-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> mounted the barricade and roared out: > One might expect any chemical battery to have a cost in the same > ballpark as lead-acid batteries, and molten salt has the potential to > be far cheaper, particularly where large volumes are used (cost of the > containment goes as the surface area, while energy stored goes as the > volume). That's an important, basic relationship to keep in mind: make scaling factors work for you instead of against you. > The salt itself is about 1000 times cheaper for energy storage than > batteries. That much, huh? Sounds like a no-brainer. That should make it quite popular here. > Note that chemical storage does get cheaper if one can store large > volumes of chemical e.g. Hydrogen, or some hydrocarbon, in a single > tank. Economies of scale are always the point. Same goes for teknologikal development programs and up-front infrastructure costs. However beyond some point, large facilities and devices become unmanageable in other ways -- and prone to e.g. monopolization of the network, being chokepoints, etc.; so there's really some 'optimum' size/configuaration of any installation here. And that's one reason why all nation states have been moving to 'networx' in all spheres -- instead of remaining with models based on the old centralization of facilities, which used to be the norm. But, 'hydrino' tek aside: what would be the advantages of using hydrogen vs. molten salts here..? - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn/LMEACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EcnACgmIuhHWFdCbqgFcS5KfLwohMV HhIAoIVMTUtTGFqHD+FPaHoexUpZSXxm =E943 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
