5 ms·

> Apparently , wind+solar don't work at night (...) This line of argument is either disingenuous or ignorant. https://m.dw.com/en/new-energy-storage-facilitie

> Apparently , wind+solar don't work at night (...) This line of argument is either disingenuous or ignorant. https://m.dw.com/en/new-energy-storage-facilities-in-high-demand-in-germany/a-56610380 https://m.dw.com/en/new-energy-storage-facilities-in-high-de... https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-storage https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-storage

ohgodplsno 4y ago
A whole 5GW in the entire world? Crazy, it almost matches the 400GW of just nuclear output, and the many more of every other power source. Wind + solar isn't a reliable energy source, period. You need a base load, whether that comes from hydroelectric, nuclear or, unfortunately, fossil fuels. Wind and solar are great at topping off things and should be deployed as much as possible for individuals to reduce the demand on the overall network, but they will never be a credible energy source, no matter how much people say "but batteries are just around the corner!". They are no, they are a waste of valuable metals and they are horribly polluting to produce.
- freemint 4y ago
  The sun shines 24/7.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  The whole argument about base supply (not load), only made sense in the old times when there were expensive variable supplies which could quickly follow load, and cheap base supplies which would run constantly at the same output (typically coal, nuclear...). The situation completely changed now the highly variable loads are cheaper now than the former base supplies. So you would always use your money to overbuild on the variable supplies not build constant supplies. The thing is solar and wind don't compete with gas, they compete with coal solar. However with the way solar and wind costs are going, we will likely reach a point where it makes more sense to overbuild so much to even cover the load peaks instead of using gas peakers.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    It seems unreasonable to think that wind and solar could be overbuilt to an extent they could serve as a sole supply. Everyone has had the experience of walking around on a windless night. You can have many such nights in a row.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      On a continent scale?
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      There has been a lot of research that showed that this is possible with relatively little over provisioning for a place like the US or Europe. The thing that is still missing are highly integrated electricity nets, but that is improving raapidely mainly for economic reasons (with a very competitive market and integrated nets one can make quite a bit of money by selling from places we're generation is currently cheap). If we use hydro also for storage (pumping up water when electricity is cheap), you need even less overprovisioning.
himinlomax 4y ago
Ignorant? Energy storage is not a short or medium term solution. Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible as not all dams are suitable -- in fact most aren't. Battery storage for large grids currently covers minutes of use, a few hours may be attainable. But wind can be absent for days or weeks, and there's such a thing as winter when you're as far from the equator as Germany. Ignorant. Right.
- jhgb 4y ago
  > Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible The Australian National University recently disagreed: https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-worldwide https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent... . But even very large amounts of pumped hydro storage are probably not the cost optimum -- according to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211... , the optimum lies in the direction of significant overgeneration, which reduces storage requirements massively (even while allowing opportunistic consumers of electricity such as for example hydrogen production). > But wind can be absent for days or weeks, and there's such a thing as winter when you're as far from the equator as Germany. Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter. So the more likely periods of decreased wind happen in summer, where they're interrupted daily by significant solar generation. At the very least in German conditions, these two events (lack of wind and lack of sun) are not only not independent, but they're actually anticorrelated. That also helps deal with the whole situation.
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    > The Australian National University recently disagreed This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. > Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. Famine, drowning and thirst also occur when a commodity that's otherwise readily available on average isn't. They're considered somewhat unpleasant.
natmaka 4y ago
Indeed, and the next step is continental: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
concordDance 4y ago
Here's what types of storage we have available and their costs and benefits: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Stora... Depending on how reliable you need your energy you'll need various energy storage mixes. Judging by the uk, wind can spend an entire month producing at 15% of it's normal output and can spend days at 3%. So you need a LOT of storage if you want to be sure the lights stay on. In the high hundreds of billions of Euros (and considerable ongoing costs given they need the equivalent of replacement eveey 10-20 years) in the case of Germany.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  There have been nearly no investment on energy storage in our history (for very obvious reasons). Thus, any such report done with information collected by looking at history is prone to be completely wrong. (And yes, we are going to need a lot of storage. On amounts close to 1/3 of our daily generation capacity. We also need some long-term and transportable solutions. And yes, there are currently no options on the market, for very obvious reasons. All of those can be done.)
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > There have been nearly no investment on energy storage in our history (for very obvious reasons). By "nearly no" do you mean "tens, possibly hundreds of billions"? Batteries alone have had tens of billions in investment in the last few years. > On amounts close to 1/3 of our daily generation capacity. What kind of mix and overproduction are you thinking of that gets you ratios that low without brownouts? I suspect that if you want to live off wind and solar you'll need a week of capacity to get no brownouts when it's still and gray for a week unless you get nameplate capacity 10x your average needs.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

