4 ms·

Correct. But in large enough grid there are many non-fossil ways available using existing, deployable tech to integrate a high-penetration of non-dispatchable r

Correct. But in large enough grid there are many non-fossil ways available using existing, deployable tech to integrate a high-penetration of non-dispatchable renewables. For example - utility scale storage (pumped hydro); distributed storage (home batteries and Vehicle-to-grid battery Ev cars); demand-side management; power-to-gas (hydrogen); and geographic grid integration. See more at http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ https://www.raponline.org/featured-work/teach-the-duck-to-fly-integrating-renewable-energy https://www.raponline.org/featured-work/teach-the-duck-to-fl... http://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/02/base-load-power-is-a-myth-used-for-defending-the-fossil-fuel-industry/ http://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/02/base-load-power-is-a-myt... http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-power-myth-video/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/08/rmi-blows-lid-baseload-p...

harterrt 11y ago
But stored solar energy no longer undercuts coal for most of these storage technologies. Pumped hydro is probably the best bet, but is very geography dependent. Adding transmission is a non-trivial investment.
- zanny 11y ago
  > Pumped hydro is probably the best bet, but is very geography dependent. You could build surface level reservoirs as two tank hydroelectric dams, and then use the water as an energy reserve as well as freshwater reserve.
- thatcat 11y ago
  Rail storage is the cheaper, more versatile version of pumped hydro. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Grid-Scale-Rail-Energy-Storage-Project-Gets-Environmental-Approval-Fr https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Grid-Scal... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11595195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11595195
  - deelowe 11y ago
    The physics don't make sense for that one. Simple back of the envelope example: How much mass does a train need and/or how far does it need to fall to provide the same kinetic energy as a lake? We have a pumped hydro solution where I live. It's huge and only supplements a small power plant.
    - audunw 11y ago
      Why doesnt your back of the envelope calculation (did you do it?) match ARES analysis? Could they perhaps achieve high enough mass in a small volume by using eg. lead? Could it be that a train is more efficient at converting potential energy than a water turbine? Could it be that they have a longer drop? You gotta show your assumptions if you're arguing through back of the envelope calculation.
      - deelowe 11y ago
        Did they provide any calculations?
    - digler999 11y ago
      > the same kinetic energy as a lake Not all locations have a lake (or 2) conveniently located near a large elevation drop. The article says "They move up and down an 8-degree slope with an elevation change of about 3,000 feet", that's a lot of energy.
      - kwhitefoot 11y ago
        No it isn't. A Canadian bulk train 3km long and massing 20 000 tonne at an elevation of 1000m has a potential energy of 20M kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 1000 m = 196GJ = 54MW-hour. In the winter my house uses about 50kW-hour per day so that will keep about a thousand such houses running for one day. (130m^2, 1950's house, Norway). yes I know my house is not very energy efficient. A reservoir 10m deep and 45m square at the same elevation has the same potential energy. If you can find a convenient 1000m plateau I think it would probably be cheaper to build a reservoir on top than to build the tracks and trains.
- Osiris30 11y ago
  True - but it is also following the same cost reduction curve as Solar. See this for a comprehensive annual survey by Lazard on storage technologies and costs http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re...
  - harterrt 11y ago
    Not sure what you mean by "cost reduction curve". Can you expand?
    - Gibbon1 11y ago
      Every doubling of production tends to result in a percentage decrease in cost. I see numbers for batteries and other technologies of 15-25%
- epistasis 11y ago
  >Adding transmission is a non-trivial investment. Non-trivial in terms of size and politics, but an extremely solid one that will reduce the cost of electricity.
- AtlasLion 11y ago
  Molten Salts seems to be the way many solar plants are going (concentrated Solar ones versus Photo voltaic).

harterrt 11y ago

But stored solar energy no longer undercuts coal for most of these storage technologies. Pumped hydro is probably the best bet, but is very geography dependent. Adding transmission is a non-trivial investment.

zanny 11y ago
> Pumped hydro is probably the best bet, but is very geography dependent. You could build surface level reservoirs as two tank hydroelectric dams, and then use the water as an energy reserve as well as freshwater reserve.
thatcat 11y ago
Rail storage is the cheaper, more versatile version of pumped hydro. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Grid-Scale-Rail-Energy-Storage-Project-Gets-Environmental-Approval-Fr https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Grid-Scal... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11595195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11595195
- deelowe 11y ago
  The physics don't make sense for that one. Simple back of the envelope example: How much mass does a train need and/or how far does it need to fall to provide the same kinetic energy as a lake? We have a pumped hydro solution where I live. It's huge and only supplements a small power plant.
  - audunw 11y ago
    Why doesnt your back of the envelope calculation (did you do it?) match ARES analysis? Could they perhaps achieve high enough mass in a small volume by using eg. lead? Could it be that a train is more efficient at converting potential energy than a water turbine? Could it be that they have a longer drop? You gotta show your assumptions if you're arguing through back of the envelope calculation.
    - deelowe 11y ago
      Did they provide any calculations?
  - digler999 11y ago
    > the same kinetic energy as a lake Not all locations have a lake (or 2) conveniently located near a large elevation drop. The article says "They move up and down an 8-degree slope with an elevation change of about 3,000 feet", that's a lot of energy.
    - kwhitefoot 11y ago
      No it isn't. A Canadian bulk train 3km long and massing 20 000 tonne at an elevation of 1000m has a potential energy of 20M kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 1000 m = 196GJ = 54MW-hour. In the winter my house uses about 50kW-hour per day so that will keep about a thousand such houses running for one day. (130m^2, 1950's house, Norway). yes I know my house is not very energy efficient. A reservoir 10m deep and 45m square at the same elevation has the same potential energy. If you can find a convenient 1000m plateau I think it would probably be cheaper to build a reservoir on top than to build the tracks and trains.
Osiris30 11y ago
True - but it is also following the same cost reduction curve as Solar. See this for a comprehensive annual survey by Lazard on storage technologies and costs http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re...
- harterrt 11y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "cost reduction curve". Can you expand?
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    Every doubling of production tends to result in a percentage decrease in cost. I see numbers for batteries and other technologies of 15-25%
epistasis 11y ago
>Adding transmission is a non-trivial investment. Non-trivial in terms of size and politics, but an extremely solid one that will reduce the cost of electricity.
AtlasLion 11y ago
Molten Salts seems to be the way many solar plants are going (concentrated Solar ones versus Photo voltaic).