6 ms·

We do not have enough energy storage capability to rely completely on Solar and Wind yet. Both are intermittent producers so to get truly reliable power from th

by zaphar 5y ago

We do not have enough energy storage capability to rely completely on Solar and Wind yet. Both are intermittent producers so to get truly reliable power from them we need storage capacity. There are projects that promise to meet that need but positioning solar and wind as all we need is not a true statement.

pfdietz 5y ago
> We do not have enough energy storage capability to rely completely on Solar and Wind yet. How is this an interesting argument? Of course we don't have things before we build them. That's true of nuclear power plants, too. We can likely build out storage faster than NPPs, with more aggressive cost decline with cumulative production.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I put numbers in another comment, but this isn't a "just build some more batteries" type of problem. The scale of storage needed completely dwarfs our current production capacity. This problem cannot be solved in the near future, with current production/technology.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    It is dishonest to pretend batteries are the only viable storage method.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  >We can likely build out storage faster than NPPs First, this is yet to be determined. Even assuming it is true, which I'm not sure it is, The problem is not limited to storage - you also need massive transmission system upgrades that will cost on the same order of magnitude as an Apollo program. I think in the long term it should certainly be done, but pretending that the cost of solar and wind power is the cost of solar panels, or even the cost of solar panels + storage is not comparing apples to apples.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    We are down for many, many times the cost of Apollo, regardless. The only question is how much available power we will get for that. The very best one running is solar+wind+storage, far ahead of the others.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Energy is huge. The world will likely spend the equivalent of approaching a quadrillion dollars over the next century on energy. The Apollo program, in comparison, was less than a rounding error.
dreamcompiler 5y ago
Yes dispatchability is an issue with renewables. We need more transmission too. Both can be solved (and are being solved) with existing technology today, and both are improving all the time. It's both practical and economical today to build an off-grid house with PV and enough Li-Ion storage to bridge the nighttime gap and charge an EV. With distributed electricity generation e.g. microgrids, the need for big, centralized storage decreases, as does the need for large-scale transmission. By the time fusion generators exist in a practical form (at least 20 years from now), we won't need them.

by zaphar 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago

> We do not have enough energy storage capability to rely completely on Solar and Wind yet. How is this an interesting argument? Of course we don't have things before we build them. That's true of nuclear power plants, too. We can likely build out storage faster than NPPs, with more aggressive cost decline with cumulative production.

dahfizz 5y ago
I put numbers in another comment, but this isn't a "just build some more batteries" type of problem. The scale of storage needed completely dwarfs our current production capacity. This problem cannot be solved in the near future, with current production/technology.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It is dishonest to pretend batteries are the only viable storage method.
idiotsecant 5y ago
>We can likely build out storage faster than NPPs First, this is yet to be determined. Even assuming it is true, which I'm not sure it is, The problem is not limited to storage - you also need massive transmission system upgrades that will cost on the same order of magnitude as an Apollo program. I think in the long term it should certainly be done, but pretending that the cost of solar and wind power is the cost of solar panels, or even the cost of solar panels + storage is not comparing apples to apples.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We are down for many, many times the cost of Apollo, regardless. The only question is how much available power we will get for that. The very best one running is solar+wind+storage, far ahead of the others.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Energy is huge. The world will likely spend the equivalent of approaching a quadrillion dollars over the next century on energy. The Apollo program, in comparison, was less than a rounding error.

dreamcompiler 5y ago

Yes dispatchability is an issue with renewables. We need more transmission too. Both can be solved (and are being solved) with existing technology today, and both are improving all the time. It's both practical and economical today to build an off-grid house with PV and enough Li-Ion storage to bridge the nighttime gap and charge an EV. With distributed electricity generation e.g. microgrids, the need for big, centralized storage decreases, as does the need for large-scale transmission. By the time fusion generators exist in a practical form (at least 20 years from now), we won't need them.