2 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoI 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 agoThose 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 agoI 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.