is mass transit...but Murica! - and that in most of the developed world cars rule transport)
The catch is as prices indicate, much of that cost is more front loaded and makes uptake much slower than is needed.
The only real solution would be gov'ts borrowing against future savings in disaster/mitigation spending to subsidize the needed trans
Re: (Score:2)
I simply cannot use an affordable one myself, and I know the same applies to lots of other people. Pair that up with wages vs. inflation and there's just not the money out there to implement such a change at this time.
The price of new ICE vehicles isn't exactly a walk in the park either. Besides, California has no plans to ban used vehicle sales or anything that's on the road today, so it's only going to affect folks who do have the means to purchase a new vehicle. At least by new vehicle price standards, EVs aren't crazy expensive like they used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, Insufficient level of TDS.
Re: (Score:2)
To me it sounds bogus since li-ion gives higher current than na-ion. Consequently it is probably just a lack of understanding on the part of author and/or editor.
Re: (Score:3)
> sub-optimal batteries
In what way are they "sub optimal?"
There is an engineering tradeoff; Sodium is cheaper and in much greater supply compared to lithium. It's very reasonable to expect that when Sodium-ion battery production becomes as mature as Lithium-ion battery production, they will be considerably cheaper per kWh.
The tradeoffs are they are heavier and not as energy dense as lithium.
Is this tradeoff worth it? Yes; in grid-scale applications where weight and size are not major concerns, but cost i
Re: (Score:2)
> And it's hollow so plenty of space
There isn't a lot of space inside a wind turbine tower, and much of what there is, is already occupied by electrical equipment. The diameter of the base is only about 20 feet for a larger tower.
Just put the batteries near where they are best needed, which is probably close to the loads they serve. It's fine.
=Smidge=