4 ms·

What is the long term solution for "the last few weeks have been cloudy"?

tuatoru 5y ago
Diversity. Long distance (1000 km) transmission, wind AND solar, short term storage, load shedding agreements, and long duration storage. Iron-air looks economically viable already for timescales of two days to two weeks. Hot rock storage, the same. It's rare to get cloudy calm periods lasting longer than two weeks over 1000 km distances, but there are readily available seasonal storage choices. Electrolysed hydrogen, either stored directly or as ammonia. Just need PV prices to fall a bit, which is expected, and the cost of electrolysis to fall, which is happening. I have only hit the universals here. Depending on geography and mining history, there are a bunch of other storage options available in many places. Mechanical (gravity) storag other than pumped hydro is another possible technology. So is methane synthesised from CO2. Edit. I'm in favour of nuclear, if the numbers work. The LNT theory should be exposed as the bull** that it is and ALARA abandoned in favour of specified limits. Then let nuclear compete with renewables.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  yes, and i get the feeling that like global communications, our power grids will have to be internationally (and continentally?) linked up so that different regions can augment lower generation elsewhere...
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Morocco-UK Power Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJunxkln578&t=615s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJunxkln578&t=615s Australian - ASEAN Power Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link Edit: oops, now it's called Australia - Asia Power Link.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      nice to see things are in progress, hopefully we can continue to link up and have a more robust system overall
- panick21 5y ago
  This just sounds so crazy complex. It requires completely changing existing infrastructure. A lot more energy moving around (and that is not efficient). If actually cared about efficiently transferring to fight climate change, and not build a utopia. We would simply create a list of all coal power stations, order them by age and then start building a nuclear plant right next to one after the other as fast as possible. If you did it that way, you could in less then 20 years basically make your grid green. Most people wouldn't notice anything what so ever. No new infrastructure would need to be build. It would be reliable in basically all situations. And it would give you a very large base of highly educated engineers and technicians. Compare that to just importing tons of PV from China and putting up tons of new transition lines. > but there are readily available seasonal storage choices Are there? Non have been deployed and if you look at modeling these need to be essentially free to actually happen. > Iron-air looks economically viable One startup claims this, they have not shown a prototype or given specs, it will not be commercially deployed for a few years. Its a bit early to claim its viable. Fact is, storage beyond 2h is totally unproven. Most companies that have worked in this direction have failed. > Electrolysed hydrogen, either stored directly or as ammonia. Just need PV prices to fall a bit, which is expected, and the cost of electrolysis to fall, which is happening. Using direct heat is simply a better option then electrolysis on large scale. With advanced nuclear you can use nuclear heat to crack steam. Far better option.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    > This just sounds so crazy complex. It sounds like the market. Hayek was right: we don't need to plan this, we just need to let lots of people try to seize opportunities, and we'll get fairly close to an optimum. And as I have said elsewhere, the costs are inevitable. Existing plant is wearing out and has to be replaced, one way or another. What we're arguing about is who gets the money: fossil fuel miners, or entrepreneurs. Let the market sort it out.
    - evv 5y ago
      The free market approach would probably work because nuclear has incredible energy density. And during the day, solar is crazy cheap. The polluting energy sources are more expensive. How fucking lucky is that! But I don't think nuclear deregulation will motivate the rapid change we require to avoid climate disaster. Carbon tax would help, I think, but there is zero chance it will be implemented on the global scale. (Fuck our lives, right?)
- Hypx_ 5y ago
  Hydrogen-air batteries are more than economical: They actually exist now. There's no rational reason to reinvent the wheel with iron-air.

Diversity. Long distance (1000 km) transmission, wind AND solar, short term storage, load shedding agreements, and long duration storage. Iron-air looks economically viable already for timescales of two days to two weeks. Hot rock storage, the same. It's rare to get cloudy calm periods lasting longer than two weeks over 1000 km distances, but there are readily available seasonal storage choices. Electrolysed hydrogen, either stored directly or as ammonia. Just need PV prices to fall a bit, which is expected, and the cost of electrolysis to fall, which is happening. I have only hit the universals here. Depending on geography and mining history, there are a bunch of other storage options available in many places. Mechanical (gravity) storag other than pumped hydro is another possible technology. So is methane synthesised from CO2. Edit. I'm in favour of nuclear, if the numbers work. The LNT theory should be exposed as the bull** that it is and ALARA abandoned in favour of specified limits. Then let nuclear compete with renewables.

andrekandre 5y ago
yes, and i get the feeling that like global communications, our power grids will have to be internationally (and continentally?) linked up so that different regions can augment lower generation elsewhere...
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Morocco-UK Power Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJunxkln578&t=615s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJunxkln578&t=615s Australian - ASEAN Power Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link Edit: oops, now it's called Australia - Asia Power Link.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    nice to see things are in progress, hopefully we can continue to link up and have a more robust system overall
panick21 5y ago
This just sounds so crazy complex. It requires completely changing existing infrastructure. A lot more energy moving around (and that is not efficient). If actually cared about efficiently transferring to fight climate change, and not build a utopia. We would simply create a list of all coal power stations, order them by age and then start building a nuclear plant right next to one after the other as fast as possible. If you did it that way, you could in less then 20 years basically make your grid green. Most people wouldn't notice anything what so ever. No new infrastructure would need to be build. It would be reliable in basically all situations. And it would give you a very large base of highly educated engineers and technicians. Compare that to just importing tons of PV from China and putting up tons of new transition lines. > but there are readily available seasonal storage choices Are there? Non have been deployed and if you look at modeling these need to be essentially free to actually happen. > Iron-air looks economically viable One startup claims this, they have not shown a prototype or given specs, it will not be commercially deployed for a few years. Its a bit early to claim its viable. Fact is, storage beyond 2h is totally unproven. Most companies that have worked in this direction have failed. > Electrolysed hydrogen, either stored directly or as ammonia. Just need PV prices to fall a bit, which is expected, and the cost of electrolysis to fall, which is happening. Using direct heat is simply a better option then electrolysis on large scale. With advanced nuclear you can use nuclear heat to crack steam. Far better option.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  > This just sounds so crazy complex. It sounds like the market. Hayek was right: we don't need to plan this, we just need to let lots of people try to seize opportunities, and we'll get fairly close to an optimum. And as I have said elsewhere, the costs are inevitable. Existing plant is wearing out and has to be replaced, one way or another. What we're arguing about is who gets the money: fossil fuel miners, or entrepreneurs. Let the market sort it out.
  - evv 5y ago
    The free market approach would probably work because nuclear has incredible energy density. And during the day, solar is crazy cheap. The polluting energy sources are more expensive. How fucking lucky is that! But I don't think nuclear deregulation will motivate the rapid change we require to avoid climate disaster. Carbon tax would help, I think, but there is zero chance it will be implemented on the global scale. (Fuck our lives, right?)
Hypx_ 5y ago
Hydrogen-air batteries are more than economical: They actually exist now. There's no rational reason to reinvent the wheel with iron-air.