10 ms·

I don't think that's a common use of "unsolved at scale". We know how to do it, it just doesn't make economic sense right now. I mean, suppose you have hundreds

I don't think that's a common use of "unsolved at scale". We know how to do it, it just doesn't make economic sense right now. I mean, suppose you have hundreds of GW of storage of some form installed. You could just claim it's still not "solved at scale" because the global energy consumption is even higher.

philwelch 4y ago
The global supply chains for lithium batteries are already struggling to keep up just with current demand. Where are we going to get enough cobalt? Hopefully not DR Congo.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Who says Lithium batteries are the best technology for grid scale storage? (Besides Elon, I guess?)
  - wumpus 4y ago
    There are multiple kinds of grid storage. Australia, for example, wants these batteries to provide fast-acting frequency stabilization... in addition to stabilizing the output of various wind and solar facilities.
- jhallenworld 4y ago
  >Where are we going to get enough cobalt? Nobody would use this kind of lithium ion battery for grid storage. Instead use Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo4) batteries- no cobalt needed. LiFePo4 batteries are absolutely good enough right now for grid storage.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    And any sort of lithium battery is the most expensive storage. Utilities are not generally in a habit of reflexively choosing the most expensive alternative, even if some have plumped for nukes in places where ratepayers have no say.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Batteries will be a negligible fraction of utility storage, so that is moot.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    Why? What will the rest be?
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      Kinetic (water gravity, flywheel) or thermal (molten salt baths which can be supplemented with solar thermal). None of these things exist at a large scale except for pumped hydro / water gravity, and that requires very convenient topography and geology to work. Generally, any non-chemical storage system is overpriced (too inefficient) or a maintenance disaster.
      - sanderjd 4y ago
        Do you think those technologies will be scaled such that batteries are a "negligible fraction" of utility storage, or are you just giving examples of possibilities?
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Numerous technologies will be scaled. Those mentioned adjacent are just very easily understood examples. Utilities will have criteria other than "easily understood", cost chief among them.
      - User23 4y ago
        Flywheels and molten salt both have pretty gnarly failure modes too. Not Chernobyl bad, but still no fun.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Underground flywheels are perfectly safe, and more easily kept evacuated. But they won't be used much at utility scale, because they are expensive per Wh stored. Maximum storage is dictated by tensile strength of the wheel material, and each wheel needs its own motor / generator.
- nine_k 4y ago
  There is a number of battery chemistries more cheap and even efficient than Lithium-based, but with lower energy density. High energy density is important for handheld devices, for flying devices, even for cars. But stationary energy storage can be much heavier and bulkier per kWh stored, as long as it's cheaper, and can sustain more than a few thousand recharge cycles. Lithium batteries have the momentum and are dropping in price because of the EV cars revolution happening right now. When solar revolution will happen i utility scale, the utility-type batteries that will emerge may be seriously different.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Since you are 100% certain that such technology will emerge in an economical viable state to solve the storage problem for Europe, could you please provide a date so we can draft a EU law that forbids burning of fossil fuel in the European market by that date. If you can do it by this winter it would solve inflation, enable a complete sanction packet against Russian oil and gas, solve several political conflicts within EU in regard to the Ukraine war, eliminate the food shortage problem and significant reduce the cost of farming, make a large dent in reducing global warming, improve GDP, and boost prosperity in general.