A whole 5GW in the entire world? Crazy, it almost matches the 400GW of just nuclear output, and the many more of every other power source. Wind + solar isn't a reliable energy source, period. You need a base load, whether that comes from hydroelectric, nuclear or, unfortunately, fossil fuels. Wind and solar are great at topping off things and should be deployed as much as possible for individuals to reduce the demand on the overall network, but they will never be a credible energy source, no matter how much people say "but batteries are just around the corner!". They are no, they are a waste of valuable metals and they are horribly polluting to produce.

freemint 4y ago
The sun shines 24/7.
cycomanic 4y ago
The whole argument about base supply (not load), only made sense in the old times when there were expensive variable supplies which could quickly follow load, and cheap base supplies which would run constantly at the same output (typically coal, nuclear...). The situation completely changed now the highly variable loads are cheaper now than the former base supplies. So you would always use your money to overbuild on the variable supplies not build constant supplies. The thing is solar and wind don't compete with gas, they compete with coal solar. However with the way solar and wind costs are going, we will likely reach a point where it makes more sense to overbuild so much to even cover the load peaks instead of using gas peakers.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It seems unreasonable to think that wind and solar could be overbuilt to an extent they could serve as a sole supply. Everyone has had the experience of walking around on a windless night. You can have many such nights in a row.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    On a continent scale?
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    There has been a lot of research that showed that this is possible with relatively little over provisioning for a place like the US or Europe. The thing that is still missing are highly integrated electricity nets, but that is improving raapidely mainly for economic reasons (with a very competitive market and integrated nets one can make quite a bit of money by selling from places we're generation is currently cheap). If we use hydro also for storage (pumping up water when electricity is cheap), you need even less overprovisioning.

himinlomax 4y ago

Ignorant? Energy storage is not a short or medium term solution. Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible as not all dams are suitable -- in fact most aren't. Battery storage for large grids currently covers minutes of use, a few hours may be attainable. But wind can be absent for days or weeks, and there's such a thing as winter when you're as far from the equator as Germany. Ignorant. Right.

jhgb 4y ago
> Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible The Australian National University recently disagreed: https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-worldwide https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent... . But even very large amounts of pumped hydro storage are probably not the cost optimum -- according to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211... , the optimum lies in the direction of significant overgeneration, which reduces storage requirements massively (even while allowing opportunistic consumers of electricity such as for example hydrogen production). > But wind can be absent for days or weeks, and there's such a thing as winter when you're as far from the equator as Germany. Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter. So the more likely periods of decreased wind happen in summer, where they're interrupted daily by significant solar generation. At the very least in German conditions, these two events (lack of wind and lack of sun) are not only not independent, but they're actually anticorrelated. That also helps deal with the whole situation.
- himinlomax 4y ago
  > The Australian National University recently disagreed This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. > Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. Famine, drowning and thirst also occur when a commodity that's otherwise readily available on average isn't. They're considered somewhat unpleasant.

natmaka 4y ago

Indeed, and the next step is continental: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

concordDance 4y ago

Here's what types of storage we have available and their costs and benefits: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Stora... Depending on how reliable you need your energy you'll need various energy storage mixes. Judging by the uk, wind can spend an entire month producing at 15% of it's normal output and can spend days at 3%. So you need a LOT of storage if you want to be sure the lights stay on. In the high hundreds of billions of Euros (and considerable ongoing costs given they need the equivalent of replacement eveey 10-20 years) in the case of Germany.

marcosdumay 4y ago
There have been nearly no investment on energy storage in our history (for very obvious reasons). Thus, any such report done with information collected by looking at history is prone to be completely wrong. (And yes, we are going to need a lot of storage. On amounts close to 1/3 of our daily generation capacity. We also need some long-term and transportable solutions. And yes, there are currently no options on the market, for very obvious reasons. All of those can be done.)
- concordDance 4y ago
  > There have been nearly no investment on energy storage in our history (for very obvious reasons). By "nearly no" do you mean "tens, possibly hundreds of billions"? Batteries alone have had tens of billions in investment in the last few years. > On amounts close to 1/3 of our daily generation capacity. What kind of mix and overproduction are you thinking of that gets you ratios that low without brownouts? I suspect that if you want to live off wind and solar you'll need a week of capacity to get no brownouts when it's still and gray for a week unless you get nameplate capacity 10x your average needs.