7 ms·
Doe Invests Half a Billion to De-Risk Cheaper Energy Storage
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ncmncm 4y agoDOE, not Doe.
- xiphias2 4y agoAm I the only person who thinks that half billion dollars at this stage for this initiative is nothing, when trillions of dollars were printed in the name of helping the environment?
- Emma_Goldman 4y agoWell, Biden's legislative climate agenda has collapsed. They have to scrape together whatever money they can from existing budgets. Also, the idea is really to give private actors just enough money and support to get them going: "Funding should not just support technology field testing but also allow developers to better understand the critical commercial side, “helping formulate the market mechanisms that are going to enable long-duration storage to survive and prosper on the grid.”" Whether it's true or not, economists like to claim that there's a multiplier effect in cases like this, where every $1 if public investment creates >$10 of private investment.
- taurath 4y agoI don’t know if it ever existed really, but in my head it seems like at one point there were national level projects that were taken on by people who might’ve been dedicated to an ideal or a real like commitment to solving problems, and they got stuff done. Like the Hoover dam, interstate highway system, transcontinental railroad, the internet even. Nowadays it feels like the country is entirely filled to the brim with middlemen ready to make those with yachts able to afford bigger yachts. But a generation of people have lost the basic housing security their parents enjoyed, and basics like food transportation and healthcare that are required are now so unaffordable it traps people in a cycle of poverty. Maybe it’s always been this way - anyone have any thoughts?
- belorn 4y agoWhat makes this funding different from regular subsidies, so that we get this "[for] every $1 if public investment creates >$10 of private investment"?
- throwaway894345 4y agoDid Biden ever have a serious climate agenda? It seemed like a bunch of fluff to help sell a progressive social spending wishlist. The climate provisions I recall were investments in EVs, a citizen’s climate corps, and public transit investment. Apart from accelerating the EV transition, I doubt these things would amount to even a drop in the bucket (investing in public transit is mostly for people who already use public transit—very few people would switch to public transit if it were available because it’s hard to beat the convenience of driving outside of congested big cities). What other climate initiatives did I forget? I would expect serious climate policy to look like carbon pricing or at least more considerable EV and renewables investments.
- Dave3of5 4y ago> trillions of dollars were printed in the name of helping the environment Source on this ?
- mateo1 4y agoIs there some kind of report available that attempts to summarise how much money the US and EU have spend on subsidising green energy and technology?
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoCoal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion worldwide in subsidies in 2020.[0] So whatever you may be thinking is 'spent' on renewable energy it is quite literally a drop in a bucket compared to subsidies and tax rebates for fossil fuels. [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
- belorn 4y agoFor EU the numbers: https://trinomics.eu/energysubsidies/ https://trinomics.eu/energysubsidies/ Renewables: €78bn Fossil fuels: €56bn Here is an other source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303891/eu-breakdown-of-energy-subsidies-by-carrier/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303891/eu-breakdown-of-... So no, not literally a drop in a bucket but rather an larger bucket that also is increasing every year. For US it is a bit more complex, but in in terms of tax rebates we see that renewables get more subsidies than fossil fuels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... The paper you linked is primarily about air pollution and effects on global warming, or what they describe as "implicit subsidies". Not money from government or tax rebates. In terms of "implicit subsidies", air pollution account for 42% of that $5.9 trillion, 29% global warming, and 15% are road accidents and traffic congestion.
- mateo1 4y agoSomething else that would provoke some thought is what kind of returns do these subsidies get in terms of energy delivered? To get the full picture would require the inclusion of grands for r&d, governmental human resources and capital allocation, and perhaps more importantly the cost incurred by large investors both private and public shifting from clearly profitable investment in traditional energy sources to questionable or even outright improbable mageprojects only because of a clear and persistent signal from governments that profitable investments in fossil fuels will be punished in the near future. People don't seem to get it but we are spending our pension funds and taxes into various scams. This has already started to bite our asses here in europe and there's still no sign of this insanity ending. At least if public dialogue was honest and grounded in reality we could spend all that money in researching a solution that actually works economically.
- londons_explore 4y agoMake electricity grids be a proper open market, so that I can buy and sell electricity by the watt and by the second, and suddenly a lot of companies will invest in energy storage to earn money by buying low selling high. Like theoretically I could do it in my own house - I could charge my phone battery at night when power is in low demand and cheap, and then discharge the battery back into the grid when power is in high demand and expensive. But due to the lack of realtime market pricing, I won't get paid for that. So I won't bother.
- Dave3of5 4y agoThis is quite a silly and short sighted take. The electrical grid is not a stock market and it should not ever be. There is a seriously complex system in place right now to try to balance the generation of energy vs the load. Throwing personal discharging into the grid into the question will cause serious ramifications.
- londons_explore 4y agoIt's really hard to construct an example of a market based electricity grid collapsing (ie. any time where demand != generation), unless a majority of market participants act irrationally to lose money. In fact I believe it is impossible for collapse to occur, even with irrational market participants, if you add one more requirement: All players must prepay for all electricity they use/generate, and anyone whose prepay balance falls to zero is immediately disconnected from the grid.
- Dave3of5 4y agoNow you're getting even sillier. Prepayment doesn't matter. It's to do with regulation of the energy being produced and exported into the grid.
- ncmncm 4y agoCollapse is a natural mode in a power grid, even moreso than in a market. It takes active regulation to prevent frequent collapses, even with best intentions all around. It is a Very Good Thing that magickal thinkers have no say in how power grids are run. They have too much say on markets.
- ncmncm 4y agoLooking over their announcements, it appears they are trying to ensure that heat engines -- i.e., steam turbines -- remain an essential part of the grid. The most promising storage approaches don't take a round-trip through heat, and they appear to have no interest in them.