8 ms·

From what I heard from people in the solar business battery is generally not a good idea. Better to invest in a good grid where we can transfer electricity from

by plufz 7y ago

From what I heard from people in the solar business battery is generally not a good idea. Better to invest in a good grid where we can transfer electricity from one place to another (there’s always windy somewhere). And have some sort of backup power plants on the lowest days (like natural gas, biofuel, etc, not co2 free but they wouldn’t be used very often from what I understand). Or alternative “batteries” like pumping up a lot of water in some dam.

Gibbon1 7y ago
I like to point out the efficiency gains and load shifting will also reduce off peek demand somewhat. Industrial users will chase lowest cost if possible. If electricity costs 3X at 1am the price at 11am, no ones going to be running an electric furnace at 1am. Either way I'm actually rather confident that the whole storage thing is more or less solvable. Since there are a host of technologies that are workable. So it's slightly pointless argue as some do that lack of current solutions is a reason not to move forward with renewables. Worst comes to worst we already have peaking plants that could substitute for baseload power.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 7y ago
  I think there's miscommunication. > lack of current solutions is a reason not to move forward with renewables No one is saying we shouldn't move forward with renewables. Well maybe a certain canine news network, but not anyone here. > Either way I'm actually rather confident that the whole storage thing is more or less solvable. Since there are a host of technologies that are workable. What people are saying is there isn't good enough technology yet. So that means that we need to continue funding research. Not being solved means that just building won't be the solution. That we need to spend some serious money researching. That's what people mean by "battery tech isn't there yet". It isn't a defeatist attitude, it is a "continuing and doubling down on research is an important part of the equation" type of attitude. This is typically because that kind of research isn't done by the private sector, but rather government. DOE does a lot of this funding, and even funds a lot of the research being done in the private sector. So being vocal about this means we care and hopefully those in control of allocating that money (probably not by Rick Perry) will spend more on fixing that part of the equation while the private sector does the building out part.
sfifs 7y ago
There's significant power loss in transmission on grid and to avoid power loss, you need fairly expensive equipment to convert to and from high voltage. If you are adding wind to the mix and working on an AC grid as normal, phase sync is also tricky. Electricity supply on grid has to be very closely matched to demand and the problem will likely become fairly complex with lots variable sources. A lot of problems potentially go away if you push renewable to significant battery storage first and you also get a much more resilient grid to natural disasters (see Puerto Rico's situation)
- godelski 7y ago
  For an interesting graphic along these lines see [0]. The parent of this comment is talking about increasing the efficiency (reducing rejected energy) and the gp is talking about just increasing the total amount of energy. Both are solutions. But I wouldn't say it is a good thing we reject more than half the energy we create. [0] https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2018.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...
  - sfifs 7y ago
    As an addendum - explanation of the electricity distribution losses on grid: https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1 https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-po...
    - godelski 7y ago
      Because there's confusion I'm adding an addendum to the addendum. Here's an LLNL scientist explaining the graph. Which he does talk about the rejected energy [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI
  - strainer 7y ago
    > But I wouldn't say it is a good thing we reject more than half the energy we create. The meaning of "Rejected Energy" in that graphic is obscure but it certainly doesn't relate to energy which has been created and rejected. It may relate to excess capacity of fossil fuel plants (how much more they could produce if ordered to burn more fuel). The US is thankfully not "rejecting" twice as much energy as it is producing as those figures of 68.5 vs 32.7 lead you to believe. Curtailment of wind and solar generation in the US is recently around 2-4% [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/mark-specht/renewable-energy-curtailment-101 https://blog.ucsusa.org/mark-specht/renewable-energy-curtail...
greglindahl 7y ago
The battery business is a great idea today for grid stabilization, is getting there for peak demand shaving for customers, and the cost is falling.
rickycook 7y ago
from what i understand (and i could be wrong), you could make biofuels using atmospheric co2, alguae, heat from the grid during low demand... when you burn it, it releases that co2, but when you’re not it acts as a big carbon sink could be totally off base, or very much a “not yet industrialised” process... but the idea is super cool none the less
- imtringued 7y ago
  The efficiency is too low for day to day storage but for month to month storage it might work.

