4 ms·

You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. There are a lot of economical grid-scale power storage systems. Batteries are low-latency storage used to stabi

You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. There are a lot of economical grid-scale power storage systems. Batteries are low-latency storage used to stabilize load - they are expensive because they are so quick to change the power they provide. Frequency, voltage, current, whatever you need a battery can provide in milliseconds. But you don't want to run it for days. If you want to store power overnight you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. There are lots of technologies available. Some of them are cheaper than nuclear, but none of them are economical yet because there is no market for day-to-week-scale storage until solar/wind start to approach 50% of the power mix.

clusterfish 6y ago
Building pumped hydro is not going to suddenly be more feasible or cheaper as demand for it increases. What else can store energy for more than a week at a cost that approaches reasonable?
hntrader 6y ago
What's an example of one that's cheaper than nuclear?
lucb1e 6y ago
> You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. [...] you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. ...neither of which are cheaper than batteries or we'd be doing that Yes, we are doing pumped hydro, but only in a few convenient locations. I recently watched a video about Ireland's new pumped storage facility[1], it mentions some pretty tight constraints for what we currently consider economical (e.g. hill slope). Bill Gates' new book[2] doesn't go into as much detail but also doesn't sound like we got this figured out any better than batteries, basically saying we need breakthroughs or this is going to simply be a prohibitively expensive undertaking for non-rich countries. Specifically about hydrogen (the "to gas" option that has the most buzz at least) [2] says that there are high losses in conversion (without saying how much) as well as hydrogen leaking from metal tanks and electrolyzers being very expensive. There's hope for breakthroughs but.. they do have to happen in order for it to be better (cheaper) than today's batteries. At a bare minimum, it's not obvious that what GP wrote is "just wrong". This isn't something we have a definite answer to. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI [2] "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need" ISBN 978-0-593-21577-7
- lukeschlather 6y ago
  > At a bare minimum, it's not obvious that what GP wrote is "just wrong". This isn't something we have a definite answer to. I agree that we don't have definite answers, but that's why what the GP wrote is just wrong. They're reducing a very complicated set of technologies to the economics of lithium ion batteries. While yes, pumped hydro is something of a cop-out, it's clear there are a variety of techs that are cheaper than lithium ion. The economics of this are also a little unclear to me. In the presence of sustained negative electricity prices, it seems obvious in principle that lots of storage technologies would suddenly become economical. But it's hard to imagine how that would work given the way we currently finance these things. (And by extension, it's not clear to me that this is actually a technical problem so much as a political one.)

clusterfish 6y ago

Building pumped hydro is not going to suddenly be more feasible or cheaper as demand for it increases. What else can store energy for more than a week at a cost that approaches reasonable?

hntrader 6y ago

What's an example of one that's cheaper than nuclear?

lucb1e 6y ago

> You're assuming "batteries" which is just wrong. [...] you want kinetic storage, or possibly power to gas. ...neither of which are cheaper than batteries or we'd be doing that Yes, we are doing pumped hydro, but only in a few convenient locations. I recently watched a video about Ireland's new pumped storage facility[1], it mentions some pretty tight constraints for what we currently consider economical (e.g. hill slope). Bill Gates' new book[2] doesn't go into as much detail but also doesn't sound like we got this figured out any better than batteries, basically saying we need breakthroughs or this is going to simply be a prohibitively expensive undertaking for non-rich countries. Specifically about hydrogen (the "to gas" option that has the most buzz at least) [2] says that there are high losses in conversion (without saying how much) as well as hydrogen leaking from metal tanks and electrolyzers being very expensive. There's hope for breakthroughs but.. they do have to happen in order for it to be better (cheaper) than today's batteries. At a bare minimum, it's not obvious that what GP wrote is "just wrong". This isn't something we have a definite answer to. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI [2] "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need" ISBN 978-0-593-21577-7

lukeschlather 6y ago
> At a bare minimum, it's not obvious that what GP wrote is "just wrong". This isn't something we have a definite answer to. I agree that we don't have definite answers, but that's why what the GP wrote is just wrong. They're reducing a very complicated set of technologies to the economics of lithium ion batteries. While yes, pumped hydro is something of a cop-out, it's clear there are a variety of techs that are cheaper than lithium ion. The economics of this are also a little unclear to me. In the presence of sustained negative electricity prices, it seems obvious in principle that lots of storage technologies would suddenly become economical. But it's hard to imagine how that would work given the way we currently finance these things. (And by extension, it's not clear to me that this is actually a technical problem so much as a political one.)