this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
317 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

85119 readers
4765 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

The article doesn't explain the battery, making it a bullshit site if you ask me, here is what they are talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

'The vanadium redox battery (VRB), also known as the vanadium flow battery (VFB) or vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB), is a type of rechargeable flow battery which employs vanadium ions as charge carriers.[5] The battery uses vanadium's ability to exist in a solution in four different oxidation states to make a battery with a single electroactive element instead of two.[6]

For several reasons, including their relative bulkiness, vanadium batteries are typically used for grid energy storage, i.e., attached to power plants/electrical grids.[7] '

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I don't think I understand any better what the battery is then I did before. As per usual Wikipedia sucks at explaining concepts that you don't actually already understand.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 53 minutes ago

Yeah wikipedia is hit or miss, especially as technical people like to show off their fancy words and explain things in ways only technical people understand.

But it's Vanadium, and you can look that up elsewhere. The first large industrial vanadium battery (if I recall,) was some years back, I think in WA State.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 56 minutes ago* (last edited 56 minutes ago)

Here's the short version.

A normal battery is a sealed cell. It has a positive and negative electrode, with an electrolyte between them. Usually many layers of this. When you charge it, a chemical change happens. When you discharge it, that chemical change is undone.

A redox flow battery uses fixed electrodes, but a liquid electrolyte that can be pumped and stored. This means you can increase overall storage capacity simply by adding more electrolyte tanks, without needing more electrodes. Think of it like a generator with a bigger gas tank.

The whole vanadium thing is just one of the metals used in the battery. There's a few kind of redox flow batteries using different chemistries

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

The headline looks wrong, but it actually isn't.

The article specifies:

  • Total capacity: 2.1GWh
  • Peak output: 1.2GWh
  • Ramp up time: a few milliseconds

That's what the "within milliseconds" in the title refers to.

Every power generator has a ramp up time. Think the time it takes to start the engine in a diesel generator, until it spins up and is able to output peak power.

Nuclear reactors can hare ramp-up times of hours, in some conditions even days.

This thing here can go from zero to peak output within almost no time, which makes it perfect to balance the sometimes erratic and unpredictable generation fluctuations of renewable energy production.

For comparison, coal or gas power generators usually have large flywheels that, once spinning, react almost instantly to power fluctuations in the network by converting their motion to electricity or the other way round. If these coal or gas generators aren't running, they can't be used to balance the fluctuations in the network, so battery solutions like the one in OP are required to actively manage the network stability.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 48 minutes ago

Peak output needs to be 1.2 GW not GWh.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 1 points 51 minutes ago

I thought that issue was considered solved by smart inverters now?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Thanks, I edited the headline to make it clearer, but this community is overrun with confidently incorrect folks.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, no, it's not going to output 1.2 gW in milliseconds.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

The headline is most likely a misunderstanding, but "Output X Watt in Y time" isn't all that wrong, since it would be talking about how quickly the power supply can respond to demand.

Every power supply has a ramp-up time, and the way the headline is worded hints to a very short ramp-up time, which would be very helpful for network stabilization.

But yeah, it's likely the headline writer just misunderstood something.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

Let's do some math:

2.1GWh

And

Multi billion dollar price (let's assume 3 billion)

2.1GWh - > 3billion

2.1MWh - > 3 millon

2.1kWh - > 3000 Usd /2.1

1KWh - > ~1430 USD

Considering that 1kWh in lithium ion batteries is like 150 USD they aren't getting a good value out of it.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I don't think the multibillion price tag is about the physical battery itself.

It's probably the cost of the entire project. Which includes:

  • Project management
  • Engineering
  • Digging the whole
  • Security
  • Maintainance
  • Environmental impact analysis (among many other analysis)
  • Reducing the environmental impact
  • Permits (and a LOT of bureaucracy)

The list goes on. Notice how I didn't even mention the battery itself.

[–] jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Short sighted math, you've completely ignored the battery chemistry. These batteries last longer & don't degrade

Also im sure that the team of engineers who worked on the decision to go with this battery know what they're doing and have a better grasp of what makes economical sense than you do

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

team of engineers who worked on the decision

You misspelled politicians. In case of the large scale project the decisions are made by politicians. And their goal isn't exactly to spend money in optimal way. It's to spend money on big flashy projects that win them votes.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

We don't know soccer fields around these parts...

[–] AbsoluteAggressor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Anything but the Imperial System huh?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's 1,435 US rods square, or 1,333.6 imperial rods, simple.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

So that is like 1,435 dick lengths end to end? /s

[–] Imperious_melange@lemmy.world 30 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I wanted to research it myself since I didn't know how Redbox flow batteries operate. It is two giant tanks of liquid energy. When there's extra electricity from wind or solar, pumps move special vanadium-based liquids through a stack of cells, storing that energy as a chemical change. When electricity is needed later, the process runs in reverse and the liquids generate power for the grid. Unlike lithium batteries, the energy is stored in the liquid tanks, so making the battery bigger is mostly a matter of building larger tanks. The Swiss project will store about 2.1 GWh of energy—enough to help balance renewable power on a massive scale—and was chosen partly because redox-flow batteries are non-flammable, long-lasting, and can be cycled tens of thousands of times with little degradation

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

I read some years back about I think the first big heavy industrial vanadium battery being built for some washington state company if I recall.

[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 hours ago

Cheers for putting the legwork in, they're even cooler than I thought

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 6 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

How big is a soccer field?

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

"2 atom bombs, 6 elephants, and 74 gallons Farenheit. Just, anything but that alien metric system."

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

because we metric users are eeeeevil

[–] Aneorthisio@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

That'd be 691077 regular sized hamburgers laid next to each other in a rigid grid pattern, 797502 if laid in a hexagonal pattern, 891720 if squished.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

How many gallons per football field is that?

And when I say football I men real one

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well…How big are regular sized hamburgers?

[–] hateisreality@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

1/3 to half the size of your appetite.

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

hmm… that's more like a variable than a cpnstant

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago
[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

Between 4000 and 10000 square meters

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago

That's an estimate, I guess? Well, it's still a better definition

[–] gnufuu@infosec.pub 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

And how deep is a soccer field?

[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 hours ago

Do you really mean to learn?

Cause we're living in a world of fools, breaking us down. When they all should let us be.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Asked for comments, they kept saying "Rest assured there is no death ray plans"

(/j)

[–] Imperious_melange@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah that's what the large hadron collider is for, everyone knows that.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

They already destroyed the world by distorting out timeline when that weasel got into the collider when it was running, just a week before harambe.

[–] metermatic26@lemmy.world 14 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 19 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Wow, that's almost 10% of a single datacenter

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 12 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

able to output 1.2 GW within milliseconds

By exploding?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

When I flip the light switch in my room, I drain 6 nuclear reactors.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's a bit too much a bit too fast, isn't it?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

1.2GWh within milliseconds would be exploding.

Read the headline again, it only talks about GW not GWh. That means it can output 1.2GWh per hour, but it can ramp up to 1.2GW within milliseconds. And it likely can only keep that output for a very short time, which is exactly what you need to balance the fluctuations of renewable energy production.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 10 hours ago

They just had the first stone laying ceremony so that explains the new wave of publications on the project.

They are using a Vanadium flow battery by the company Invinity Energy Systems which is British-Canadian.

I'm a little unsure whether it's a good idea to combine this with a datacenter, I hope the datacenter bubble popping won't jeopardize the whole project.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 116 points 16 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›