13 ms·

There's no viable way to build storage at the scale required to run a wind and solar grid. Even building just 1 hour of electricity storage amounts to 2,500 GWh

There's no viable way to build storage at the scale required to run a wind and solar grid. Even building just 1 hour of electricity storage amounts to 2,500 GWh. The entire world's annual output of battery storage is somewhere between 300 and 400 GWh. Any attempt at grid scale storage would lead to shortages driving up prices. Similar bottlenecks occur with pumped hydroelectricity. To build it economically you not only need an alpine lake handy, it also needs to be close to transportation infrastructure. As those sites are developed, we'd turn to more and more remote sites.

pfdietz 4y ago
Pointing to one or two current storage technologies as evidence that the problem is fundamentally unsolvable is quite a logical leap. Can we apply the same reasoning and conclude that because existing nuclear reactors are inadequate, no possible future nuclear reactors can be adequate? Why does pumped hydro have to be close to transportation infrastructure, btw? Can one not build roads or rail lines?
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The point is that no existing storage system is sufficient and thus solar and wind is really solar, wind, and fossil fuels. And nuclear power is indeed sufficient. They can indeed modulate power output, and we have the capacity to build them at the required scale. Some countries already have, like France. > Why does pumped hydro have to be close to transportation infrastructure, btw? Can one not build roads or rail lines? You can, but the more remote the build site the more expensive it becomes.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Current nuclear technology isn't sufficient either. A world powered by nuclear burner reactors runs out of uranium very quickly. Breeder reactors or seawater uranium extraction would be needed, and neither of these are "existing" in the sense you're using for storage.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      This is incorrect, even existing supplies with no different form of extraction would last over 200 years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo... Nuclear seawater extraction is already conducted, at a price of about $200 per pound [1]. Raw fuel extraction is a small portion of nuclear's cost (enrichment is a much bigger portion) so this is not a significant cost increase. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=5ad01bb0159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        200 years at today's consumption rate. To power the world with nuclear would require many more reactors. Current world average primary energy consumption is 18 TW, which is 6000 3 GWth reactors. That's an order of magnitude more than currently are in operation. Add in demand growth from industrializing countries and the uranium would last maybe a decade. Uranium availability is not an immediate problem if you assume nuclear remains a sideshow on the global energy stage. That's to assume nuclear is neither needed nor particularly useful for addressing global warming. Is that what you're assuming?
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Did you read the article? > However, seawater concentrations of uranium are controlled by steady-state, or pseudo-equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks on the Earth, both in the ocean and on land. And those rocks contain 100 trillion tons of uranium. So whenever uranium is extracted from seawater, more is leached from rocks to replace it, to the same concentration. It is impossible for humans to extract enough uranium over the next billion years to lower the overall seawater concentrations of uranium, even if nuclear provided 100% of our energy and our species lasted a billion years
        pfdietz 4y ago
ncmncm 4y ago
As has been pointed out to you many times before, there is no need to use batteries to store utility-scale energy, so battery production capacity is immaterial. Mentioning battery production of the moment again is disingenuous, not to say dishonest. Production capacity, anyway, increases with demand. The key principle of bulk energy storage is E = Fx, applied liberally worldwide for centuries. It is taught to every freshman engineering student. Nothing blocks further application of the principle, at any scale. And as has been pointed out numerous times, no existing alpine lake is needed for hydro storage. And, the site does not need substantial "transportation infrastructure". Dozens of hydro dams, still in use, were built in California's Sierra Nevada mountains in the 1920s via roads a car cannot use.
- SECProto 4y ago
  > The key principle of bulk energy storage is E = Fx, applied liberally worldwide for centuries. It is taught to every freshman engineering student Hi there, I graduated engineering and am currently applying for professional licensure. I took only one course focused on energy, but I've never heard of E=Fx. Googling it brought up no relevant results. Could you expand on what it is?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You may go back to your freshman physics textbook. If you get a professional engineering license without recalling basic Newtonian physics, that just tells us the licensing process has utterly failed us.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      What do the values of E, F, and x even stand for? Googling this yields no related results [1]. Presumably F and x stand for the energy output of a storage system and the duration that system is online, respectively. But simply stating that equation is pointless, unless you actually give a plan to deliver on appropriate values of F and x. It's about as inane as saying "E + MC^2 so let's just build fusion and be done with it." 1. https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?search?q=E%20=%20Fx%20energy%20storage https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?search?q=E%20=%20Fx%2...

