4 ms·

There's not a lot of options yet for base load. We need a lot more storage, or an environmentally friendly and reliable source for base load. Nuclear would fit,

There's not a lot of options yet for base load. We need a lot more storage, or an environmentally friendly and reliable source for base load. Nuclear would fit, clearly, but it's not financially viable, moreso than coal right now. It's a very hard problem, and it'll take time to sort out with "the market", but building storage from dams and lakes and reservoir would be a good start. Batteries might not be the best for the environment unless we can efficiently recycle the minerals in them rather than mine them, since that is almost as bad as mining the coal. We should also look into geothermal and other sources that we've left behind in favor of oil and coal. Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so i can't reply, but thanks for the comment about batteries, they're good for decarbonization but maybe not great for the environment in the mining of the materials. Maybe that's an okay trade off.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
It's about 6,000 Tesla Megapacks worth of utility scale energy storage in the US [1] to carry you through periods of intermittent renewables generation, along with a more robust transmission network so renewable generation can more readily flow to load centers. Tesla is already under contract to provide these storage systems in California for PG&E (1.1 Gwh facility in Monterey County) [2] [3]. For example, quite a bit of wind energy can't make it out of Texas because of lack of interconnection capacity between ERCOT (Texas' electric system operator) and other grids, so you need funding for upgrading interconnectors. Upgrading electrical infra isn't sexy, but is very much a necessary expense. Very few areas are geographically suitable for pumped hydro storage, and batteries can be recycled today with existing supply chains. Batteries can also be rapidly shipped and installed (see: Hornsdale Power Reserve, installed in 100 days). With regards to generation, "all of the above" that is low carbon. As the cost of renewables approaches less than a penny a kWh (we’re just about there for utility scale projects), the majority of your costs are storage and distribution infrastructure. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20814930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20814930 [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-battery-plant-approved-in-california-is-10x-bigger-than-worlds-biggest-battery-plant/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-battery... [3] https://energycentral.com/news/tesla-pge-get-approval-proposed-11-gw-storage-facility-california https://energycentral.com/news/tesla-pge-get-approval-propos...
- csours 6y ago
  From your 2 - they are approved to construct a 1.2 GWh energy storage facility. If a car took 100 kWh of battery capacity (to use round numbers), the storage facility mentioned would use 10,000 vehicles equivalent storage. (If you use 25 kWh vehicle equivalent, it would be 50,000 vehicles, etc)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- jhallenworld 6y ago
  It's exciting to see "Lead Carbon" batteries become common, for example as a lower cost (than switching to Lithium) upgrade to deep cycle marine lead acid batteries for people who live on their boat. It will be interesting to see how well they hold up in practice. https://www.solar-wind.co.uk/off-grid-power-blog/post/lead-carbon-batteries.html https://www.solar-wind.co.uk/off-grid-power-blog/post/lead-c... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOlnKXX5Yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOlnKXX5Yg
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  I'd like to read the assumptions behind the 6000 figure, but your citation goes to another post you wrote which itself cites a Tesla blog post without that information.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Will have to come back with real math. My original comment was "back of napkin" quickly for the thread it's in.
    - reitzensteinm 6y ago
      Mainly I'd like to see the extent to which you're planning to overbuild renewables. How much storage we need isn't really a value that can be answered in isolation.
nwallin 6y ago
Natural gas is cheaper, produces less greenhouse emissions, can be ramped up/down quicker, and produces less other toxic emissions (fly ash is horrible stuff) per kWh than coal. It's better in every way than coal. The only reason China is still building coal is because they're China and they don't give a fuck. re: batteries and mining lithium/cobalt. Sure, mining 1lb of lithium/cobalt isn't any better than mining 1lb of coal, but that 1lb of lithium/cobalt takes you a lot further. You can only burn that 1lb of coal once, but you can cycle that 1lb of lithium/cobalt daily. From a purely environmental standpoint specifically with regards to mining, batteries are still better. However, I don't think the economics are there yet. It will probably be sometime soon though.
- jwilliamson 6y ago
  China doesn't produce much natural gas domestically, and the last few years have been a lesson to them in how dangerous relying on other countries for manufacturing inputs is.
  - herdodoodo 6y ago
    If I'm not wrong, I'm pretty sure they have to import anthracite from Aus, because the coal they have domestically is lignite and bituminous. On another note, China has slowed down coal production not because of carbon dioxide output, but because of all the acute toxins/pollutants emitted by coal plants. Carbon dioxide is a compound that only developed countries care about, because it has few short term consequences and whose effects aren't observed by your avg. person. Your avg. person, however, does feel the effects of nasty air and acid rain, caused by nitrates/sulfates released by coal plants. This is the chief reason China will publicize moving away from coal. Because of air pollution and acid rain, not because of climate change.
    - namibj 6y ago
      It's not hard to filter ash and sulfur out of a coal-fired power plant's exhaust. In fact, it's normal for their brother "waste incinerator power plant", at least here in Germany.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

