4 ms·

Energy storage is still hard, unfortunately. I don't think any gravity storage other than pumped hydro (where nature allows for it) is viable. The question I'v

Energy storage is still hard, unfortunately. I don't think any gravity storage other than pumped hydro (where nature allows for it) is viable. The question I've been asking myself in case we were to go for battery energy storage: would we be better off using decentralized system with solar + battery on every home / small community or just make massive installations and keep using existing power grid to move energy to homes?

andyferris 4y ago
Decentralized doesn't work so well for places that require a high ratio of electrical power to solar radiance - like refineries, factories, medium and high density housing, electric vehical fast chargers, low density housing in places that get cold in winter, and more. So a large fraction of society will need to import some energy from somewhere (either from the grid or a fuel like hydrogen). Fully decentralised solar + battery might be the best option for rural / semi-rural settings, but even low-density suburbia somewhere sunny could likely benefit from having all those batteries and panels working together via the existing grid.
- badtension 4y ago
  > Decentralized doesn't work so well for places that require a high ratio of electrical power to solar radiance Yeah, another example that comes to mind are flats - the roof is a bit small to cover all residents' energy needs. As always in life it seems that "it depends" but I think you are right about remote places. It is of course always better to have electrical grid since you shift the maintenance to someone else (as long as the power delivered is reliable and cost effective). The one issue I can think of is current grid may not be able to handle many small energy producers - they can be cut off when peak power is a problem. In those cases individual prosumers would benefit from having a local battery storage system that fit their needs, even when connected to the grid.
- pasttense01 4y ago
  Remember the goal to electrify everything. For the home owner this includes space heating. So if you live in the snowbelt you need to have the battery capacity to handle a two week Polar Vortex with temperatures below zero degrees Fahrenheit with very little sun with your fully decentralized solar system. This will require a very expensive battery system!
bluGill 4y ago
Even if in theory local storage us cheaper, most people won't want to invest in replacing their system every 10 years when it wears out. I think we will see mostly utility scale storage. Most people will have an electric car that they can plug into, but that will only be done to keep the fridge cold when the utility goes out.
- badtension 4y ago
  10 years seems like a short time, what if we make it 30 years - same as solar? You would need to update it roughly once during your lifetime. The other idea is having small communities that manage their own energy needs. Meaning 1MWh energy bank for 100 homes instead of 1GWh for 100 000 homes.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Battery life doesn't always work the way you want it to. I don't know what the limits of different battery chemistry is, but I suspect it won't work. Though 10 years was just a number I made up, I think it is reasonable for discussion.
    - badtension 4y ago
      Yeah, I think you might be right although AFAIK they still hold on to about 80% of their initial charge after that time (10y), which is quite a lot. 30 years was just a random thought that seemed like a sensible minimum to be somewhat low-maintenance solution. I am just trying to think about different possibilities, they pros, cons and what might be net win in this case. Your remark on people not wanting to service yet another thing is spot on, grid always works for them.
_ph_ 4y ago
I think it will be a mix of both. Local storage at home is great for some grid independance during blackouts and usually you save some money when you have you own solar roof. But local storage usually will be more expensive per storage capacity vs. larger storage facilities. This means, a large amount of storage will be there, because it is cheaper. Also the power company can control it better than home systems. And of course there the electric cars which could partially contribute to the grid storage.

andyferris 4y ago

Decentralized doesn't work so well for places that require a high ratio of electrical power to solar radiance - like refineries, factories, medium and high density housing, electric vehical fast chargers, low density housing in places that get cold in winter, and more. So a large fraction of society will need to import some energy from somewhere (either from the grid or a fuel like hydrogen). Fully decentralised solar + battery might be the best option for rural / semi-rural settings, but even low-density suburbia somewhere sunny could likely benefit from having all those batteries and panels working together via the existing grid.

badtension 4y ago
> Decentralized doesn't work so well for places that require a high ratio of electrical power to solar radiance Yeah, another example that comes to mind are flats - the roof is a bit small to cover all residents' energy needs. As always in life it seems that "it depends" but I think you are right about remote places. It is of course always better to have electrical grid since you shift the maintenance to someone else (as long as the power delivered is reliable and cost effective). The one issue I can think of is current grid may not be able to handle many small energy producers - they can be cut off when peak power is a problem. In those cases individual prosumers would benefit from having a local battery storage system that fit their needs, even when connected to the grid.
pasttense01 4y ago
Remember the goal to electrify everything. For the home owner this includes space heating. So if you live in the snowbelt you need to have the battery capacity to handle a two week Polar Vortex with temperatures below zero degrees Fahrenheit with very little sun with your fully decentralized solar system. This will require a very expensive battery system!

bluGill 4y ago

Even if in theory local storage us cheaper, most people won't want to invest in replacing their system every 10 years when it wears out. I think we will see mostly utility scale storage. Most people will have an electric car that they can plug into, but that will only be done to keep the fridge cold when the utility goes out.

badtension 4y ago
10 years seems like a short time, what if we make it 30 years - same as solar? You would need to update it roughly once during your lifetime. The other idea is having small communities that manage their own energy needs. Meaning 1MWh energy bank for 100 homes instead of 1GWh for 100 000 homes.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Battery life doesn't always work the way you want it to. I don't know what the limits of different battery chemistry is, but I suspect it won't work. Though 10 years was just a number I made up, I think it is reasonable for discussion.
  - badtension 4y ago
    Yeah, I think you might be right although AFAIK they still hold on to about 80% of their initial charge after that time (10y), which is quite a lot. 30 years was just a random thought that seemed like a sensible minimum to be somewhat low-maintenance solution. I am just trying to think about different possibilities, they pros, cons and what might be net win in this case. Your remark on people not wanting to service yet another thing is spot on, grid always works for them.

_ph_ 4y ago

I think it will be a mix of both. Local storage at home is great for some grid independance during blackouts and usually you save some money when you have you own solar roof. But local storage usually will be more expensive per storage capacity vs. larger storage facilities. This means, a large amount of storage will be there, because it is cheaper. Also the power company can control it better than home systems. And of course there the electric cars which could partially contribute to the grid storage.