pfdietz 4y ago

Pointing to one or two current storage technologies as evidence that the problem is fundamentally unsolvable is quite a logical leap. Can we apply the same reasoning and conclude that because existing nuclear reactors are inadequate, no possible future nuclear reactors can be adequate? Why does pumped hydro have to be close to transportation infrastructure, btw? Can one not build roads or rail lines?

Manuel_D 4y ago
The point is that no existing storage system is sufficient and thus solar and wind is really solar, wind, and fossil fuels. And nuclear power is indeed sufficient. They can indeed modulate power output, and we have the capacity to build them at the required scale. Some countries already have, like France. > Why does pumped hydro have to be close to transportation infrastructure, btw? Can one not build roads or rail lines? You can, but the more remote the build site the more expensive it becomes.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Current nuclear technology isn't sufficient either. A world powered by nuclear burner reactors runs out of uranium very quickly. Breeder reactors or seawater uranium extraction would be needed, and neither of these are "existing" in the sense you're using for storage.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    This is incorrect, even existing supplies with no different form of extraction would last over 200 years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo... Nuclear seawater extraction is already conducted, at a price of about $200 per pound [1]. Raw fuel extraction is a small portion of nuclear's cost (enrichment is a much bigger portion) so this is not a significant cost increase. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=5ad01bb0159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      200 years at today's consumption rate. To power the world with nuclear would require many more reactors. Current world average primary energy consumption is 18 TW, which is 6000 3 GWth reactors. That's an order of magnitude more than currently are in operation. Add in demand growth from industrializing countries and the uranium would last maybe a decade. Uranium availability is not an immediate problem if you assume nuclear remains a sideshow on the global energy stage. That's to assume nuclear is neither needed nor particularly useful for addressing global warming. Is that what you're assuming?
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Did you read the article? > However, seawater concentrations of uranium are controlled by steady-state, or pseudo-equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks on the Earth, both in the ocean and on land. And those rocks contain 100 trillion tons of uranium. So whenever uranium is extracted from seawater, more is leached from rocks to replace it, to the same concentration. It is impossible for humans to extract enough uranium over the next billion years to lower the overall seawater concentrations of uranium, even if nuclear provided 100% of our energy and our species lasted a billion years
        pfdietz 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

As has been pointed out to you many times before, there is no need to use batteries to store utility-scale energy, so battery production capacity is immaterial. Mentioning battery production of the moment again is disingenuous, not to say dishonest. Production capacity, anyway, increases with demand. The key principle of bulk energy storage is E = Fx, applied liberally worldwide for centuries. It is taught to every freshman engineering student. Nothing blocks further application of the principle, at any scale. And as has been pointed out numerous times, no existing alpine lake is needed for hydro storage. And, the site does not need substantial "transportation infrastructure". Dozens of hydro dams, still in use, were built in California's Sierra Nevada mountains in the 1920s via roads a car cannot use.

SECProto 4y ago
> The key principle of bulk energy storage is E = Fx, applied liberally worldwide for centuries. It is taught to every freshman engineering student Hi there, I graduated engineering and am currently applying for professional licensure. I took only one course focused on energy, but I've never heard of E=Fx. Googling it brought up no relevant results. Could you expand on what it is?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You may go back to your freshman physics textbook. If you get a professional engineering license without recalling basic Newtonian physics, that just tells us the licensing process has utterly failed us.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    What do the values of E, F, and x even stand for? Googling this yields no related results [1]. Presumably F and x stand for the energy output of a storage system and the duration that system is online, respectively. But simply stating that equation is pointless, unless you actually give a plan to deliver on appropriate values of F and x. It's about as inane as saying "E + MC^2 so let's just build fusion and be done with it." 1. https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?search?q=E%20=%20Fx%20energy%20storage https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?search?q=E%20=%20Fx%2...