4 ms·
I completely agree with you, I would just add the big unknown is the shift in demand. If renewables are going to be much cheaper in certain times (they are alre
by js8 5y ago
I completely agree with you, I would just add the big unknown is the shift in demand. If renewables are going to be much cheaper in certain times (they are already cheaper than nuclear, on average, for example https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-...), it will be worth shifting energy-intensive industries to utilize that. This might significantly reduce the demand for the base load, and reduce the need for power2gas (and so its cost) significantly.
- adrianN 5y agoYes, I have a friend who works on projects like that for Siemens in Germany. Apparently there is a regime of renewable buildout (roughly at the percentage where Germany is currently at) where it's cheaper to shape demand than to build storage.
- civilized 5y agoThis is a very interesting point. I wonder how this restructuring to follow the energy would impact the efficiency of the relevant industries. In space as well as time, I would imagine - you could perhaps move a lot of energy-intensive stuff out into the deserts, right next to the solar arrays.
- icegreentea2 5y agoMost energy intensive work is also mass/volume intensive as well - as in it's producing something. Obvious exception is something like a data-center. Since transporting goods has a cost in itself, it'll probably continue to be cheaper to ship electricity across land, than to relocate plants (in general, there will always be exceptions), especially if we need big, efficient transmission to get energy from the desert into cities (cause those won't move) anyways.
- pfdietz 5y agoChile and Peru could be big winners. The Atacama Desert has the best solar resource on the planet.