3 ms·

>Solar and wind and storage What storage? The reality is that there is no storage solution that is capable of storing enough energy to power even a modestly si

>Solar and wind and storage What storage? The reality is that there is no storage solution that is capable of storing enough energy to power even a modestly sized city for days or even hours (or minutes for that matter). Certain approaches, like gravity-based storage, also require particular geography. Did you notice that there is no region on earth that gets 100% of their power from solar/wind/storage? Why is that? Why is Germany signing multi-decade, mulit-billion-dollar deals to build pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades still? And any region that claims 100% fossil-fuel free power ALWAYS relies on hydro, nuclear or geothermal to achieve that level. Why is that?

pfdietz 6y ago
Diurnal storage via batteries or pumped hydro, long term storage via hydrogen. The combinations now optimize to 0% nuclear. Hydrogen round trip efficiency is low but the very low cost per kWh of storage capacity makes it win for long term storage. That no location is currently 100% renewable is an obviously irrelevant point. I m talking about 100% CO2-free solutions. And new nuclear not sunk costed existing power plants.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  You're just throwing things against the barn door hoping something sticks. Every proponent of renewables has a favorite miraculous battery technology that solves the intermittency problem. And yet I look at world, and nobody has actually deployed any storage technology at scale (and by 'scale', I mean using some battery technology that stores enough energy to power a modestly sized city of a few hundred thousands people for even a few hours).
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    What I'm adding here is not miraculous new battery technology. It's hydrogen for long term storage. All the components of that exist and are proven. It's just a matter of integrating them. This is the most reliable and easiest kind of innovation, and it's the death knell for nuclear.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      Why hasn't it been deployed thus far? Is anyone planning to deploy it? Are there ongoing projects to deploy it at scale? > All the components of that exist and are proven. All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        > Why hasn't it been deployed thus far? For three straightforward reasons: (1) Wind and (especially) solar have only recently become cheap enough for this case to be made. Utility scale solar fell in cost by a factor of 5 in just the last decade, (2) The point I made was for an apples-to-apples comparison in which all the capital costs are considered. But in this transition time the renewables are competing against existing capacity, in which the capital costs are sunk, (3) Fossil fuel sources are not being charged for their CO2 emissions. The point I made was for a CO2-free grid, which requires that fossil fuel sources not be allowed to emit CO2. Nowhere have CO2 taxes or regulations yet put us into this situation. Today, there are very few, if any, places in the world where it would make economic sense to build a new nuclear power plant. > All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable. Electrolyzers exist, and are being made and sold in rapidly increasing numbers. Hydrogen valves, compressors, turbines, pipelines, and underground storage caverns exist. This is integration of existing technologies, some with track records going back more than a century. The comparison you make there is silly in the extreme. It would be more appropriate if applied to the current hype about thorium and Hail Mary Reactors.
        macspoofing 6y ago
        >For three straightforward reasons There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable. And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup. Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
  - ozim 6y ago
    Parent mentions pumped hydro like that can be setup anywhere in the world.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      "or"

pfdietz 6y ago

Diurnal storage via batteries or pumped hydro, long term storage via hydrogen. The combinations now optimize to 0% nuclear. Hydrogen round trip efficiency is low but the very low cost per kWh of storage capacity makes it win for long term storage. That no location is currently 100% renewable is an obviously irrelevant point. I m talking about 100% CO2-free solutions. And new nuclear not sunk costed existing power plants.

macspoofing 6y ago
You're just throwing things against the barn door hoping something sticks. Every proponent of renewables has a favorite miraculous battery technology that solves the intermittency problem. And yet I look at world, and nobody has actually deployed any storage technology at scale (and by 'scale', I mean using some battery technology that stores enough energy to power a modestly sized city of a few hundred thousands people for even a few hours).
- pfdietz 6y ago
  What I'm adding here is not miraculous new battery technology. It's hydrogen for long term storage. All the components of that exist and are proven. It's just a matter of integrating them. This is the most reliable and easiest kind of innovation, and it's the death knell for nuclear.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    Why hasn't it been deployed thus far? Is anyone planning to deploy it? Are there ongoing projects to deploy it at scale? > All the components of that exist and are proven. All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      > Why hasn't it been deployed thus far? For three straightforward reasons: (1) Wind and (especially) solar have only recently become cheap enough for this case to be made. Utility scale solar fell in cost by a factor of 5 in just the last decade, (2) The point I made was for an apples-to-apples comparison in which all the capital costs are considered. But in this transition time the renewables are competing against existing capacity, in which the capital costs are sunk, (3) Fossil fuel sources are not being charged for their CO2 emissions. The point I made was for a CO2-free grid, which requires that fossil fuel sources not be allowed to emit CO2. Nowhere have CO2 taxes or regulations yet put us into this situation. Today, there are very few, if any, places in the world where it would make economic sense to build a new nuclear power plant. > All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable. Electrolyzers exist, and are being made and sold in rapidly increasing numbers. Hydrogen valves, compressors, turbines, pipelines, and underground storage caverns exist. This is integration of existing technologies, some with track records going back more than a century. The comparison you make there is silly in the extreme. It would be more appropriate if applied to the current hype about thorium and Hail Mary Reactors.
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        >For three straightforward reasons There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable. And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup. Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
- ozim 6y ago
  Parent mentions pumped hydro like that can be setup anywhere in the world.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    "or"