3 ms·

The challenge basically is no one seems to adequately explain how this below consumption variability over time will be handled in a largely solar/wind grid with

by sfifs 5y ago

The challenge basically is no one seems to adequately explain how this below consumption variability over time will be handled in a largely solar/wind grid without invoking scaled application of energy storage technology that has not yet passed lab experiments stage. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.02.21/chart2.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.02.21/chart2.s...

tuatoru 5y ago
Ah. Yes. With storage we are at least ten years behind any plausible development scenario that could keep us below 2 degrees of global warming. Still, doing it now is better than not doing it at all. However, the technology is all there. We have it. Electrolysed hydrogen. There is a lot of development work being done on optimising electrolysis, but it's by no means a lab experiment like carbon sequestration[1] or fusion power. Hydrogen is routinely handled at scale in ammonia production. If we are to move away from fossil fuels for steel and cement making (and for industrial process heat), we will need to be producing quite a lot of hydrogen. So this just increases demand by a factor of two to five. Best get started on it. However, you are right. Everyone's been focused on the electricity sector (and to a lesser extent private land transport) up till now. And within that, on production. I don't think the "not just electricity and cars" message sunk in during COP-26. It will have to soon, though. 1. I distinguish carbon sequestration, technology to permanently lock up carbon at the same scale as our current total fossil fuel consumption, from CCS, carbon capture and storage, which is useful together with hydrogen for feedstocks for industrial chemical manufacturing. CCS is a little further along and easier to do.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Additionally, quite a bit of the need for storage can be substituted by overbuilding long distance power transmission lines. That may be cheaper, if NIMBYs can be neutralised. I read a factoid many years ago that wind speeds are only 10% correlated at a distance of 1000 km. Don't know how true it is, but it seems plausible at least.

by sfifs 5y ago

tuatoru 5y ago

Ah. Yes. With storage we are at least ten years behind any plausible development scenario that could keep us below 2 degrees of global warming. Still, doing it now is better than not doing it at all. However, the technology is all there. We have it. Electrolysed hydrogen. There is a lot of development work being done on optimising electrolysis, but it's by no means a lab experiment like carbon sequestration[1] or fusion power. Hydrogen is routinely handled at scale in ammonia production. If we are to move away from fossil fuels for steel and cement making (and for industrial process heat), we will need to be producing quite a lot of hydrogen. So this just increases demand by a factor of two to five. Best get started on it. However, you are right. Everyone's been focused on the electricity sector (and to a lesser extent private land transport) up till now. And within that, on production. I don't think the "not just electricity and cars" message sunk in during COP-26. It will have to soon, though. 1. I distinguish carbon sequestration, technology to permanently lock up carbon at the same scale as our current total fossil fuel consumption, from CCS, carbon capture and storage, which is useful together with hydrogen for feedstocks for industrial chemical manufacturing. CCS is a little further along and easier to do.

tuatoru 5y ago
Additionally, quite a bit of the need for storage can be substituted by overbuilding long distance power transmission lines. That may be cheaper, if NIMBYs can be neutralised. I read a factoid many years ago that wind speeds are only 10% correlated at a distance of 1000 km. Don't know how true it is, but it seems plausible at least.