3 ms·

>> It's solvable with excess generation capacity, storage, and transmission capacity So now you're arguing FOR energy storage? Your previous post was basically

• epistasis 6y ago
  We will have a mixture of storage, over-provisioned generation, and transmission, the only question is the relative proportion. And that relative proportion will be determined by how quickly costs fall relative to each other. If a kWh storage costs 10x the amortized capital costs of a kWh solar generation, we will have a lot less storage than if storage only costs 2x the amortized capital costs of a solar kWh. If hydrogen electrolysis can become cheap in 2030, maybe we will even use hydrogen for some storage, but we will have to balance the capital costs of hydrogen generation and conversion back to electricity with everything else, which will determine how much of it gets deployed.
  • mamon 6y ago
    It's not only about cost, it's also about practicality: there is some baseline demand on electricity even at night. Solar obviously cannot fulfill that demand. Wind also can't because it is too unreliable. So we do need some storage technology, and hydrogen is one of the options. It seems way cheaper than using Lithium-Ion batteries, but might be still more expensive than, say, pumping water uphill and using that to power a hydroelectric plant. Energy transmission can be some solution here, but we might be forced to transmit energy across the continents (so, for example solar plant in Sahara delivers power to New York City at night) which probably is too costly.