Re: Lots of choices
"There are dozens of energy storage options out there, and many look great on paper. In practice? Often not so much."
It's just like engines - lots and lots of designs which promise to replace Otto and Diesel but in the real world they usually barely produce enough power to keep themselves spinning, let alone extract usable work (or they are incredibly fiddly/maintenance intensive - turbines replaced piston engines on aircraft despite using 30% more fuel because they're much lighter, much simpler, produce much more power and have far service intervals - these all add up to being more efficient overall because a 747-100 with Wasp Major engines(*) would have needed 10 of the things to barely get off the ground, had a range of 1500 miles and needed intensive service after every single flight (8-16 hours per engine)
(*) The most powerful aviation engines to enter service - and spectacularly unreliable. Old 4 engine piston airliners would regularly complete a 6 hour flight with 3 engines working.and it took 40+ years for aviation authorities to agree that jets weren't that bad.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
