4 ms·

yeah and we'll have fusion in 10 years

by andromeduck 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Cost effective fission and fusion are always 10 years away.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  just like cost effective and environmentally advantageous grid scale batteries at the scales required to smooth day and week scale intermittency
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    EDIT: My comment was made before you edited your comment from "just like cost effective grid scale batteries" to what it is now. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-facts... * In 2020, the U.S. had over 23.2 GW of capacity in energy storage compared to 1,100 GW of total installed generation capacity. * Globally, installed energy storage capacity totaled 173.6 GW. * 1,355 energy storage projects were operational globally in 2020, with 11 projects under construction. 40% of operational projects are located in the U.S. * California leads the U.S. in energy storage with 215 operational projects (4.2 GW), followed by Hawaii, New York, and Texas. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/broad-reach-power-starts-building-biggest-batteries-in-texas https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/broad-reach-pow... "Two of the planned 10 MW batteries are up and running already, with a total of 10 expected online by year's end, Vavrik said. That means that BRP and Key Capture are running neck and neck for operational capacity in Texas. The title of biggest battery operator in the state could change hands repeatedly based on the order in which those companies' projects wrap up. The broader story is that multiple experienced energy investors are converging on Texas simultaneously. The interconnection queue contains more than two dozen batteries that are each larger than 100 megawatts; some go up to 300, 400, even 500 megawatts."
    - andromeduck 6y ago
      Yes you're missing the point. Most of that storage is hydro and there's a huge gulf between what's required to cover prolonged lulls in such as weeks as was observed recently in Texas and regularly elsewhere - and to peak shave, regulate frequency, and cover until CCGTs can spin up as we have now. Until we start getting to the multi-GWh scale it's a nonstarter. Again, you either think climate change is an existential problem in which case relying on magic pixiedust in the future is an absurd, or you don't. There's no two ways about it.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        I think we disagree about what a future energy grid looks like, and that's okay. I enjoy the conversation regardless!
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      To put these in perspective, the US consumes 500 GWh of electricity every hour. Of the 23 GWh of existing storage, 20 GWh come in the form of hydroelectricity. 100 MWh of storage only amounts to 1.4 seconds of electricity storage. We don't need megawatt hours worth of storage. We don't need gigawatt hours worth of storage. We need terawatt hours worth of storage. We're 6+ orders of magnitude off between the amount of storage necessary, and the storage we can feasibly build.
      - Armisael16 6y ago
        Why would an continent-scale entity need days or weeks of power storage?
        AstralStorm 6y ago
        Even hours runs hundreds of gigawatts. Spanning a continent only helps wind power and not solar power.
        Armisael16 6y ago
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  That's the joke.
Hammershaft 6y ago
We have methane seeping through thawing permafrost today. We can't delay decarbonizing our energy mix for technologies we haven't even invented yet, let alone mass produced.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Yes that is the point, it's basic risk management. Betting the farm on future breakthroughs if you consider climate change to be an existential threat is being on fire and waiting for the fire department because you don't wan't to get your soiled jumping to a pond nearby. Nuclear is by far the best technology we have today so we should go with it until we have better options in our hand.

yeah and we'll have fusion in 10 years

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Cost effective fission and fusion are always 10 years away.

andromeduck 6y ago
just like cost effective and environmentally advantageous grid scale batteries at the scales required to smooth day and week scale intermittency
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  EDIT: My comment was made before you edited your comment from "just like cost effective grid scale batteries" to what it is now. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-facts... * In 2020, the U.S. had over 23.2 GW of capacity in energy storage compared to 1,100 GW of total installed generation capacity. * Globally, installed energy storage capacity totaled 173.6 GW. * 1,355 energy storage projects were operational globally in 2020, with 11 projects under construction. 40% of operational projects are located in the U.S. * California leads the U.S. in energy storage with 215 operational projects (4.2 GW), followed by Hawaii, New York, and Texas. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/broad-reach-power-starts-building-biggest-batteries-in-texas https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/broad-reach-pow... "Two of the planned 10 MW batteries are up and running already, with a total of 10 expected online by year's end, Vavrik said. That means that BRP and Key Capture are running neck and neck for operational capacity in Texas. The title of biggest battery operator in the state could change hands repeatedly based on the order in which those companies' projects wrap up. The broader story is that multiple experienced energy investors are converging on Texas simultaneously. The interconnection queue contains more than two dozen batteries that are each larger than 100 megawatts; some go up to 300, 400, even 500 megawatts."
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Yes you're missing the point. Most of that storage is hydro and there's a huge gulf between what's required to cover prolonged lulls in such as weeks as was observed recently in Texas and regularly elsewhere - and to peak shave, regulate frequency, and cover until CCGTs can spin up as we have now. Until we start getting to the multi-GWh scale it's a nonstarter. Again, you either think climate change is an existential problem in which case relying on magic pixiedust in the future is an absurd, or you don't. There's no two ways about it.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I think we disagree about what a future energy grid looks like, and that's okay. I enjoy the conversation regardless!
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    To put these in perspective, the US consumes 500 GWh of electricity every hour. Of the 23 GWh of existing storage, 20 GWh come in the form of hydroelectricity. 100 MWh of storage only amounts to 1.4 seconds of electricity storage. We don't need megawatt hours worth of storage. We don't need gigawatt hours worth of storage. We need terawatt hours worth of storage. We're 6+ orders of magnitude off between the amount of storage necessary, and the storage we can feasibly build.
    - Armisael16 6y ago
      Why would an continent-scale entity need days or weeks of power storage?
      - AstralStorm 6y ago
        Even hours runs hundreds of gigawatts. Spanning a continent only helps wind power and not solar power.
        Armisael16 6y ago
PoignardAzur 6y ago
That's the joke.

Hammershaft 6y ago

We have methane seeping through thawing permafrost today. We can't delay decarbonizing our energy mix for technologies we haven't even invented yet, let alone mass produced.

andromeduck 6y ago
Yes that is the point, it's basic risk management. Betting the farm on future breakthroughs if you consider climate change to be an existential threat is being on fire and waiting for the fire department because you don't wan't to get your soiled jumping to a pond nearby. Nuclear is by far the best technology we have today so we should go with it until we have better options in our hand.