by plufz 7y ago

Gibbon1 7y ago

I like to point out the efficiency gains and load shifting will also reduce off peek demand somewhat. Industrial users will chase lowest cost if possible. If electricity costs 3X at 1am the price at 11am, no ones going to be running an electric furnace at 1am. Either way I'm actually rather confident that the whole storage thing is more or less solvable. Since there are a host of technologies that are workable. So it's slightly pointless argue as some do that lack of current solutions is a reason not to move forward with renewables. Worst comes to worst we already have peaking plants that could substitute for baseload power.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
godelski 7y ago
I think there's miscommunication. > lack of current solutions is a reason not to move forward with renewables No one is saying we shouldn't move forward with renewables. Well maybe a certain canine news network, but not anyone here. > Either way I'm actually rather confident that the whole storage thing is more or less solvable. Since there are a host of technologies that are workable. What people are saying is there isn't good enough technology yet. So that means that we need to continue funding research. Not being solved means that just building won't be the solution. That we need to spend some serious money researching. That's what people mean by "battery tech isn't there yet". It isn't a defeatist attitude, it is a "continuing and doubling down on research is an important part of the equation" type of attitude. This is typically because that kind of research isn't done by the private sector, but rather government. DOE does a lot of this funding, and even funds a lot of the research being done in the private sector. So being vocal about this means we care and hopefully those in control of allocating that money (probably not by Rick Perry) will spend more on fixing that part of the equation while the private sector does the building out part.

sfifs 7y ago

There's significant power loss in transmission on grid and to avoid power loss, you need fairly expensive equipment to convert to and from high voltage. If you are adding wind to the mix and working on an AC grid as normal, phase sync is also tricky. Electricity supply on grid has to be very closely matched to demand and the problem will likely become fairly complex with lots variable sources. A lot of problems potentially go away if you push renewable to significant battery storage first and you also get a much more resilient grid to natural disasters (see Puerto Rico's situation)

godelski 7y ago
For an interesting graphic along these lines see [0]. The parent of this comment is talking about increasing the efficiency (reducing rejected energy) and the gp is talking about just increasing the total amount of energy. Both are solutions. But I wouldn't say it is a good thing we reject more than half the energy we create. [0] https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2018.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...
- sfifs 7y ago
  As an addendum - explanation of the electricity distribution losses on grid: https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1 https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-po...
  - godelski 7y ago
    Because there's confusion I'm adding an addendum to the addendum. Here's an LLNL scientist explaining the graph. Which he does talk about the rejected energy [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI
- strainer 7y ago
  > But I wouldn't say it is a good thing we reject more than half the energy we create. The meaning of "Rejected Energy" in that graphic is obscure but it certainly doesn't relate to energy which has been created and rejected. It may relate to excess capacity of fossil fuel plants (how much more they could produce if ordered to burn more fuel). The US is thankfully not "rejecting" twice as much energy as it is producing as those figures of 68.5 vs 32.7 lead you to believe. Curtailment of wind and solar generation in the US is recently around 2-4% [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/mark-specht/renewable-energy-curtailment-101 https://blog.ucsusa.org/mark-specht/renewable-energy-curtail...

greglindahl 7y ago

The battery business is a great idea today for grid stabilization, is getting there for peak demand shaving for customers, and the cost is falling.

rickycook 7y ago

from what i understand (and i could be wrong), you could make biofuels using atmospheric co2, alguae, heat from the grid during low demand... when you burn it, it releases that co2, but when you’re not it acts as a big carbon sink could be totally off base, or very much a “not yet industrialised” process... but the idea is super cool none the less

imtringued 7y ago
The efficiency is too low for day to day storage but for month to month storage it might work.