6 ms·

With free fuel and falling supply chain costs this is all well and good. Worth noting is that the value of solar electricity goes down fairly sharply as a funct

With free fuel and falling supply chain costs this is all well and good. Worth noting is that the value of solar electricity goes down fairly sharply as a function of market penetration because of the intermittency. Once you start adding massive chemical electricity storage costs and environmental impacts get more gnarly.

murph-almighty 8y ago
What kind of environmental impacts? Also, what do we do with dead solar panels? Is there a recycling program, or research going into such a thing? I'm so excited for this news and I feel like these are pretty minor cons though.
- phinnaeus 8y ago
  Giant batteries aren't great for the environment because they involve heavy mining.
  - jerrycruncher 8y ago
    And have a one to two decade lifespan, at best. After which you have to dispose of them.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      They are fully recyclable and aren't dangerous to do so.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      Lithium polymer batteries are highly recyclable, they primarily just have to be unwound, possibly reformed if something structurally changes in the cathode/anode, and the trace elements need to be washed off and processed.
      - jerrycruncher 8y ago
        Mea culpa. Thanks for the info!
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Lithium is harvested from evaporation pools, not mined. If you're referring to cobalt content, there are several researchers working to remove the need for that element from the production process.
- dnissley 8y ago
  I'm guessing they meant battery production, which requires the mining of rare-earth elements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element#Environmental_Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element#Environment...
  - tedsanders 8y ago
    Batteries do not use rare-earth elements (as far as I am aware). You may be thinking of cobalt, which is expensive and mostly mined in the Congo. Reducing the cobalt content of cathodes is a big priority for the industry: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/cobalt-free-car-batteries-in-the-works-for-panasonic-tesla/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/cobalt-free-car-batteri...
bunderbunder 8y ago
I'm curious to know why other storage methods aren't taking off more. I would have assumed that the long-term costs of something like hauling something heavy up a hill (which could easily be a manmade earthworks in flat areas) would be quite a bit lower, on account of the equipment in question having a longer life span than batteries.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  The keyword here is energy density. Batteries are really good when measured in electrical energy stored per volume. Your proposed mechanical potential energy store (lifting mass) cannot compete. The amount of stored energy is aurprisingly low in comparison. I did the math over a decade ago because I had the same idea and the numbers were underwhelming.
  - lutorm 8y ago
    Yeah, but energy density isn't really significant. You may get less energy out of a m^3 of water pumped to a reservoir than you get out of a m^3 of battery, but even the smallest reservoir has a usable volume that probably surpasses the volume of all batteries ever built. You can just keep pumping.
    - gmueckl 8y ago
      No, you can't just keep pumping. To build a reservoir at the scale that you seem to imagine, you depend on locations that provide a suitable topography. Very few such places exist.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The energy density of gravity storage is terrible. But there's still a few plans for it: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-grid-rock-filled-train-hill/ https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-gri... > 9,600 tons of rock- and concrete-filled railcars up a 2,000-foot hill. > $55 million > The Nevada project has a power capacity of 50 megawatts and can produce 12.5 megawatt-hours of energy. Using the 4 cents/kWh figure upstream, that's ... $500 of electricity per round trip.
nl 8y ago
Reflow batteries have low environmental impact, and are cheaper than lithium ion. The only real downside is that they are about 25% mode bulky for the same energy storage, but for many domestic installations this isn't a big problem. Many solar plants are now pairing with large scale energy storage facilities too (eg, liquid salt, pump hydro, even some batteries).
Arnt 8y ago
Right. So why add "massive" chemical etc? People who install solar panels have a choice: ⓐ Restrict their power usage at night, ⓑ install batteries or blah, or ⓒ get power elsewhere. Or a combination. Many people seem to think that option ⓐ does not exist. Ie. ⓑ+ⓒ has to be massive as you put it, because ⓐ cannot lighten the load.
- prewett 8y ago
  Ooh, I really like your usage of ⓐ. How do you type those without looking them up on a Unicode chart and copy/pasting?
  - Arnt 8y ago
    I use linux/X11, with a compose key and a large repertoire. If I type compose ( 4 ) (that's four keystrokes, in sequence) I get ④, compose ~ e gives me ẽ, which I'm sure some language uses but I've no idea which. http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/xcompose http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/xcompose describes my configuration (as it once was).
WalterBright 8y ago
Again, I'll bring up what nobody seems to mention. With minute-by-minute pricing of electricity, intermittent supply problems can be greatly mitigated without batteries, peaker plants, etc. On the consumer side, elastic electricity uses can be switched on/off through an app connected to the internet. Elastic uses are things like charging car batteries, electric water heaters, A/C, refrigerator, etc.
- sp332 8y ago
  Peaker plants are expensive to run and electricity from them is priced accordingly. If peaker plants are turning on, it's because no cheaper source of electricity was able to meet demand, and demand was inelastic enough to pay the higher prices.
  - briffle 8y ago
    Peaker plants are now more [1] expensive than solar+battery storage. And battery storage that without solar (ie, soaking up night time base-load) are even cheaper. [1] https://electrek.co/2017/12/13/solar-batteries-to-take-10gw-natural-gas/ https://electrek.co/2017/12/13/solar-batteries-to-take-10gw-...
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    My electric rates are fixed at the same price, 24/7. Trying to maintain this will be very expensive for the grid when faced with fluctuating supply. Are there any utilities in the US that offer minute-by-minute pricing, or even hour-by-hour? If not, then we cannot conclude that demand is inelastic.
- rb808 8y ago
  Agreed, I wanted this but the utility can't even do day by day metering.

