5 ms·

There are numerous ways that you can store some amount of power - batteries, various potential energy storage options, hydrogen and other synthetic fuels, even

by makomk 4y ago

There are numerous ways that you can store some amount of power - batteries, various potential energy storage options, hydrogen and other synthetic fuels, even stuff like flywheels. The unsolved problem is storing power on the vast scale actually needed to make an 100% renewable grid possible. In particular I think the numbers on storing energy by lifting and lowering concrete blocks work out really bad and a long way from being useful as a form of energy storage.

lettergram 4y ago
Exactly. You’d probably be better off assuming no new grid connections tbh. You can effective force a distributed energy network. It just wouldn’t work for cities. I don’t think a lot of people outside of homesteaders or people working in energy understand. I can spend $25k for the solar I need for my house, but I’ll be spending another $50k for energy storage. And I’m in a more southern region… if you live somewhere in Europe, particularly the north, you’d need $50k solar and $50k storage. Btw that $50k only covers batteries for 36-48 hrs of usage. Have 10 days of heavily cloud cover, gotta pull out the diesel engine. I’ve looked at alternatives energy stores and nothing really has capacity we need. There’s ways to cut energy usage, there’s other forms of energy capture, but battery storage is basically it for single homes. Fly-wheels and what not might work to stabilize grids for 24-36hrs. But I highly doubt on a week of energy, for instance. So you still have the same issues as single homes. You need the ability to start up engines (so to speak).
- pasttense01 4y ago
  Of course there are alternative energy stores which have the capacity we need. What do you think we are using for energy storage now? Now we have huge piles of coal, natural gas stored in huge caverns, massive tank farms storing petroleum products. So the question is can we convert the electrical energy when wind and solar are at maximum output into gases, liquids, solids. The answer is yes. One obvious gas is hydrogen. And if the liquids and solids include carbon then to be carbon neutral we need to pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we will put back in (carbon capture technologies). So it can be done. The problem is the higher cost than fossil fuels.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    “Can be done” typically means “can be practically done” I can fly to the moon, if I had a hundred billion dollars. That doesn’t mean “I” can fly to the moon. These theoretical cases mean nothing.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Funny that you mention a hundred billion dollars: > Australia's growing hydrogen sector has an investment pipeline of A$133–A$185 billion ($92-$128 billion), equating to 35% of the country's total non-renewable energy and mineral resource investment, state body Geoscience Australia said July 19.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The answer is no, actually. Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is way harder than you think is is. The carbon in the atmosphere is at a very low concentration. The Sabatier process is presently only done with concentrated carbon dioxide that comes from industrial byproducts. Pulling it from the atmosphere is not efficient enough to be viable. Even producing the hydrogen is a challenge. Almost all hydrogen is produced via steam reformation, which emits carbon dioxide. Producing it through electrolysis remains difficult because electrodes corrode and lead to high maintenance costs.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
      If we go the carbon-capture route, it'll almost certainly be via bioengineering, since lifeforms are able to scale themselves up. Something like giant GMO algae farms in the desert.
pfdietz 4y ago
The big problem with energy storage technology is figuring out which of the many different options will win the competition.
- pasttense01 4y ago
  No. It's fine that different technologies are used in different situations. The big problem is finding technologies which are cheaper than fossil fuels.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Not at all. Fossil fuels have to be phased out, so CO2 charges and tariffs will be increased until they are. What renewables + storage have to be cheaper than is the other non-fossil alternatives. We didn't wait until low air pollution technologies were cheaper than just dumping soot and SOx into the air, we acted to stop the pollution. Because negative externalities are a shining example of where government action benefits society. CO2 also presents large negative externalities. This is why you see climate deniers try to argue there are no such externalities from CO2 emission, because they understand the logic for regulation becomes inescapable otherwise.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  No, the problem is that the one that wins the competition is still not viable at grid scale. The competition isn't against other storage systems, the competition is against energy systems that don't require storage. Nuclear was build at around $1-2 billion per GW when it was built at scale during the 1960s and 70s. It's hard for any renewable + storage system to compete against that.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I've explained over and over again to you that you're wrong. Studies such as this one (and others) confirm what I say. I have wonder why, in the face of repeated explanation, you are so resistant to understanding.
huijzer 4y ago
Undecided with Matt Ferrell did a video with a mention of costs for some modern techniques a few days ago [1]. Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) per MWh: - CO₂ battery: $50* - Lithium-ion: $131 - $232 - LAES (Liquid Air Energy Storage): $300 - PHS (Pumped Hydro-Energy Storage): $186 *Estimate by Energy Dome. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzh8D8Of0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzh8D8Of0k
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  First of all, these are almost certainly costs per Kilowatt hour, not megawatt hour. These costs would skyrocket if the world actually tried to deploy them at grid scale. The entire world only puts out 300 GWh of lithium ion batteries. By comparison, one hour of electricity storage is 2,500 GWh. You'd have to direct all battery Production to storage for 8 years, and pause the production of all EVs and electronics that use batteries. This drove the cost up above $500/KWh in New York for example: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-battery-storage-costs-rise-interconnection-queue-12-gw/621954/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-battery-storage-co... Similar story with pumped hydroelectricity. You need the right geography to build pumped hydro. Most of it is in remote inaccessible places (Tibet has huge pumped hydroelectricity potential). The only economically viable sites are the ones that are close to transportation infrastructure. Once those are developed, the cost climbs as more and more remote sites need to be developed. Liquid air was promising, but the pilot plant took $600/KWh just to build. And who knows what the maintenance costs will be and if it'll live up to it's promised lifespan.
  - huijzer 4y ago
    And here I was thinking to have found a promising new YouTube channel. Thanks for the corrections.

