9 ms·

Storage costs, despite being in freefall still are still in the hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour range. And it's kind of moot since the total amount of sto

Storage costs, despite being in freefall still are still in the hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour range. And it's kind of moot since the total amount of storage produced globally is still a fraction of what is necessary to make renewables feasible as a primary source of power. To put this in perspective, the US alone consumes about 500 GWh of electricity every hour. The entire world produces about 300 GWh of lithium ion batteries every year. It's dubious whether electrochemical storage will ever be able to match the requires scale, hence why a lot of renewable proponents turn to experimental solutions like the Sabatier process, hydrogen storage, or things like cranes lifting weights.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-... ("The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills") https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ "The target year of 2035 allows sufficient time for most coal and gas plants to recover their fixed costs, thereby avoiding risk of stranded costs for consumers and investors, if the right policies are in place. Wind, solar, and battery storage can provide the bulk of the 90 percent clean electricity. The report finds that new fossil fuel generators are not needed. Existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with storage, hydropower, and nuclear power [my note: existing, not new, nuclear], are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity demand. Power generation from natural gas plants would drop by 70 percent in 2035 compared to 2019." That's US centric; Australia is targeting 100 renewables by 2032, using only hydro, renewables, and storage. Let's not say it can't be done while it's being done. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewables-by-2032-at-current-rate-of-wind-and-solar-installs-20759 https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewable...
- manfredo 6y ago
  Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been using fusion power since the 1980s. If you prefer a global approach as opposed to a US-centric approach, then consider the fact that the world consumes 60 TWh of electricity per day, or 2.4 TWh per hour. By comparison the entire world only produces 300 GWh, or 0.3 TWh of lithium ion batteries. And only a small fraction of that is used for grid storage [1]. These plans for intermittent sources as a primary source of energy are contingent on vast - 3 or 4 orders of magnitude at least - increases in the production of storage capacity. This isn't something that can be relied upon. This is like pointing to Moore's law and developing an application assuming a 4 THz CPU is going to be around 10 years from now. Lastly, I can't help but appreciate the irony of complaining about a US-centric approach and cherry-picking Australia - a country with lots of undeveloped land and huge solar power potential - as an example. Like I said in my previous comment, the bulk of global energy consumption occurs in North America, Europe, and Northern Asia (China, Japan, Korea). These places have much lower solar potential between greater inclinations of the Earth and less amenable weather. And even with it's natural advantages, Australia still only generates 7% of its electricity from wind and solar each. By comparison, the US already generates 20% of its electricity from nuclear and several countries like France, Ukraine, and Belgium are majority nuclear generation. Nuclear is by far the best proven way of delivering carbon free energy, save for hydroelectric power but the latter is geographically dependent. It's more expensive than fossil fuels, nobody denies that, but it's actually doable with current technology. Its feasibility is not contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in key technologies. Using nuclear for the bulk of energy generation has been done by multiple countries, we merely need to walk in their footsteps. 1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:text=As%20of%20Dec%202019%2C%20the,40%20million%20EVs%20by%202028 https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:t....
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    You are of course free to your opinion, but the economics and cost decline curves of renewables and storage are clear [1]. The entire world is transitioning to electrified transportation, and is going to scale up energy storage (battery manufacturing) accordingly [2], faster than any commercial nuclear operation will be built. Can you build a nuclear reactor in less than a decade cheaper then storage and renewables? The evidence indicates no. But if you can, the world would love that, just demonstrate it's possible. Until then, it's hydro, batteries, renewables, and demand response full speed ahead. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard LCOE 2020, pages 3 and 11 are most relevant to our subthread discussion) [2] https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production ("As of Dec 2019, the number of lithium ion battery megafactories in the pipeline has reached 115 plants. The world’s leading EV and battery manufacturer added a huge 564GWh of pipeline capacity in 2019 to a global total of 2068.3GWh or the equivalent of 40 million EVs by 2028.")
deeviant 6y ago
> Storage costs, despite being in freefall still are still in the hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour range. And it's kind of moot since the total amount of storage produced globally is still a fraction of what is necessary to make renewables feasible as a primary source of power. Funny that you also fail to mention that although storage levels are very low, we are still very far from reaching the market penetration of requiring storage. Transitioning a world's electric grid takes take, decades, plenty of time for storage to drop.
- mike_d 6y ago
  California's last non-fire brownouts were caused by too much solar in the generation mix without long term storage.
melbourne_mat 6y ago
I see discussions about storage re renewables but I never see anyone mention the obvious solution. If you need power at night, just use high efficiency led lights to power your solar cells. /jk

