3 ms·
If this is so simple, why don't we do it? Or is that the question you're asking? Of course, that 50% efficiency cost seems like a bit of a bear in itself. If y
by pdabbadabba 4y ago
If this is so simple, why don't we do it? Or is that the question you're asking?
Of course, that 50% efficiency cost seems like a bit of a bear in itself. If you lose half of the stored power, that would seem to significantly drive up the total lifecycle cost of a Watt of wind power. (Recognizing, of course, that not all of it must be stored.)
The cost and inefficiency (==cost) of storage seems like an unfortunate thing to handwave away in a conversation about relative costs.
- adrianN 4y agoNo, it's obvious why we don't do it: it's fairly expensive and we currently don't have enough renewable supply to fill tanks with Methane. Grids can easily be 70+% renewable without any storage at all. Money is currently better spent increasing supply than building storage.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoWe do it already on a grand scale. It's just that since we live in a world where we burn lots of gas, we don't need to do the "generate synthetic methane" step, we can just burn less of it. Sure, we could spend billions on generating synthetic methane from renewables while at the same time burning natural methane, but that would be stupid.
- ncmncm 4y agoThat is all capex. Renewable capex is still in free fall. Storage too. The more you use it, the less it costs, per kWh.