3 ms·

Estimates are not the same thing as real production figures. People estimated we'd have 10Ghz single threaded cpu performance by now back in the 90s. Batteries

Estimates are not the same thing as real production figures. People estimated we'd have 10Ghz single threaded cpu performance by now back in the 90s. Batteries are already approaching supply shortages for input materials: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev-materials-lithium-cobalt-2021-07-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev... And as you correctly point out, most of these batteries are going to go to EVs rather than grid storage.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yes, no-one can predict the future, maybe we'll all be riding horses. But if, as basically everyone acklowledges, we'll all be driving EVs, then we will charge them from the grid. So they'll be better than grid storage, they'll be responsive demand (with grid storage you need to send the electricity back to the grid, which incurs another efficiency loss).
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Sure, if we have all our electricity produced through non intermittent sources we don't need grid storage. EVs charge from the grid and drive around just fine. Nobody doubts that. But if we are going to predominantly use intermittent energy sources we'd need massive amounts of grid storage. Delivering this through batteries is not feasible. We need to conserve battery supply for things that cannot be directly powered from the grid, like vehicles. It's too precious to be squandered on grid storage
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Grid storage cost is falling even faster than renewables cost. Which you already knew.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      The costs are falling on white papers, not in actual storage projects. Unfortunately, we can't hook a white paper up to the grid :(
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        You may pretend all you like, but I will always correct you.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Correct me how? By insisting that storage is a trivial problem to solve, yet neglecting to actually share what your supposed solution is? By insisting that storage costs are falling yet neglecting to specify the cost and for what technology? By all means "correct" me all you like.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Other readers only need to know that you habitually promote falsehoods.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    For me, this is the biggest part of the debate. It's not whether solar is up to the task or not, it's whether supply chains can support solar. From what we've seen, no, they cannot. You can provision the solar plant and the storage array, but there likely just won't be enough panels or batteries being produced to build it. Pumped hydro storage is only viable in some places, and from what it seems to me all the other ideas for energy storage are theoretical at best. I'm not opposed to investing heavily in solar...it's the best long-term energy source we can hope for until we crack the fusion nut. However, until we have the resources in place to make it happen, fission is our best bet. This shouldn't be an either-or: we should be building both, as fast as we can. And once we have enough solar to power our collective needs consistently, we can decommission our nuclear plants and put this behind us.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      The supply chain for solar is in a much healthier state than the supply chain for nuclear.
      - orthecreedence 4y ago
        Yes, at the current scale. Can it scale up to the task of entirely replacing fossil fuels before we can build the nuclear plants that can give the same output?
        pfdietz 4y ago
        Yes. Scaling up solar and wind is much easier. Nuclear reactors require very heavy industry (look at what's needed to forge the reactor pressure vessel of a PWR). Nuclear also requires much higher quality manufacturing. A 1% failure rate on PV modules is acceptable. A 1% failure rate on reactor components is not. Installing wind and solar is also much easier than installing NPPs. Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor, again because the installations are robust to installation mistakes.
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Yes, no-one can predict the future, maybe we'll all be riding horses. But if, as basically everyone acklowledges, we'll all be driving EVs, then we will charge them from the grid. So they'll be better than grid storage, they'll be responsive demand (with grid storage you need to send the electricity back to the grid, which incurs another efficiency loss).

Manuel_D 4y ago
Sure, if we have all our electricity produced through non intermittent sources we don't need grid storage. EVs charge from the grid and drive around just fine. Nobody doubts that. But if we are going to predominantly use intermittent energy sources we'd need massive amounts of grid storage. Delivering this through batteries is not feasible. We need to conserve battery supply for things that cannot be directly powered from the grid, like vehicles. It's too precious to be squandered on grid storage
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Grid storage cost is falling even faster than renewables cost. Which you already knew.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The costs are falling on white papers, not in actual storage projects. Unfortunately, we can't hook a white paper up to the grid :(
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You may pretend all you like, but I will always correct you.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Correct me how? By insisting that storage is a trivial problem to solve, yet neglecting to actually share what your supposed solution is? By insisting that storage costs are falling yet neglecting to specify the cost and for what technology? By all means "correct" me all you like.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Other readers only need to know that you habitually promote falsehoods.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  For me, this is the biggest part of the debate. It's not whether solar is up to the task or not, it's whether supply chains can support solar. From what we've seen, no, they cannot. You can provision the solar plant and the storage array, but there likely just won't be enough panels or batteries being produced to build it. Pumped hydro storage is only viable in some places, and from what it seems to me all the other ideas for energy storage are theoretical at best. I'm not opposed to investing heavily in solar...it's the best long-term energy source we can hope for until we crack the fusion nut. However, until we have the resources in place to make it happen, fission is our best bet. This shouldn't be an either-or: we should be building both, as fast as we can. And once we have enough solar to power our collective needs consistently, we can decommission our nuclear plants and put this behind us.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    The supply chain for solar is in a much healthier state than the supply chain for nuclear.
    - orthecreedence 4y ago
      Yes, at the current scale. Can it scale up to the task of entirely replacing fossil fuels before we can build the nuclear plants that can give the same output?
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Yes. Scaling up solar and wind is much easier. Nuclear reactors require very heavy industry (look at what's needed to forge the reactor pressure vessel of a PWR). Nuclear also requires much higher quality manufacturing. A 1% failure rate on PV modules is acceptable. A 1% failure rate on reactor components is not. Installing wind and solar is also much easier than installing NPPs. Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor, again because the installations are robust to installation mistakes.
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago