6 ms·

> To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, There is absolutely no need, of any kind, to store 3 days of US energy use. It's a complete strawman.

xyzzyz 7y ago
So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?
- eranimo 7y ago
  The wind is always blowing somewhere.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    What are the transmission power losses over large stretches of land?
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      2/3rds of the electricity produced in the US is lost in transmission: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ EDIT: this is actually wrong, I misinterpreted the diagram, see the comment below.
      - ggm 7y ago
        Go look at https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electr... I believe you mis-quoted the figures. You rolled up total conversion costs and bloated them into transmission losses.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    Tell that to someone stuck in a lift because of a power cut 1000km from where it blows.
- ggm 7y ago
  Have you actually found a confirmed reliable meteorology backed statement on a continent-wide, windless week? Compared to e.g. the current likelihood of catastrophic failure of parts of the net, Aurora effects on powerlines, Ice, Fire.. you're floating a strawman which has never been floated as a serious risk analysis: there isn't a single US distribution network, it is not a single integral thing, parts fail all the time, and more to the point, you haven't even demonstrated one weather system can produce no wind and no solar output for a week. Winter does not == the entire united states is black for 24h/day. The Rockies exist, and weather on the west coast is not like weather in the mid-west, or the east coast, all the time, for sustained week-long periods.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Of course it will provide some output. The issue here is that if you want the diminished power output in winter to cover the energy use in winter, you need to either store the summer energy in some way, or overbuild by adding additional generation capacity, so that in summer you have some good multiple generating capacity of what you actually need, especially if you account for transmission losses, which are 2/3rds of current electricity generation. The result is that the spot price of energy in summer will be extremely low, and so the capital costs of building solar panels will have to be recovered by selling winter energy, precisely when solar panels generate least power. This will push the cost of electricity from renewables through the roof: right now they are quite competitive, because they can sell it for good price in summer.
    - ggm 7y ago
      You don't seem to understand either pumped-hydro, or economics. Using hyperbolic language like "through the roof" when we cannot magically wave a wand to make a 100% renewables world in one go, but are approaching it asymptotically means that the pricing function, the costs, and the outcomes are not 'through the roof' but a function of where we are in a migration. I don't know how to predict the future reliably either. I just think the argument here is ridiculously reductive. We aren't on mars. The current systems exist, and won't be turned off overnight, and we don't have a single global network in the economy under discussion. Pricing and distribution and storage have to be approached, not arrived at suddenly, And have upside consequences like increased employment, which means the spend is not 'hole in the ground' but actually has net beneficial effects on the economy. To repeat what I said elsewhere you have mis-represented the 2/3 losses figure. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electr... (same source as you) is clear transmission losses are significantly different. You rolled up energy conversion and production losses from all sources which includes Coal and Gas and Oil and Nuclear.
- taneq 7y ago
  Solar panels? Even on the most heavily clouded days mine generate over 50% of nominal. And on that very rare windless, deeply overcast week, maybe we adapt and just don't run the tumble dryer or aircon for a week? Most house energy usage is pretty gratuitous and if you cut it back to lighting, refrigeration and entertainment you could get by on a few kWh a day. If you absolutely must have 100% uptime then $1000 will get you a diesel generator which would keep the batteries topped off if you ever need it. And if your argument is that someone living inside the arctic circle could find themselves becalmed for too long during the long night... then maybe back it up a notch and realise that 99% of humans don't live in those conditions and maybe the ones that do can still use some fuel oil.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    > If you absolutely must have 100% uptime then $1000 will get you a diesel generator which would keep the batteries topped off if you ever need it Ah, great, so every house that has food in a freezer or likes to stay warm in winter now has to buy and maintain a diesel generator. Welcome to the great new renewable world.
    - taneq 7y ago
      "Ha! It's not perfect in every conceivable future! This proves that it is worthless forever!"
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      There are other potential adaptations. We've developed a food distribution network dependent on a cold chain -- not only the ability to refrigerate or freeze product, but to maintain constant refrigeration from the process point to retail to the home until final consumption. This is not an inevitability, and it need not remain standard practice into the future. There are other methods of preserving food. They sacrifice convenience, freshness, and nutritional quality, but are tractable. Canning, fermentation, drying, and other preservation methods can make many foods long-term stable. Certain foods, especially fruit and vegetables, may need to be sourced fresh. This is where local production can be appropriate, including home or neighbourhood gardens. If meat is still to be consumed, the traditional method of keeping it fresh was to ship it live. Canned or salt beef and port were common prior to widespread refrigeration. How widely or enthusiastically such changes might be adopted becomes an interesting question. But as a long-term adaptation, this could well be a potential path. One key mindset to looking at radical changes to environment and resource regimes is to recognise that changes in underlying costs, abundance, and/or suitability may be radical changes in products, practices, and behaviours.
- apcragg 7y ago
  Is there any evidence that this ever happens? Or at least happens more frequently than say, a 1979 style fossile fuel shortage?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear? It isn't actually unreasonable to just say fossil fuels here. If we had to burn natural gas for a week every two years it would still represent a 99% reduction in carbon emissions. And on top of that, suppose we keep a week's supply of biofuels. They're not cost-competitive on a normal day, but you're not using them on a normal day.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    A week's supply of biofuels, given our current energy use of 101 quadrillion BTU/year, and assuming 100% efficiency, is 2 quadrillion BTU. At the peak of our production, we produced around 0.2 quadrillion BTU worth of biodiesel. This means that a week's supply of biofuels is around 10 years of production. Of course, in practice, if you overbuild renewable energy generation to a large enough multiple that will greatly increase the average cost of produced kWh, and if you keep most of the fossil fuel infrastructure on standby, then at the immense expense, and greatly increased energy prices, you could reduce CO2 emissions by switching to renewables. The real question is, why would you do so, if it would be much, much cheaper to just build enough nuclear plants to cover your needs. France managed to do it in the 70s., why can't we do it 50 years later?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > A week's supply of biofuels, given our current energy use of 101 quadrillion BTU/year, and assuming 100% efficiency, is 2 quadrillion BTU. At the peak of our production, we produced around 0.2 quadrillion BTU worth of biodiesel. This means that a week's supply of biofuels is around 10 years of production. We produce around ten times as many gallons of ethanol as biodiesel. It has about half as many BTUs, which implies we would need around two years of production. Not really a problem if we only need that much once every two years. It's also assuming we couldn't produce more than we do now, or do something more efficient like convert existing coal fired plants to burn biomass from algae. > The real question is, why would you do so, if it would be much, much cheaper to just build enough nuclear plants to cover your needs. France managed to do it in the 70s., why can't we do it 50 years later? Because we do whatever costs less. Nuclear plants are expensive. On the other hand, so is storage. It's not actually clear which one is going to cost less in the long term, so what we should probably be doing is building both at the same time. Which has the additional advantage of replacing fossil fuels even faster, because the two technologies have very little overlap in terms of either labor expertise or materials use, and complement one another in that there is more electricity demand during the day when solar is generating but there is still non-trivial demand at night which can be handled by nuclear. They're not coming at the expense of one another, they're both coming at the expense of fossil fuels, so the more the merrier.

