4 ms·

Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or

by j-pb 5y ago

Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or on regenerative iron dust cycles, or... The idea that it's nuclear or fossil for baseload is a false dichotomy, that ingores the dozens of intermediary storage solutions. Solar is currently the cheapest source of energy with a margin. Add storage to an overproduction system, and it's still cheaper. The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, driven by corrupt conservative politicians and the privatized energy sector, to press as much return out of their old investments as possible.

HWR_14 5y ago
> The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, And that is one of the reasons that the most recent election led to the elevation of the Green Party.
- macspoofing 5y ago
  And I'm going to make a prediction: Nothing will change because this isn't a political issue. This is a materials science, physics, and chemistry issue. We do have have a battery technology to get around solar/wind intermittency issues. Doesn't matter who is in charge.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I assume you're saying that we don't have the battery technology. But we don't need batteries in this system. I imagine energy storage via lifting rocks uphill or giant flywheels or molten salt caves.
    - macspoofing 5y ago
      Those are batteries (i.e. things that store energy for later use). You'll notice that none of them are actually used at any scale, and certainly not to provide baseload for solar/wind.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        I mean, they are all energy storage, but they aren't the chemical based batteries I thought you were talking about. I know flywheels are in some use. But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand. As opposed to creating new battery chemistries, which requires research.
        macspoofing 5y ago
        >I mean, they are all energy storage, but they aren't the chemical based batteries I thought you were talking about. Good to clear up confusion. I mean batteries in the general sense, not just based on chemistry. >But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand. So far that hasn't been shown to be true. This is very much an open question, leaning towards 'no' because NOBODY got that level of storage working.
gruez 5y ago
> Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or on regenerative iron dust cycles, or... And how cost effective are those storage methods?
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Compared to gas at pre-war prices, they were getting close but not quite competitive. Compared to current gas prices or nuclear, batteries are dirt cheap and some of the others are almost as cheap as batteries.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    Could you suggest some links? I'd be very happy with renewables+batteries, but the fact it's so quiet suggests to me this isn't so simple. Certainly in Northern Europe where dark, windless winters exist - i.e. you need storage potentially for weeks, not a small few hours.
  - poutine 5y ago
    If you want hours of battery storage sure, not if you want seasonal storage. That makes solar+battery a niche, not something you base your energy economy on. Besides, even if you did there's not enough minerals being mined to do battery grid storage at scale to move entire economies over to it.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      Overprovisioning is a lot cheaper than seasonal storage. LFP storage batteries use only widely available minerals: Lithium, Iron and Phosphorus. No nickel, cobalt etc.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Source? Looking at this report[1], battery storage methods are 2x-3x the cost of "combustion turbine" (natural gas?). Presumably the kW and kWh costs for storage costs don't factor in the underlying of the energy they're storing, so the actual cost is likely higher. [1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%... (figures 5.5 and 5.6)
DocTomoe 5y ago
Gas is more than electricity. You need gas for heating - good luck installing electric heating in millions of homes until the next winter - and you need gas for chemical processes.
macspoofing 5y ago
>Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or on regenerative iron dust cycles, or... None of those are actual options. Pumped hydro is pretty much the only viable option but you need the geography for it. Germany does not have the geography to roll out pumped hydro at enough of a scale to bridge the intermittency issues with renewables. But don't believe me, look at the present reality - there is no nation on earth that is able to power it's economy with renewables (+batteries). The only viable option is hydro-electric and unfortunately, we've pretty much ran out of places to dam. >Solar is currently the cheapest source of energy with a margin. Again, there is no battery technology that is able to store enough excess energy to power a modern economy (or even a mid-size city). >The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one The sad part is that it isn't. Material science is hard and you can't just will non-existent technology into existence ... as the Germans found out. That's why Germany was signing multi-billion/multi-decade deals with Russia to import their natural gas.
poutine 5y ago
This isn't so simple. Solar and wind are not just intermittent on a day to day basis, they are intermittent on a seasonal one -- as we saw last year the wind can not blow as strong for months at a time. Much of Europe could be blanketed with a large weather system for days cutting the sun and so forth. Even flow batteries simply can't store enough energy, hydro storage is limited by geography and other solutions are currently niche and have yet to prove scale up. Green hydrogen probably has the most promise as a large scale storage technology that's close enough to natural gas to make workable. Energy is so critical to our civilizations that you can't just make assertions that it'll be OK, you need to be certain. Getting it wrong can be terminal.