toomuchtodo 6y ago

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-... ("The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills") https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ https://www.2035report.com/data-explorer/ "The target year of 2035 allows sufficient time for most coal and gas plants to recover their fixed costs, thereby avoiding risk of stranded costs for consumers and investors, if the right policies are in place. Wind, solar, and battery storage can provide the bulk of the 90 percent clean electricity. The report finds that new fossil fuel generators are not needed. Existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with storage, hydropower, and nuclear power [my note: existing, not new, nuclear], are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity demand. Power generation from natural gas plants would drop by 70 percent in 2035 compared to 2019." That's US centric; Australia is targeting 100 renewables by 2032, using only hydro, renewables, and storage. Let's not say it can't be done while it's being done. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewables-by-2032-at-current-rate-of-wind-and-solar-installs-20759 https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewable...

manfredo 6y ago
Academic papers claiming feasibility decades from now is a vastly different thing than something actually being feasible. If it were, then we'd have all been using fusion power since the 1980s. If you prefer a global approach as opposed to a US-centric approach, then consider the fact that the world consumes 60 TWh of electricity per day, or 2.4 TWh per hour. By comparison the entire world only produces 300 GWh, or 0.3 TWh of lithium ion batteries. And only a small fraction of that is used for grid storage [1]. These plans for intermittent sources as a primary source of energy are contingent on vast - 3 or 4 orders of magnitude at least - increases in the production of storage capacity. This isn't something that can be relied upon. This is like pointing to Moore's law and developing an application assuming a 4 THz CPU is going to be around 10 years from now. Lastly, I can't help but appreciate the irony of complaining about a US-centric approach and cherry-picking Australia - a country with lots of undeveloped land and huge solar power potential - as an example. Like I said in my previous comment, the bulk of global energy consumption occurs in North America, Europe, and Northern Asia (China, Japan, Korea). These places have much lower solar potential between greater inclinations of the Earth and less amenable weather. And even with it's natural advantages, Australia still only generates 7% of its electricity from wind and solar each. By comparison, the US already generates 20% of its electricity from nuclear and several countries like France, Ukraine, and Belgium are majority nuclear generation. Nuclear is by far the best proven way of delivering carbon free energy, save for hydroelectric power but the latter is geographically dependent. It's more expensive than fossil fuels, nobody denies that, but it's actually doable with current technology. Its feasibility is not contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in key technologies. Using nuclear for the bulk of energy generation has been done by multiple countries, we merely need to walk in their footsteps. 1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:text=As%20of%20Dec%202019%2C%20the,40%20million%20EVs%20by%202028 https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production#:~:t....
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  You are of course free to your opinion, but the economics and cost decline curves of renewables and storage are clear [1]. The entire world is transitioning to electrified transportation, and is going to scale up energy storage (battery manufacturing) accordingly [2], faster than any commercial nuclear operation will be built. Can you build a nuclear reactor in less than a decade cheaper then storage and renewables? The evidence indicates no. But if you can, the world would love that, just demonstrate it's possible. Until then, it's hydro, batteries, renewables, and demand response full speed ahead. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard LCOE 2020, pages 3 and 11 are most relevant to our subthread discussion) [2] https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production ("As of Dec 2019, the number of lithium ion battery megafactories in the pipeline has reached 115 plants. The world’s leading EV and battery manufacturer added a huge 564GWh of pipeline capacity in 2019 to a global total of 2068.3GWh or the equivalent of 40 million EVs by 2028.")

deeviant 6y ago

> Storage costs, despite being in freefall still are still in the hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour range. And it's kind of moot since the total amount of storage produced globally is still a fraction of what is necessary to make renewables feasible as a primary source of power. Funny that you also fail to mention that although storage levels are very low, we are still very far from reaching the market penetration of requiring storage. Transitioning a world's electric grid takes take, decades, plenty of time for storage to drop.

mike_d 6y ago
California's last non-fire brownouts were caused by too much solar in the generation mix without long term storage.

melbourne_mat 6y ago

I see discussions about storage re renewables but I never see anyone mention the obvious solution. If you need power at night, just use high efficiency led lights to power your solar cells. /jk