5 ms·

I'm pretty sure we don't need billions of dollars of investments in clean energy, we need billions of dollars of investments in energy storage across a variety

I'm pretty sure we don't need billions of dollars of investments in clean energy, we need billions of dollars of investments in energy storage across a variety of scales ranging from household/vehicle level all the way to geographic regions. There are plenty of existing clean technologies that are as low or lower than the existing cost/kWh of dirty energy technologies. They are just intermittent and unreliable for base power distribution. Unfortunately energy storage is not as glamorous as clean energy production and doesn't get anywhere near the investment levels that it deserves.

Retric 11y ago
Grid scale energy storage is a 'solved' problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel... EX: A single location is storing 4,200 gigawatt-hours per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huizhou_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huizhou_Pumped_Storage_Power_S...
- saosebastiao 11y ago
  It is only solved if you are lucky enough to have suitable geography and a stable and wealthy enough government to support it, and are willing to irrevocably damage large ecological areas to build it. That solution isn't good enough to convert the entire world.
  - Retric 11y ago
    This things can actually be fairly compact and self contained. Traditional hydro is designed to store ~1 year of energy generally from seasonal rain, and needs a deep lake to build a useful head of water, which takes a lot of space. Pumped hydro is designed to store ~12 hours of energy and recharged every day. So, you can just have a small lake on top of a hill and another at the base within ~1-2 miles. As to geography you can also move electricity ~1,000 miles with minimal losses, So there is some dependence on geography but outside of some islands you can use pumped storage just about anywhere in the world as all you really need is a large hill to start with.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Pumped hydro / storage sites are largely built out. To meet full needs, or alternatively, the equivalent dispatchable generation capacity of present fossil-fueled generation, would require something on the order of 2,400 Hoover Dam equivalents. Siting and water flows for such installations are somewhat lacking. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-stor...
  - Retric 11y ago
    Solar and wind never produce zero energy in a single day. So, at most you may want ~30% of one days worth of storage which less than ~1/20th of what he wants. Extra capacity is actually fairly cheap (winds cost are ~2.5¢/kWh now) and something we already do. In extreme events like a heat wave, traditional hydropower can make up the long term difference as it's designed to store power over long periods already. There math is also wrong on energy density, you get ~30% efficiency with gas > electricity. So one gallon of gas takes less water on balance. ~4 cubic meters of water dropping one mile ~= 1 gallon. A 10 meter drop in water level over 1 km^2 = ~2,500,000 gallons of gas per day and 0.9 billion gallons of gas per year. Sure, you would need two ~1 km^2 square body's of water within ~3 miles of each other with one ~1 mile higher than another. But, building two 10-20m deep pools is cheap, so now you just need a large flat hill or an unusually deep valley. PS: People talk about how variable wind is, but if you ignore the peak and compare median power to minimal power it's actually surprisingly steady. Yes, we will waste a few days at peak power, but that's not actually a lot of wasted energy.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      Solar produces, to a reasonable approximation, zero energy every night. If you want to see seasonal trends, the Fraunhoffer Institute in Germany has excellent actual production plots for Germany. Solar does well in summer, not so much in winter. Some of the slack is made up for with wind. There's additional other sources, including wastestream processing, though that itself is just derivative of biofuels. Germany has surprisingly little geothermal potential. And though Germany is a high-latitude country, it's fairly representative of about 450 million people living in modern high-energy lifestyles, throughout Europe.
- david-given 11y ago
  > A single location is storing 4,200 gigawatt-hours per year That seems like a lot, but for comparison purposes, China uses 5,400,000 GWh/yr. I don't know how many sites China has available to build storage plants of this capacity; the terrain there looks kinda special --- Wikipedia claims the lower dam is over 400m high...
dredmorbius 11y ago
Both. The scale of solar and wind build-out required, and of energy storage, are both absolutely staggering. Largest built infrastructure, possibly short of highway and road systems (which are significantly lower tech, and have far fewer moving parts). Though highway maintenance costs might give you pause as well. Lifetime for solar and wind plant is roughly 20 years, due to various degredation factors.
7952 11y ago
There is also huge potential for adjusting demand. There are numerous devices that don't need to be powered all the time which could be switched depending on availability.

