4 ms·

Fusion will not solve any energy problems we have today, and is unconnected to them. Fusion will have to, maybe, compete with solar/wind/storage in 20-30 years

Fusion will not solve any energy problems we have today, and is unconnected to them. Fusion will have to, maybe, compete with solar/wind/storage in 20-30 years, and beat the prices for that 20-30 years from now. With solar+storage being cheaper than many fossil fuels today, fusion is going to have to be extremely cheap to be able to be a competitive terrestrial energy source with 20-30 years more of solar and storage improvements.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
I agree that solar/wind price points have massively gone down but how is storage a solved problem? I have only seen research projects in this field, is there anyone who has commercially deployed an energy storage solution? (other than hydro projects)
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  I don't think it is correct. Offshore wind is cost competitive with fossil fuels in the UK. However, if you include storage I believe this cost balloons significantly. That said, there are significant grid scale batteries coming online. The largest of these in California is 1.2GWh. By comparison the UK has about 30GWh of pumped storage.
- otherme123 5y ago
  This short read should answer your questions: https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-breaking-down-low-cost-solar-plus-storage-ppas-in-the-usa/ https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-... It seems that we are at the turning point.
- RobertoG 5y ago
  These look almost there (I know, I know, "almost"): https://ambri.com/ https://ambri.com/ (liquid metal battery) https://www.hydrostor.ca/ https://www.hydrostor.ca/ (compressed air)
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The only problems we have with storage are (1) determining which will end up cheapest, or has the most valuable side benefits, and (2) building out. Hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, and liquified air all produce a valuable industrial product once the tanks are full. Used to be their round-trip efficiency was considered too low, but with solar panels getting dirt cheap, just putting up more panels accommodates almost any conceivable loss. Likewise for long-distance high-voltage transmission lines; China is even building cables to Chile (!) for winter power from desert panel farms. Factories for industrial amounts of iron-air batteries are already under construction, and will be in full production by end of next year. It turns out that pumped hydro, the most mature and efficient current method, has far more potential than generally assumed. A regular hydro power dam has to be in a river valley with a big watershed area. But for hydro storage, all you need is a penstock up to a depression in the hills, no watershed or river needed. There are millions of those. Even if you build a dam along one end, it's cheap. And you can float solar panels on it, where they will reduce evaporation and also run more efficiently. Storage is a solved problem. We don't have much of it yet just because a renewable dollar is today better spent on a panel or turbine, and because cost for storage is falling even faster than for solar panels. Wait a bit, get more for the same money.
  - p1mrx 5y ago
    > China is even building cables to Chile (!) Where did you read this? China is 18000 km from Chile, so this seems really unlikely.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I doubt it will end up built. But losses would only be like 50% with current tech, which is actually tolerable nowadays because solar panels are so cheap.
- epistasis 5y ago
  These are somewhat old stats: > One growing solution to this, Bolinger said, is the addition of batteries to utility scale solar projects. While adding storage can increase the PPA price from $5-$20/MWh depending on the size and duration of the battery, Bolinger said, they are growing in popularity. Of 460 GW of solar projects in queues around the nation as of 2020, 160 GW included a battery. