3 ms·

"Solar doesn’t work at night. Wind farms go idle when breezes slack. So until battery systems are cheap enough for generators to stockpile electricity for hours

"Solar doesn’t work at night. Wind farms go idle when breezes slack. So until battery systems are cheap enough for generators to stockpile electricity for hours at a time, renewables can’t constantly provide power like coal and gas." This is the crux of the problem. We don't just need cheaper batteries, we need entirely new battery/storage technology. Current battery production is an ecological disaster in and of itself. "Still, they’re starting to compete on their own. The proof is in the sales agreements. For years, clean-energy developers needed 20- or 25-year power-purchase contracts to ensure a return on investment. Now they’re building wind and solar farms with agreements for 15 years or less -- with the expectation that projects will compete against gas- and coal-fired plants in wholesale markets after the deals conclude." This may just be speculating that governments will be issuing all kinds of premiums on fossil technologies instead of directly subsidizing renewables, which is far more likely than actually switching to renewables.

beat 7y ago
Storing energy isn't exactly magical. Humans built the first dam nearly 3000 years ago. It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation and experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of these things work, and are known quantities. It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say "If we build a tank for compressed air that is volume X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build". This is completely ordinary engineering.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation and experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of these things work, and are known quantities. Everything is a matter of cost. If cost didn't matter, we could just suck up all the CO2 from the air. That technology already exists too, and it's a "known quantity". The problem is, cost does matter and there is such a thing as "prohibitively expensive", especially if we're looking at countries that aren't as wealthy. Furthermore, relative costs matter. What are we not building if we are building all this buffering infrastructure? > It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say "If we build a tank for compressed air that is volume X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build". This is completely ordinary engineering. Sure, but if B is too large, it just won't happen. That's why you need a technological breakthrough to get B within the realms of feasibility.
  - beat 7y ago
    I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. You aren't stating any numbers either, yet you seem very confident that it can work out. > Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS. Same to you, just a bunch of handwaving how it's totally possible, which I might call "simplistic BS" as well. I could give some of the source material that my opinions are based on, but then you will just complain about how the sources are biased or how the calculations are too pessimistic, and so on. Been there, done that, it's a waste of time. Therefore, I suggest you do your own research and believe what you want to believe. I don't care if you change your mind.
      - beat 7y ago
        Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping rapidly. Numerous nuclear plants in the US (and MANY coal plants) are being shut down before end-of-life, due to losing key customers to cheaper alternatives. It costs more to keep the plant running than to shut it down. We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections on storage needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps projection, and of course we know loads. So computing just how much storage is needed is a straightforward exercise. Tesla and other companies are stepping hard into the utility-scale storage game. It's a very exciting field because there are billions to be made. And there are billions to be made, because once costs drop below a certain line, wind/solar + storage will be cheaper than anything except fracked gas, and will take over the coal/nuclear markets as fast as it can be built. A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than you and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. That says more than any numbers I could throw at you.

beat 7y ago

Storing energy isn't exactly magical. Humans built the first dam nearly 3000 years ago. It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation and experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of these things work, and are known quantities. It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say "If we build a tank for compressed air that is volume X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build". This is completely ordinary engineering.

gridlockd 7y ago
> It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation and experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of these things work, and are known quantities. Everything is a matter of cost. If cost didn't matter, we could just suck up all the CO2 from the air. That technology already exists too, and it's a "known quantity". The problem is, cost does matter and there is such a thing as "prohibitively expensive", especially if we're looking at countries that aren't as wealthy. Furthermore, relative costs matter. What are we not building if we are building all this buffering infrastructure? > It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say "If we build a tank for compressed air that is volume X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build". This is completely ordinary engineering. Sure, but if B is too large, it just won't happen. That's why you need a technological breakthrough to get B within the realms of feasibility.
- beat 7y ago
  I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. You aren't stating any numbers either, yet you seem very confident that it can work out. > Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS. Same to you, just a bunch of handwaving how it's totally possible, which I might call "simplistic BS" as well. I could give some of the source material that my opinions are based on, but then you will just complain about how the sources are biased or how the calculations are too pessimistic, and so on. Been there, done that, it's a waste of time. Therefore, I suggest you do your own research and believe what you want to believe. I don't care if you change your mind.
    - beat 7y ago
      Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping rapidly. Numerous nuclear plants in the US (and MANY coal plants) are being shut down before end-of-life, due to losing key customers to cheaper alternatives. It costs more to keep the plant running than to shut it down. We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections on storage needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps projection, and of course we know loads. So computing just how much storage is needed is a straightforward exercise. Tesla and other companies are stepping hard into the utility-scale storage game. It's a very exciting field because there are billions to be made. And there are billions to be made, because once costs drop below a certain line, wind/solar + storage will be cheaper than anything except fracked gas, and will take over the coal/nuclear markets as fast as it can be built. A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than you and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. That says more than any numbers I could throw at you.