by makomk 4y ago

lettergram 4y ago

Exactly. You’d probably be better off assuming no new grid connections tbh. You can effective force a distributed energy network. It just wouldn’t work for cities. I don’t think a lot of people outside of homesteaders or people working in energy understand. I can spend $25k for the solar I need for my house, but I’ll be spending another $50k for energy storage. And I’m in a more southern region… if you live somewhere in Europe, particularly the north, you’d need $50k solar and $50k storage. Btw that $50k only covers batteries for 36-48 hrs of usage. Have 10 days of heavily cloud cover, gotta pull out the diesel engine. I’ve looked at alternatives energy stores and nothing really has capacity we need. There’s ways to cut energy usage, there’s other forms of energy capture, but battery storage is basically it for single homes. Fly-wheels and what not might work to stabilize grids for 24-36hrs. But I highly doubt on a week of energy, for instance. So you still have the same issues as single homes. You need the ability to start up engines (so to speak).

pasttense01 4y ago
Of course there are alternative energy stores which have the capacity we need. What do you think we are using for energy storage now? Now we have huge piles of coal, natural gas stored in huge caverns, massive tank farms storing petroleum products. So the question is can we convert the electrical energy when wind and solar are at maximum output into gases, liquids, solids. The answer is yes. One obvious gas is hydrogen. And if the liquids and solids include carbon then to be carbon neutral we need to pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we will put back in (carbon capture technologies). So it can be done. The problem is the higher cost than fossil fuels.
- lettergram 4y ago
  “Can be done” typically means “can be practically done” I can fly to the moon, if I had a hundred billion dollars. That doesn’t mean “I” can fly to the moon. These theoretical cases mean nothing.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Funny that you mention a hundred billion dollars: > Australia's growing hydrogen sector has an investment pipeline of A$133–A$185 billion ($92-$128 billion), equating to 35% of the country's total non-renewable energy and mineral resource investment, state body Geoscience Australia said July 19.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The answer is no, actually. Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is way harder than you think is is. The carbon in the atmosphere is at a very low concentration. The Sabatier process is presently only done with concentrated carbon dioxide that comes from industrial byproducts. Pulling it from the atmosphere is not efficient enough to be viable. Even producing the hydrogen is a challenge. Almost all hydrogen is produced via steam reformation, which emits carbon dioxide. Producing it through electrolysis remains difficult because electrodes corrode and lead to high maintenance costs.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    If we go the carbon-capture route, it'll almost certainly be via bioengineering, since lifeforms are able to scale themselves up. Something like giant GMO algae farms in the desert.

pfdietz 4y ago

The big problem with energy storage technology is figuring out which of the many different options will win the competition.

pasttense01 4y ago
No. It's fine that different technologies are used in different situations. The big problem is finding technologies which are cheaper than fossil fuels.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Not at all. Fossil fuels have to be phased out, so CO2 charges and tariffs will be increased until they are. What renewables + storage have to be cheaper than is the other non-fossil alternatives. We didn't wait until low air pollution technologies were cheaper than just dumping soot and SOx into the air, we acted to stop the pollution. Because negative externalities are a shining example of where government action benefits society. CO2 also presents large negative externalities. This is why you see climate deniers try to argue there are no such externalities from CO2 emission, because they understand the logic for regulation becomes inescapable otherwise.
Manuel_D 4y ago
No, the problem is that the one that wins the competition is still not viable at grid scale. The competition isn't against other storage systems, the competition is against energy systems that don't require storage. Nuclear was build at around $1-2 billion per GW when it was built at scale during the 1960s and 70s. It's hard for any renewable + storage system to compete against that.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  I've explained over and over again to you that you're wrong. Studies such as this one (and others) confirm what I say. I have wonder why, in the face of repeated explanation, you are so resistant to understanding.

huijzer 4y ago

Undecided with Matt Ferrell did a video with a mention of costs for some modern techniques a few days ago [1]. Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) per MWh: - CO₂ battery: $50* - Lithium-ion: $131 - $232 - LAES (Liquid Air Energy Storage): $300 - PHS (Pumped Hydro-Energy Storage): $186 *Estimate by Energy Dome. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzh8D8Of0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzh8D8Of0k

Manuel_D 4y ago
First of all, these are almost certainly costs per Kilowatt hour, not megawatt hour. These costs would skyrocket if the world actually tried to deploy them at grid scale. The entire world only puts out 300 GWh of lithium ion batteries. By comparison, one hour of electricity storage is 2,500 GWh. You'd have to direct all battery Production to storage for 8 years, and pause the production of all EVs and electronics that use batteries. This drove the cost up above $500/KWh in New York for example: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-battery-storage-costs-rise-interconnection-queue-12-gw/621954/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-battery-storage-co... Similar story with pumped hydroelectricity. You need the right geography to build pumped hydro. Most of it is in remote inaccessible places (Tibet has huge pumped hydroelectricity potential). The only economically viable sites are the ones that are close to transportation infrastructure. Once those are developed, the cost climbs as more and more remote sites need to be developed. Liquid air was promising, but the pilot plant took $600/KWh just to build. And who knows what the maintenance costs will be and if it'll live up to it's promised lifespan.
- huijzer 4y ago
  And here I was thinking to have found a promising new YouTube channel. Thanks for the corrections.