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Alternative chemisitries are many, and are actively developed; here's a 2021 overview: https://www.mining.com/non-lithium-battery-chemistries-to-grow-in-importance-for-stationary-energy-storage-sector-report/ https://www.mining.com/non-lithium-battery-chemistries-to-gr... What I can't predict is when some of them will become competitive enough to matter, and thus used in some large infrastructure projects.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      If we had completely free, 100% efficient grid scale storage of unlimited capacity today we couldn't stop burning fossil fuels because we don't have enough renewable generation capacity installed to fill any form of storage.
      - 4y ago
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The advantage of lithium batteries is energy/weight and energy/volume. With grid storage, neither weight nor volume is much of an issue. A couple years back, "60 Minutes" ran a segment of somebody developing grid batteries with seawater and dirt. They didn't store much energy per weight and volume, but who cares for grid batteries. I wonder what happened to this technology.
BenoitP 4y ago
At scale means with mining requirements as well. With current and projected reserves we can manage intra-day requirements for the whole world. This is the we mine it all option. But we need intra-year storage capacity. Nuclear is clearly the easier and only option (and the most environment-friendly to me, considering the mining requirements)
- adrianN 4y ago
  Mining of what? Hydrogen as storage medium for example doesn't require all that much mining. Are you assuming storage will be in the form of Lithium batteries?
  - BenoitP 4y ago
    I'm assuming currently proven tech of batteries. And we need to act now for climate change, with current tech. Electricity to H2 to electricity has horrendous efficiency (about 20% at most IIRC). We'd be much better off CO2-speaking using it to replace coal in steel production, and replace gas in fertilizer production. Both of which are proven tech (but not globally deployed, as coal and gas are cheap)
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Power2Gas2Power has low round trip efficiency (say 40%), but as only a fairly small fraction of the energy flow goes through it that doesn't matter that much at the end of the day. If it did, that just means heavy industries would migrate to less seasonally variable places.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Inefficiency just requires extra capex, not opex. And the capex is capex is still falling at an exponential rate. So, no.
    - Sinidir 4y ago
      Where are you getting that 20% number from? https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_Power-to-Hydrogen_Innovation_2019.pdf?page=11 https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication... https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/round-trip-efficiency https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/round-trip-... The round trip efficiency is 30% or more and rising with better electrolysis and reverse electrolysis being developed.
cycomanic 4y ago
Well nuclear proponents handwave away the massively higher costs, the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world), and insurance for the case of a disaster.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Nukes' problems are not caused by activists. They have nowhere near that much influence. Nukes' problems are inherent. Biggest, by a large margin, is capex which simply prices it completely out of the market.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ever solved any of the issues?
    - belorn 4y ago
      The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth. The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.