by j-pb 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

> The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one, And that is one of the reasons that the most recent election led to the elevation of the Green Party.

macspoofing 5y ago
And I'm going to make a prediction: Nothing will change because this isn't a political issue. This is a materials science, physics, and chemistry issue. We do have have a battery technology to get around solar/wind intermittency issues. Doesn't matter who is in charge.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I assume you're saying that we don't have the battery technology. But we don't need batteries in this system. I imagine energy storage via lifting rocks uphill or giant flywheels or molten salt caves.
  - macspoofing 5y ago
    Those are batteries (i.e. things that store energy for later use). You'll notice that none of them are actually used at any scale, and certainly not to provide baseload for solar/wind.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I mean, they are all energy storage, but they aren't the chemical based batteries I thought you were talking about. I know flywheels are in some use. But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand. As opposed to creating new battery chemistries, which requires research.
      - macspoofing 5y ago
        >I mean, they are all energy storage, but they aren't the chemical based batteries I thought you were talking about. Good to clear up confusion. I mean batteries in the general sense, not just based on chemistry. >But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand. So far that hasn't been shown to be true. This is very much an open question, leaning towards 'no' because NOBODY got that level of storage working.

gruez 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Compared to gas at pre-war prices, they were getting close but not quite competitive. Compared to current gas prices or nuclear, batteries are dirt cheap and some of the others are almost as cheap as batteries.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Could you suggest some links? I'd be very happy with renewables+batteries, but the fact it's so quiet suggests to me this isn't so simple. Certainly in Northern Europe where dark, windless winters exist - i.e. you need storage potentially for weeks, not a small few hours.
- poutine 5y ago
  If you want hours of battery storage sure, not if you want seasonal storage. That makes solar+battery a niche, not something you base your energy economy on. Besides, even if you did there's not enough minerals being mined to do battery grid storage at scale to move entire economies over to it.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Overprovisioning is a lot cheaper than seasonal storage. LFP storage batteries use only widely available minerals: Lithium, Iron and Phosphorus. No nickel, cobalt etc.
- gruez 5y ago
  Source? Looking at this report[1], battery storage methods are 2x-3x the cost of "combustion turbine" (natural gas?). Presumably the kW and kWh costs for storage costs don't factor in the underlying of the energy they're storing, so the actual cost is likely higher. [1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%... (figures 5.5 and 5.6)

DocTomoe 5y ago

Gas is more than electricity. You need gas for heating - good luck installing electric heating in millions of homes until the next winter - and you need gas for chemical processes.

macspoofing 5y ago

>Or on batteries, or on liquid salt thermal storage upgrades for old fossil plants, or on hydro storage, or on salt cavern pneumatic pressure, or on hydrogen, or on regenerative iron dust cycles, or... None of those are actual options. Pumped hydro is pretty much the only viable option but you need the geography for it. Germany does not have the geography to roll out pumped hydro at enough of a scale to bridge the intermittency issues with renewables. But don't believe me, look at the present reality - there is no nation on earth that is able to power it's economy with renewables (+batteries). The only viable option is hydro-electric and unfortunately, we've pretty much ran out of places to dam. >Solar is currently the cheapest source of energy with a margin. Again, there is no battery technology that is able to store enough excess energy to power a modern economy (or even a mid-size city). >The german failure to finish the "energiewende" is a political one The sad part is that it isn't. Material science is hard and you can't just will non-existent technology into existence ... as the Germans found out. That's why Germany was signing multi-billion/multi-decade deals with Russia to import their natural gas.

poutine 5y ago

This isn't so simple. Solar and wind are not just intermittent on a day to day basis, they are intermittent on a seasonal one -- as we saw last year the wind can not blow as strong for months at a time. Much of Europe could be blanketed with a large weather system for days cutting the sun and so forth. Even flow batteries simply can't store enough energy, hydro storage is limited by geography and other solutions are currently niche and have yet to prove scale up. Green hydrogen probably has the most promise as a large scale storage technology that's close enough to natural gas to make workable. Energy is so critical to our civilizations that you can't just make assertions that it'll be OK, you need to be certain. Getting it wrong can be terminal.