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/developers-increasingly-pair-batteries-with-utility-scale-solar-to-combat-d/608117/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/developers-increasingly-pai... We are right at the inflection point of deployment, where projects are cheaper with storage than without, so the amount of projects with storage is going to skyrocket very soon. The thing that makes it cheaper to include storage is lowering of prices during peak production hours, or even curtailment. So after a state gets > ~10% or so of their energy from solar you will see far more storage. Standalone, for-profit batteries are also becoming common these days, especially on highly-renewable grids that are purely profit driven, like Texas' ERCOT grid. And ERCOT is purely pay-for-energy, so deploying a battery there requires analysis of the arbitrage opportunities, and understanding the grid congestion, etc. Here's a small battery deployment, but the interesting thing was this current analysis of arbitrage market depth: > According to John Hancock’s Andrew Mazze, the first hour of energy arbitrage is the most valuable in ERCOT’s market construct and adding extra hours of storage does not justify the extra capital cost required. “I don’t need four hours to maximise the value of the battery [in Texas], you can get 90% of the value with much less capital cost, with a one or two-hour battery [system],” he said. https://www.energy-storage.news/texas-broad-reach-power-brings-200mw-of-battery-storage-plants-online/ https://www.energy-storage.news/texas-broad-reach-power-brin...
samwillis 5y ago
The issue with solar is the land area usage in densely populated countries, less of a problem in the US but here in the UK the is a lot of push back against building solar farms on agricultural land. There is a convincing argument that we need to discourage the practice in order to maintain domestic food production. Obviously there are alternative locations such a roofs of commercial buildings and over the top of car parks. But that bring some of there own problems, structural problems with old roofs and cost to modify car parks. The UK have done a brilliant job of offshore wind, that works well. My point is traditional Nuclear and Fusion use a lot less land and that is an important factor to consider long term.
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  Solar is probably not the right technology for the UK. That said, on a cool sunny spring day I'm often amazed by the amount of solar energy we are generating, 2-4GW of power. Nearly 10% of the normal demand. Compared to its impact, virtual none, I think that is quite impressive. There is also a reasonable chance that solar panel efficiency could practically double. That would definitely make things interesting.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  There is absolutely no problem with land area for solar and wind. First, the amount of land used for fossil fuel extraction today is less than the total needed to park all the power generation equipment we will need. All of that land will soon be unused. Second, putting up solar over existing farm and pasture land increases yield and reduces water needs. Solar over canals and reservoirs cuts evaporation loss. Solar over parking lots keeps off sun and rain, making cars last longer. There is no need to devote any land exclusively to energy production. Finally, wind also coexists nicely with agriculture. A wind turbine not connected to the grid can be synthesizing ammonia whenever the wind blows, for local use as both fertilizer and fuel, much more cheaply than central industrial production that then must be trucked in.
  - samwillis 5y ago
    Oh I’m not saying for a second it shouldn't be done. The main issue here is a combination NIMBY and misaligned incentives. Quite right you can graze sheep (and other cattle) under solar. You cannot grow crops though, which is what I was suggesting by “agricultural” land, should have made that more clear. I live about two miles from what is proposed to be the UKs largest solar farm [0], I believe it will be 8.7x the size of the next largest by area [1]. The local community largely don’t want it [2], personally I would not be unhappy if it happed. However I can see and understand the arguments about placing it on such fertile land that should be used for growing crops - their main argument against it. But there is also a NIMBY sentiment too. There are good reasons for placing it in that location, there is a significantly large substation there and it’s either side of a major railway line. The point is, we in the UK need to be growing as much of our own food as possible. Solar is a potential threat to that under the current incentives. The government absolutely should be incentivising solar but in other locations, all that you have listed, but currently farmers can get a better return from solar than crops. 0: https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ 1: https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ 2: https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ See also: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-shows-incredible-scale-of-solar-farm-9236563/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-show... https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-on-solar-farm-views-9230167/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-...

