4 ms·

> What if prices for power go way up during the night Individual energy providers do not control prices. The market does. If there is market demand for energy

> What if prices for power go way up during the night Individual energy providers do not control prices. The market does. If there is market demand for energy at night, then people will fill in the gap to provide it. Anyone pushing up prices at night will have competition from someone else who will undercut them. They'll be forced to drop prices or lose customers. Batteries are inefficient, expensive, and do not provide an adequate amount of electricity for most purposes. Consider a UPS, they're about 90% efficient at most, and for all that 10% of wasted energy, you get to power your computer for about 15-60 minutes if the power is lost. The batteries only last a few years. Also, a bigger argument against solar (at least, photovoltaics) is that they use up rare earth metals, have limited lifetimes (<25 years), and then become non-recyclable toxic waste. Concentrating solar energy is more promising as a sustainable solution, but requires large infrastructure and the right climate to be cost effective.

pfdietz 6y ago
"Inefficient" = 90%? I think you need to think more about what you've written there.
- sparkie 6y ago
  As stated, that is "at most". A usual UPS is 80-89% efficient. Even still, assuming they were 90% efficient, is it worth the extra 10% energy consumption just so you can run your computer for 1 hour at night when the solar energy provider ups their rate? You still need to consume the additional energy in the day to charge the battery. For me to label it efficient, I'd be looking for 95%+, but 99% would be preferable. Remember, this efficiency declines as the battery ages. You only get a few years of efficient use before it declines significantly. Then you have a disposal problem. A typical UPS uses lead-acid batteries, the same type used in cars. They're not environmentally friendly.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Of course it's worth it. Losing 10% of the energy in storage is close to trivial, particularly if that energy is otherwise curtailed excess production. It would be worthwhile to use far less efficient storage for long term load leveling, if the capital cost were low enough. Hydrogen with cheap electrolysers and combined cycle turbines might have a round trip efficiency of 33% -- and that would be GREAT as a last component for getting to a fossil-fuel free grid, particularly at high latitude.
    - sparkie 6y ago
      But this is missing the elephant in the living room (this thread), which is nuclear. One of the main issues with nuclear is that it isn't cost effective to turn on/off to meet demand changes in day and night. Nuclear power stations usually only generate energy for the baseload. If we were to cut energy consumption down at night (by increasing costs), the baseload would also drop, and leave an even larger gap to meet for peak, which must be met by other means like solar or fossil fuels. If anything, we want to shift some energy consumption to off-peak times like early hours, so that the baseload is higher and can be met by cheaper nuclear, along with other solutions like tidal. If this happens, the gap between peak and baseload during the day/evening will be smaller, and can be met with solutions like (concentrating) solar which are more environmentally friendly than photovoltaics + batteries.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        No, it's not missing nuclear. Hydrogen is the stake through the heart that kills the last argument for nuclear (that batteries can't handle long term load leveling). With reasonable projections of where the costs of renewables and storage are going, nuclear gets optimized right out of the picture.
        sparkie 6y ago
        Yeah, I can't take you seriously. GL with your blackouts and energy quotas, oh, and reliance of fossil fuels. Where do you think the energy is going to come from to perform electrolysis for hydrogen? solar? You are nowhere near meeting basic needs yet with solar, wind, tidal, geothermal combined. (3 out of the 4 can be intermittent/dependant on environmental conditions and are not reliable). Remember, energy demand is going to continue increasing. By the time your renewable utopia exists, you're going to need to double or triple its capacity. Perhaps I'm unaware of some technological breakthrough which can produce hydrogen using little energy? Nuclear is great once up-front costs are paid. Most future energy demand will be met by nuclear. Cleaner renewables will be there to provide additional capacity above baseload, but I wouldn't depend on them to meet basic needs. I have pondered whether it would be possible to generate hydrogen more cheaply via concentrating solar or geothermal. The hotter you can get water before performing electrolysis, the less electricity will be required. Above 3k Celsius, the atoms in water will dissociate without electricity. You might have a reasonable argument against nuclear if you don't need to spend 3x the electricity creating the hydrogen than you'll get back from it.

pfdietz 6y ago

"Inefficient" = 90%? I think you need to think more about what you've written there.

sparkie 6y ago
As stated, that is "at most". A usual UPS is 80-89% efficient. Even still, assuming they were 90% efficient, is it worth the extra 10% energy consumption just so you can run your computer for 1 hour at night when the solar energy provider ups their rate? You still need to consume the additional energy in the day to charge the battery. For me to label it efficient, I'd be looking for 95%+, but 99% would be preferable. Remember, this efficiency declines as the battery ages. You only get a few years of efficient use before it declines significantly. Then you have a disposal problem. A typical UPS uses lead-acid batteries, the same type used in cars. They're not environmentally friendly.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Of course it's worth it. Losing 10% of the energy in storage is close to trivial, particularly if that energy is otherwise curtailed excess production. It would be worthwhile to use far less efficient storage for long term load leveling, if the capital cost were low enough. Hydrogen with cheap electrolysers and combined cycle turbines might have a round trip efficiency of 33% -- and that would be GREAT as a last component for getting to a fossil-fuel free grid, particularly at high latitude.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    But this is missing the elephant in the living room (this thread), which is nuclear. One of the main issues with nuclear is that it isn't cost effective to turn on/off to meet demand changes in day and night. Nuclear power stations usually only generate energy for the baseload. If we were to cut energy consumption down at night (by increasing costs), the baseload would also drop, and leave an even larger gap to meet for peak, which must be met by other means like solar or fossil fuels. If anything, we want to shift some energy consumption to off-peak times like early hours, so that the baseload is higher and can be met by cheaper nuclear, along with other solutions like tidal. If this happens, the gap between peak and baseload during the day/evening will be smaller, and can be met with solutions like (concentrating) solar which are more environmentally friendly than photovoltaics + batteries.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      No, it's not missing nuclear. Hydrogen is the stake through the heart that kills the last argument for nuclear (that batteries can't handle long term load leveling). With reasonable projections of where the costs of renewables and storage are going, nuclear gets optimized right out of the picture.
      - sparkie 6y ago
        Yeah, I can't take you seriously. GL with your blackouts and energy quotas, oh, and reliance of fossil fuels. Where do you think the energy is going to come from to perform electrolysis for hydrogen? solar? You are nowhere near meeting basic needs yet with solar, wind, tidal, geothermal combined. (3 out of the 4 can be intermittent/dependant on environmental conditions and are not reliable). Remember, energy demand is going to continue increasing. By the time your renewable utopia exists, you're going to need to double or triple its capacity. Perhaps I'm unaware of some technological breakthrough which can produce hydrogen using little energy? Nuclear is great once up-front costs are paid. Most future energy demand will be met by nuclear. Cleaner renewables will be there to provide additional capacity above baseload, but I wouldn't depend on them to meet basic needs. I have pondered whether it would be possible to generate hydrogen more cheaply via concentrating solar or geothermal. The hotter you can get water before performing electrolysis, the less electricity will be required. Above 3k Celsius, the atoms in water will dissociate without electricity. You might have a reasonable argument against nuclear if you don't need to spend 3x the electricity creating the hydrogen than you'll get back from it.