philwelch 4y ago

The global supply chains for lithium batteries are already struggling to keep up just with current demand. Where are we going to get enough cobalt? Hopefully not DR Congo.

adrianN 4y ago
Who says Lithium batteries are the best technology for grid scale storage? (Besides Elon, I guess?)
- wumpus 4y ago
  There are multiple kinds of grid storage. Australia, for example, wants these batteries to provide fast-acting frequency stabilization... in addition to stabilizing the output of various wind and solar facilities.
jhallenworld 4y ago
>Where are we going to get enough cobalt? Nobody would use this kind of lithium ion battery for grid storage. Instead use Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo4) batteries- no cobalt needed. LiFePo4 batteries are absolutely good enough right now for grid storage.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  And any sort of lithium battery is the most expensive storage. Utilities are not generally in a habit of reflexively choosing the most expensive alternative, even if some have plumped for nukes in places where ratepayers have no say.
ncmncm 4y ago
Batteries will be a negligible fraction of utility storage, so that is moot.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Why? What will the rest be?
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Kinetic (water gravity, flywheel) or thermal (molten salt baths which can be supplemented with solar thermal). None of these things exist at a large scale except for pumped hydro / water gravity, and that requires very convenient topography and geology to work. Generally, any non-chemical storage system is overpriced (too inefficient) or a maintenance disaster.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      Do you think those technologies will be scaled such that batteries are a "negligible fraction" of utility storage, or are you just giving examples of possibilities?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Numerous technologies will be scaled. Those mentioned adjacent are just very easily understood examples. Utilities will have criteria other than "easily understood", cost chief among them.
    - User23 4y ago
      Flywheels and molten salt both have pretty gnarly failure modes too. Not Chernobyl bad, but still no fun.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Underground flywheels are perfectly safe, and more easily kept evacuated. But they won't be used much at utility scale, because they are expensive per Wh stored. Maximum storage is dictated by tensile strength of the wheel material, and each wheel needs its own motor / generator.
nine_k 4y ago
There is a number of battery chemistries more cheap and even efficient than Lithium-based, but with lower energy density. High energy density is important for handheld devices, for flying devices, even for cars. But stationary energy storage can be much heavier and bulkier per kWh stored, as long as it's cheaper, and can sustain more than a few thousand recharge cycles. Lithium batteries have the momentum and are dropping in price because of the EV cars revolution happening right now. When solar revolution will happen i utility scale, the utility-type batteries that will emerge may be seriously different.
- belorn 4y ago
  Since you are 100% certain that such technology will emerge in an economical viable state to solve the storage problem for Europe, could you please provide a date so we can draft a EU law that forbids burning of fossil fuel in the European market by that date. If you can do it by this winter it would solve inflation, enable a complete sanction packet against Russian oil and gas, solve several political conflicts within EU in regard to the Ukraine war, eliminate the food shortage problem and significant reduce the cost of farming, make a large dent in reducing global warming, improve GDP, and boost prosperity in general.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Alternative chemisitries are many, and are actively developed; here's a 2021 overview: https://www.mining.com/non-lithium-battery-chemistries-to-grow-in-importance-for-stationary-energy-storage-sector-report/ https://www.mining.com/non-lithium-battery-chemistries-to-gr... What I can't predict is when some of them will become competitive enough to matter, and thus used in some large infrastructure projects.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    If we had completely free, 100% efficient grid scale storage of unlimited capacity today we couldn't stop burning fossil fuels because we don't have enough renewable generation capacity installed to fill any form of storage.
    - 4y ago
WalterBright 4y ago
The advantage of lithium batteries is energy/weight and energy/volume. With grid storage, neither weight nor volume is much of an issue. A couple years back, "60 Minutes" ran a segment of somebody developing grid batteries with seawater and dirt. They didn't store much energy per weight and volume, but who cares for grid batteries. I wonder what happened to this technology.

BenoitP 4y ago

At scale means with mining requirements as well. With current and projected reserves we can manage intra-day requirements for the whole world. This is the we mine it all option. But we need intra-year storage capacity. Nuclear is clearly the easier and only option (and the most environment-friendly to me, considering the mining requirements)

adrianN 4y ago
Mining of what? Hydrogen as storage medium for example doesn't require all that much mining. Are you assuming storage will be in the form of Lithium batteries?
- BenoitP 4y ago
  I'm assuming currently proven tech of batteries. And we need to act now for climate change, with current tech. Electricity to H2 to electricity has horrendous efficiency (about 20% at most IIRC). We'd be much better off CO2-speaking using it to replace coal in steel production, and replace gas in fertilizer production. Both of which are proven tech (but not globally deployed, as coal and gas are cheap)
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Power2Gas2Power has low round trip efficiency (say 40%), but as only a fairly small fraction of the energy flow goes through it that doesn't matter that much at the end of the day. If it did, that just means heavy industries would migrate to less seasonally variable places.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Inefficiency just requires extra capex, not opex. And the capex is capex is still falling at an exponential rate. So, no.
  - Sinidir 4y ago
    Where are you getting that 20% number from? https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_Power-to-Hydrogen_Innovation_2019.pdf?page=11 https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication... https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/round-trip-efficiency https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/round-trip-... The round trip efficiency is 30% or more and rising with better electrolysis and reverse electrolysis being developed.

cycomanic 4y ago

Well nuclear proponents handwave away the massively higher costs, the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world), and insurance for the case of a disaster.

philwelch 4y ago
> it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Nukes' problems are not caused by activists. They have nowhere near that much influence. Nukes' problems are inherent. Biggest, by a large margin, is capex which simply prices it completely out of the market.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ever solved any of the issues?
  - belorn 4y ago
    The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth. The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.