It's about 6,000 Tesla Megapacks worth of utility scale energy storage in the US [1] to carry you through periods of intermittent renewables generation, along with a more robust transmission network so renewable generation can more readily flow to load centers. Tesla is already under contract to provide these storage systems in California for PG&E (1.1 Gwh facility in Monterey County) [2] [3]. For example, quite a bit of wind energy can't make it out of Texas because of lack of interconnection capacity between ERCOT (Texas' electric system operator) and other grids, so you need funding for upgrading interconnectors. Upgrading electrical infra isn't sexy, but is very much a necessary expense. Very few areas are geographically suitable for pumped hydro storage, and batteries can be recycled today with existing supply chains. Batteries can also be rapidly shipped and installed (see: Hornsdale Power Reserve, installed in 100 days). With regards to generation, "all of the above" that is low carbon. As the cost of renewables approaches less than a penny a kWh (we’re just about there for utility scale projects), the majority of your costs are storage and distribution infrastructure. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20814930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20814930 [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-battery-plant-approved-in-california-is-10x-bigger-than-worlds-biggest-battery-plant/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-battery... [3] https://energycentral.com/news/tesla-pge-get-approval-proposed-11-gw-storage-facility-california https://energycentral.com/news/tesla-pge-get-approval-propos...

csours 6y ago
From your 2 - they are approved to construct a 1.2 GWh energy storage facility. If a car took 100 kWh of battery capacity (to use round numbers), the storage facility mentioned would use 10,000 vehicles equivalent storage. (If you use 25 kWh vehicle equivalent, it would be 50,000 vehicles, etc)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jhallenworld 6y ago
It's exciting to see "Lead Carbon" batteries become common, for example as a lower cost (than switching to Lithium) upgrade to deep cycle marine lead acid batteries for people who live on their boat. It will be interesting to see how well they hold up in practice. https://www.solar-wind.co.uk/off-grid-power-blog/post/lead-carbon-batteries.html https://www.solar-wind.co.uk/off-grid-power-blog/post/lead-c... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOlnKXX5Yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOlnKXX5Yg
reitzensteinm 6y ago
I'd like to read the assumptions behind the 6000 figure, but your citation goes to another post you wrote which itself cites a Tesla blog post without that information.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Will have to come back with real math. My original comment was "back of napkin" quickly for the thread it's in.
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    Mainly I'd like to see the extent to which you're planning to overbuild renewables. How much storage we need isn't really a value that can be answered in isolation.

nwallin 6y ago

Natural gas is cheaper, produces less greenhouse emissions, can be ramped up/down quicker, and produces less other toxic emissions (fly ash is horrible stuff) per kWh than coal. It's better in every way than coal. The only reason China is still building coal is because they're China and they don't give a fuck. re: batteries and mining lithium/cobalt. Sure, mining 1lb of lithium/cobalt isn't any better than mining 1lb of coal, but that 1lb of lithium/cobalt takes you a lot further. You can only burn that 1lb of coal once, but you can cycle that 1lb of lithium/cobalt daily. From a purely environmental standpoint specifically with regards to mining, batteries are still better. However, I don't think the economics are there yet. It will probably be sometime soon though.

jwilliamson 6y ago
China doesn't produce much natural gas domestically, and the last few years have been a lesson to them in how dangerous relying on other countries for manufacturing inputs is.
- herdodoodo 6y ago
  If I'm not wrong, I'm pretty sure they have to import anthracite from Aus, because the coal they have domestically is lignite and bituminous. On another note, China has slowed down coal production not because of carbon dioxide output, but because of all the acute toxins/pollutants emitted by coal plants. Carbon dioxide is a compound that only developed countries care about, because it has few short term consequences and whose effects aren't observed by your avg. person. Your avg. person, however, does feel the effects of nasty air and acid rain, caused by nitrates/sulfates released by coal plants. This is the chief reason China will publicize moving away from coal. Because of air pollution and acid rain, not because of climate change.
  - namibj 6y ago
    It's not hard to filter ash and sulfur out of a coal-fired power plant's exhaust. In fact, it's normal for their brother "waste incinerator power plant", at least here in Germany.