murph-almighty 8y ago

What kind of environmental impacts? Also, what do we do with dead solar panels? Is there a recycling program, or research going into such a thing? I'm so excited for this news and I feel like these are pretty minor cons though.

phinnaeus 8y ago
Giant batteries aren't great for the environment because they involve heavy mining.
- jerrycruncher 8y ago
  And have a one to two decade lifespan, at best. After which you have to dispose of them.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    They are fully recyclable and aren't dangerous to do so.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Lithium polymer batteries are highly recyclable, they primarily just have to be unwound, possibly reformed if something structurally changes in the cathode/anode, and the trace elements need to be washed off and processed.
    - jerrycruncher 8y ago
      Mea culpa. Thanks for the info!
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Lithium is harvested from evaporation pools, not mined. If you're referring to cobalt content, there are several researchers working to remove the need for that element from the production process.
dnissley 8y ago
I'm guessing they meant battery production, which requires the mining of rare-earth elements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element#Environmental_Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element#Environment...
- tedsanders 8y ago
  Batteries do not use rare-earth elements (as far as I am aware). You may be thinking of cobalt, which is expensive and mostly mined in the Congo. Reducing the cobalt content of cathodes is a big priority for the industry: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/cobalt-free-car-batteries-in-the-works-for-panasonic-tesla/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/cobalt-free-car-batteri...

bunderbunder 8y ago

I'm curious to know why other storage methods aren't taking off more. I would have assumed that the long-term costs of something like hauling something heavy up a hill (which could easily be a manmade earthworks in flat areas) would be quite a bit lower, on account of the equipment in question having a longer life span than batteries.

gmueckl 8y ago
The keyword here is energy density. Batteries are really good when measured in electrical energy stored per volume. Your proposed mechanical potential energy store (lifting mass) cannot compete. The amount of stored energy is aurprisingly low in comparison. I did the math over a decade ago because I had the same idea and the numbers were underwhelming.
- lutorm 8y ago
  Yeah, but energy density isn't really significant. You may get less energy out of a m^3 of water pumped to a reservoir than you get out of a m^3 of battery, but even the smallest reservoir has a usable volume that probably surpasses the volume of all batteries ever built. You can just keep pumping.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    No, you can't just keep pumping. To build a reservoir at the scale that you seem to imagine, you depend on locations that provide a suitable topography. Very few such places exist.
pjc50 8y ago
The energy density of gravity storage is terrible. But there's still a few plans for it: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-grid-rock-filled-train-hill/ https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-gri... > 9,600 tons of rock- and concrete-filled railcars up a 2,000-foot hill. > $55 million > The Nevada project has a power capacity of 50 megawatts and can produce 12.5 megawatt-hours of energy. Using the 4 cents/kWh figure upstream, that's ... $500 of electricity per round trip.

nl 8y ago

Reflow batteries have low environmental impact, and are cheaper than lithium ion. The only real downside is that they are about 25% mode bulky for the same energy storage, but for many domestic installations this isn't a big problem. Many solar plants are now pairing with large scale energy storage facilities too (eg, liquid salt, pump hydro, even some batteries).

Arnt 8y ago

Right. So why add "massive" chemical etc? People who install solar panels have a choice: ⓐ Restrict their power usage at night, ⓑ install batteries or blah, or ⓒ get power elsewhere. Or a combination. Many people seem to think that option ⓐ does not exist. Ie. ⓑ+ⓒ has to be massive as you put it, because ⓐ cannot lighten the load.

prewett 8y ago
Ooh, I really like your usage of ⓐ. How do you type those without looking them up on a Unicode chart and copy/pasting?
- Arnt 8y ago
  I use linux/X11, with a compose key and a large repertoire. If I type compose ( 4 ) (that's four keystrokes, in sequence) I get ④, compose ~ e gives me ẽ, which I'm sure some language uses but I've no idea which. http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/xcompose http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/xcompose describes my configuration (as it once was).

WalterBright 8y ago

Again, I'll bring up what nobody seems to mention. With minute-by-minute pricing of electricity, intermittent supply problems can be greatly mitigated without batteries, peaker plants, etc. On the consumer side, elastic electricity uses can be switched on/off through an app connected to the internet. Elastic uses are things like charging car batteries, electric water heaters, A/C, refrigerator, etc.

sp332 8y ago
Peaker plants are expensive to run and electricity from them is priced accordingly. If peaker plants are turning on, it's because no cheaper source of electricity was able to meet demand, and demand was inelastic enough to pay the higher prices.
- briffle 8y ago
  Peaker plants are now more [1] expensive than solar+battery storage. And battery storage that without solar (ie, soaking up night time base-load) are even cheaper. [1] https://electrek.co/2017/12/13/solar-batteries-to-take-10gw-natural-gas/ https://electrek.co/2017/12/13/solar-batteries-to-take-10gw-...
- WalterBright 8y ago
  My electric rates are fixed at the same price, 24/7. Trying to maintain this will be very expensive for the grid when faced with fluctuating supply. Are there any utilities in the US that offer minute-by-minute pricing, or even hour-by-hour? If not, then we cannot conclude that demand is inelastic.
rb808 8y ago
Agreed, I wanted this but the utility can't even do day by day metering.