xyzzyz 7y ago

So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?

eranimo 7y ago
The wind is always blowing somewhere.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  What are the transmission power losses over large stretches of land?
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    2/3rds of the electricity produced in the US is lost in transmission: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ EDIT: this is actually wrong, I misinterpreted the diagram, see the comment below.
    - ggm 7y ago
      Go look at https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electr... I believe you mis-quoted the figures. You rolled up total conversion costs and bloated them into transmission losses.
- cm2187 7y ago
  Tell that to someone stuck in a lift because of a power cut 1000km from where it blows.
ggm 7y ago
Have you actually found a confirmed reliable meteorology backed statement on a continent-wide, windless week? Compared to e.g. the current likelihood of catastrophic failure of parts of the net, Aurora effects on powerlines, Ice, Fire.. you're floating a strawman which has never been floated as a serious risk analysis: there isn't a single US distribution network, it is not a single integral thing, parts fail all the time, and more to the point, you haven't even demonstrated one weather system can produce no wind and no solar output for a week. Winter does not == the entire united states is black for 24h/day. The Rockies exist, and weather on the west coast is not like weather in the mid-west, or the east coast, all the time, for sustained week-long periods.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Of course it will provide some output. The issue here is that if you want the diminished power output in winter to cover the energy use in winter, you need to either store the summer energy in some way, or overbuild by adding additional generation capacity, so that in summer you have some good multiple generating capacity of what you actually need, especially if you account for transmission losses, which are 2/3rds of current electricity generation. The result is that the spot price of energy in summer will be extremely low, and so the capital costs of building solar panels will have to be recovered by selling winter energy, precisely when solar panels generate least power. This will push the cost of electricity from renewables through the roof: right now they are quite competitive, because they can sell it for good price in summer.
  - ggm 7y ago
    You don't seem to understand either pumped-hydro, or economics. Using hyperbolic language like "through the roof" when we cannot magically wave a wand to make a 100% renewables world in one go, but are approaching it asymptotically means that the pricing function, the costs, and the outcomes are not 'through the roof' but a function of where we are in a migration. I don't know how to predict the future reliably either. I just think the argument here is ridiculously reductive. We aren't on mars. The current systems exist, and won't be turned off overnight, and we don't have a single global network in the economy under discussion. Pricing and distribution and storage have to be approached, not arrived at suddenly, And have upside consequences like increased employment, which means the spend is not 'hole in the ground' but actually has net beneficial effects on the economy. To repeat what I said elsewhere you have mis-represented the 2/3 losses figure. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electr... (same source as you) is clear transmission losses are significantly different. You rolled up energy conversion and production losses from all sources which includes Coal and Gas and Oil and Nuclear.
taneq 7y ago
Solar panels? Even on the most heavily clouded days mine generate over 50% of nominal. And on that very rare windless, deeply overcast week, maybe we adapt and just don't run the tumble dryer or aircon for a week? Most house energy usage is pretty gratuitous and if you cut it back to lighting, refrigeration and entertainment you could get by on a few kWh a day. If you absolutely must have 100% uptime then $1000 will get you a diesel generator which would keep the batteries topped off if you ever need it. And if your argument is that someone living inside the arctic circle could find themselves becalmed for too long during the long night... then maybe back it up a notch and realise that 99% of humans don't live in those conditions and maybe the ones that do can still use some fuel oil.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  > If you absolutely must have 100% uptime then $1000 will get you a diesel generator which would keep the batteries topped off if you ever need it Ah, great, so every house that has food in a freezer or likes to stay warm in winter now has to buy and maintain a diesel generator. Welcome to the great new renewable world.
  - taneq 7y ago
    "Ha! It's not perfect in every conceivable future! This proves that it is worthless forever!"
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    There are other potential adaptations. We've developed a food distribution network dependent on a cold chain -- not only the ability to refrigerate or freeze product, but to maintain constant refrigeration from the process point to retail to the home until final consumption. This is not an inevitability, and it need not remain standard practice into the future. There are other methods of preserving food. They sacrifice convenience, freshness, and nutritional quality, but are tractable. Canning, fermentation, drying, and other preservation methods can make many foods long-term stable. Certain foods, especially fruit and vegetables, may need to be sourced fresh. This is where local production can be appropriate, including home or neighbourhood gardens. If meat is still to be consumed, the traditional method of keeping it fresh was to ship it live. Canned or salt beef and port were common prior to widespread refrigeration. How widely or enthusiastically such changes might be adopted becomes an interesting question. But as a long-term adaptation, this could well be a potential path. One key mindset to looking at radical changes to environment and resource regimes is to recognise that changes in underlying costs, abundance, and/or suitability may be radical changes in products, practices, and behaviours.
apcragg 7y ago
Is there any evidence that this ever happens? Or at least happens more frequently than say, a 1979 style fossile fuel shortage?
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear? It isn't actually unreasonable to just say fossil fuels here. If we had to burn natural gas for a week every two years it would still represent a 99% reduction in carbon emissions. And on top of that, suppose we keep a week's supply of biofuels. They're not cost-competitive on a normal day, but you're not using them on a normal day.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  A week's supply of biofuels, given our current energy use of 101 quadrillion BTU/year, and assuming 100% efficiency, is 2 quadrillion BTU. At the peak of our production, we produced around 0.2 quadrillion BTU worth of biodiesel. This means that a week's supply of biofuels is around 10 years of production. Of course, in practice, if you overbuild renewable energy generation to a large enough multiple that will greatly increase the average cost of produced kWh, and if you keep most of the fossil fuel infrastructure on standby, then at the immense expense, and greatly increased energy prices, you could reduce CO2 emissions by switching to renewables. The real question is, why would you do so, if it would be much, much cheaper to just build enough nuclear plants to cover your needs. France managed to do it in the 70s., why can't we do it 50 years later?
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > A week's supply of biofuels, given our current energy use of 101 quadrillion BTU/year, and assuming 100% efficiency, is 2 quadrillion BTU. At the peak of our production, we produced around 0.2 quadrillion BTU worth of biodiesel. This means that a week's supply of biofuels is around 10 years of production. We produce around ten times as many gallons of ethanol as biodiesel. It has about half as many BTUs, which implies we would need around two years of production. Not really a problem if we only need that much once every two years. It's also assuming we couldn't produce more than we do now, or do something more efficient like convert existing coal fired plants to burn biomass from algae. > The real question is, why would you do so, if it would be much, much cheaper to just build enough nuclear plants to cover your needs. France managed to do it in the 70s., why can't we do it 50 years later? Because we do whatever costs less. Nuclear plants are expensive. On the other hand, so is storage. It's not actually clear which one is going to cost less in the long term, so what we should probably be doing is building both at the same time. Which has the additional advantage of replacing fossil fuels even faster, because the two technologies have very little overlap in terms of either labor expertise or materials use, and complement one another in that there is more electricity demand during the day when solar is generating but there is still non-trivial demand at night which can be handled by nuclear. They're not coming at the expense of one another, they're both coming at the expense of fossil fuels, so the more the merrier.