3 ms·

Solar/wind/storage is always a better option as long as the storage solution isn't replaced by burn fossil fuel, which like the tarsand oil detail, is the kind

• ncmncm 5y ago
  There are dozens of storage methods that all work, the only remaining uncertainty being which will be cheapest, or otherwise most useful. Hydrogen and ammonia synthesis will not be cheapest, but will arguably be most useful. It is strange that people proposing storage methods frequently seem unable to reason about cost, so propose absurdly expensive realizations of their ideas. What will end up deployed will be the most sensible alternatives. We don't need to have storage built out until after we have enough renewable generating capacity for both peak load and to charge up the storage, at the same time. Until then, money is overwhelmingly better spent on the generating capacity. Given equipment to synthesize ammonia or hydrogen, we can then continue building out generating capacity, because all the hydrogen or ammonia produced after local storage is topped up can be sold for direct revenue.
  • belorn 5y ago
    I have read both government studies on energy storage solutions and studies done by financial advisors to people who invest in the energy sector. The issue is always the high cost, with only specific places and situations where it is economical viable. In particular, if you can discharge the storage 365 days a year from 100% to 0%, selling at fairly high peak price, and do so for a capacity of 1-6hrs (depending on location and peak price), then it can be made profitable to operate a storage solution (depend also a bit on subsidies). Every other solution has yet to be found economical viable, and all of those other solutions are significant more expensive than nuclear. There are some alternative use cases. If you can convert the energy directly to a substance that an industry consume, like hydrogen in steel production, then the economics start to shift a bit. Hydrogen is produce today through natural gas, and if we include the carbon tax and introduce some subsidies to those who want to use renewables, then green hydrogen can be made to price match grey hydrogen in steel manufacturing. It not perfect, and its not storage, but it does reduce the use of fossil fuels. Burning the hydrogen for power however is still several times more expensive than nuclear, and I don't think people are willing to pay that kind of money in order to avoid nuclear power. The current way most governments seem to operate is to build out renewable generating capacity while also build out equal or greater amount of fossil fuel generating capacity. Looking at the Ukraine war, looking at the climate, and just looking at air pollution or graphs over fossil fuel usage, I am not optimistic that the current strategy are working at all. If anything it look exactly what the fossil fuel lobbying are pushing which is a future where they still hold a significant position and where the high peak price results in about as much profits as in the past but for a significant less amount of actually product.
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      Making a business out of selling stored energy has weird incentives. Storage is better integrated into a system along with generating and transmission capacity. A business shaving peaks has been shown to work, and to favor maintaining a few minutes' worth of battery at high wattage capacity. Green hydrogen will be getting very cheap. It makes no sense to assume prices for everything will stay the same as the world changes around them. Natural gas generation equipment is easily retrofitted to burn synthetic hydrogen or ammonia, along with compressed air, so such purchases are not wasted. Burning along with compressed air yields more energy than the sum what you would get just burning, and separately running compressed air through the turbine. (Compressed air storage is really cheap to build out.)