Retric 11y ago

Grid scale energy storage is a 'solved' problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel... EX: A single location is storing 4,200 gigawatt-hours per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huizhou_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huizhou_Pumped_Storage_Power_S...

saosebastiao 11y ago
It is only solved if you are lucky enough to have suitable geography and a stable and wealthy enough government to support it, and are willing to irrevocably damage large ecological areas to build it. That solution isn't good enough to convert the entire world.
- Retric 11y ago
  This things can actually be fairly compact and self contained. Traditional hydro is designed to store ~1 year of energy generally from seasonal rain, and needs a deep lake to build a useful head of water, which takes a lot of space. Pumped hydro is designed to store ~12 hours of energy and recharged every day. So, you can just have a small lake on top of a hill and another at the base within ~1-2 miles. As to geography you can also move electricity ~1,000 miles with minimal losses, So there is some dependence on geography but outside of some islands you can use pumped storage just about anywhere in the world as all you really need is a large hill to start with.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Pumped hydro / storage sites are largely built out. To meet full needs, or alternatively, the equivalent dispatchable generation capacity of present fossil-fueled generation, would require something on the order of 2,400 Hoover Dam equivalents. Siting and water flows for such installations are somewhat lacking. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-stor...
- Retric 11y ago
  Solar and wind never produce zero energy in a single day. So, at most you may want ~30% of one days worth of storage which less than ~1/20th of what he wants. Extra capacity is actually fairly cheap (winds cost are ~2.5¢/kWh now) and something we already do. In extreme events like a heat wave, traditional hydropower can make up the long term difference as it's designed to store power over long periods already. There math is also wrong on energy density, you get ~30% efficiency with gas > electricity. So one gallon of gas takes less water on balance. ~4 cubic meters of water dropping one mile ~= 1 gallon. A 10 meter drop in water level over 1 km^2 = ~2,500,000 gallons of gas per day and 0.9 billion gallons of gas per year. Sure, you would need two ~1 km^2 square body's of water within ~3 miles of each other with one ~1 mile higher than another. But, building two 10-20m deep pools is cheap, so now you just need a large flat hill or an unusually deep valley. PS: People talk about how variable wind is, but if you ignore the peak and compare median power to minimal power it's actually surprisingly steady. Yes, we will waste a few days at peak power, but that's not actually a lot of wasted energy.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Solar produces, to a reasonable approximation, zero energy every night. If you want to see seasonal trends, the Fraunhoffer Institute in Germany has excellent actual production plots for Germany. Solar does well in summer, not so much in winter. Some of the slack is made up for with wind. There's additional other sources, including wastestream processing, though that itself is just derivative of biofuels. Germany has surprisingly little geothermal potential. And though Germany is a high-latitude country, it's fairly representative of about 450 million people living in modern high-energy lifestyles, throughout Europe.
david-given 11y ago
> A single location is storing 4,200 gigawatt-hours per year That seems like a lot, but for comparison purposes, China uses 5,400,000 GWh/yr. I don't know how many sites China has available to build storage plants of this capacity; the terrain there looks kinda special --- Wikipedia claims the lower dam is over 400m high...

dredmorbius 11y ago

Both. The scale of solar and wind build-out required, and of energy storage, are both absolutely staggering. Largest built infrastructure, possibly short of highway and road systems (which are significantly lower tech, and have far fewer moving parts). Though highway maintenance costs might give you pause as well. Lifetime for solar and wind plant is roughly 20 years, due to various degredation factors.

7952 11y ago

There is also huge potential for adjusting demand. There are numerous devices that don't need to be powered all the time which could be switched depending on availability.