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

I agree that solar/wind price points have massively gone down but how is storage a solved problem? I have only seen research projects in this field, is there anyone who has commercially deployed an energy storage solution? (other than hydro projects)

VBprogrammer 5y ago
I don't think it is correct. Offshore wind is cost competitive with fossil fuels in the UK. However, if you include storage I believe this cost balloons significantly. That said, there are significant grid scale batteries coming online. The largest of these in California is 1.2GWh. By comparison the UK has about 30GWh of pumped storage.
otherme123 5y ago
This short read should answer your questions: https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-breaking-down-low-cost-solar-plus-storage-ppas-in-the-usa/ https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-... It seems that we are at the turning point.
RobertoG 5y ago
These look almost there (I know, I know, "almost"): https://ambri.com/ https://ambri.com/ (liquid metal battery) https://www.hydrostor.ca/ https://www.hydrostor.ca/ (compressed air)
ncmncm 5y ago
The only problems we have with storage are (1) determining which will end up cheapest, or has the most valuable side benefits, and (2) building out. Hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, and liquified air all produce a valuable industrial product once the tanks are full. Used to be their round-trip efficiency was considered too low, but with solar panels getting dirt cheap, just putting up more panels accommodates almost any conceivable loss. Likewise for long-distance high-voltage transmission lines; China is even building cables to Chile (!) for winter power from desert panel farms. Factories for industrial amounts of iron-air batteries are already under construction, and will be in full production by end of next year. It turns out that pumped hydro, the most mature and efficient current method, has far more potential than generally assumed. A regular hydro power dam has to be in a river valley with a big watershed area. But for hydro storage, all you need is a penstock up to a depression in the hills, no watershed or river needed. There are millions of those. Even if you build a dam along one end, it's cheap. And you can float solar panels on it, where they will reduce evaporation and also run more efficiently. Storage is a solved problem. We don't have much of it yet just because a renewable dollar is today better spent on a panel or turbine, and because cost for storage is falling even faster than for solar panels. Wait a bit, get more for the same money.
- p1mrx 5y ago
  > China is even building cables to Chile (!) Where did you read this? China is 18000 km from Chile, so this seems really unlikely.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I doubt it will end up built. But losses would only be like 50% with current tech, which is actually tolerable nowadays because solar panels are so cheap.
epistasis 5y ago
These are somewhat old stats: > One growing solution to this, Bolinger said, is the addition of batteries to utility scale solar projects. While adding storage can increase the PPA price from $5-$20/MWh depending on the size and duration of the battery, Bolinger said, they are growing in popularity. Of 460 GW of solar projects in queues around the nation as of 2020, 160 GW included a battery. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/developers-increasingly-pair-batteries-with-utility-scale-solar-to-combat-d/608117/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/developers-increasingly-pai... We are right at the inflection point of deployment, where projects are cheaper with storage than without, so the amount of projects with storage is going to skyrocket very soon. The thing that makes it cheaper to include storage is lowering of prices during peak production hours, or even curtailment. So after a state gets > ~10% or so of their energy from solar you will see far more storage. Standalone, for-profit batteries are also becoming common these days, especially on highly-renewable grids that are purely profit driven, like Texas' ERCOT grid. And ERCOT is purely pay-for-energy, so deploying a battery there requires analysis of the arbitrage opportunities, and understanding the grid congestion, etc. Here's a small battery deployment, but the interesting thing was this current analysis of arbitrage market depth: > According to John Hancock’s Andrew Mazze, the first hour of energy arbitrage is the most valuable in ERCOT’s market construct and adding extra hours of storage does not justify the extra capital cost required. “I don’t need four hours to maximise the value of the battery [in Texas], you can get 90% of the value with much less capital cost, with a one or two-hour battery [system],” he said. https://www.energy-storage.news/texas-broad-reach-power-brings-200mw-of-battery-storage-plants-online/ https://www.energy-storage.news/texas-broad-reach-power-brin...

samwillis 5y ago

The issue with solar is the land area usage in densely populated countries, less of a problem in the US but here in the UK the is a lot of push back against building solar farms on agricultural land. There is a convincing argument that we need to discourage the practice in order to maintain domestic food production. Obviously there are alternative locations such a roofs of commercial buildings and over the top of car parks. But that bring some of there own problems, structural problems with old roofs and cost to modify car parks. The UK have done a brilliant job of offshore wind, that works well. My point is traditional Nuclear and Fusion use a lot less land and that is an important factor to consider long term.

VBprogrammer 5y ago
Solar is probably not the right technology for the UK. That said, on a cool sunny spring day I'm often amazed by the amount of solar energy we are generating, 2-4GW of power. Nearly 10% of the normal demand. Compared to its impact, virtual none, I think that is quite impressive. There is also a reasonable chance that solar panel efficiency could practically double. That would definitely make things interesting.
ncmncm 5y ago
There is absolutely no problem with land area for solar and wind. First, the amount of land used for fossil fuel extraction today is less than the total needed to park all the power generation equipment we will need. All of that land will soon be unused. Second, putting up solar over existing farm and pasture land increases yield and reduces water needs. Solar over canals and reservoirs cuts evaporation loss. Solar over parking lots keeps off sun and rain, making cars last longer. There is no need to devote any land exclusively to energy production. Finally, wind also coexists nicely with agriculture. A wind turbine not connected to the grid can be synthesizing ammonia whenever the wind blows, for local use as both fertilizer and fuel, much more cheaply than central industrial production that then must be trucked in.
- samwillis 5y ago
  Oh I’m not saying for a second it shouldn't be done. The main issue here is a combination NIMBY and misaligned incentives. Quite right you can graze sheep (and other cattle) under solar. You cannot grow crops though, which is what I was suggesting by “agricultural” land, should have made that more clear. I live about two miles from what is proposed to be the UKs largest solar farm [0], I believe it will be 8.7x the size of the next largest by area [1]. The local community largely don’t want it [2], personally I would not be unhappy if it happed. However I can see and understand the arguments about placing it on such fertile land that should be used for growing crops - their main argument against it. But there is also a NIMBY sentiment too. There are good reasons for placing it in that location, there is a significantly large substation there and it’s either side of a major railway line. The point is, we in the UK need to be growing as much of our own food as possible. Solar is a potential threat to that under the current incentives. The government absolutely should be incentivising solar but in other locations, all that you have listed, but currently farmers can get a better return from solar than crops. 0: https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ 1: https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ 2: https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ See also: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-shows-incredible-scale-of-solar-farm-9236563/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-show... https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-on-solar-farm-views-9230167/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-...