3 ms·

If we can have it of course, it's a godsend. BUT we can't. I have a small lithium storage, I see how fast it get depleted and how quick performance degrade. In

by kkfx 4y ago

If we can have it of course, it's a godsend. BUT we can't. I have a small lithium storage, I see how fast it get depleted and how quick performance degrade. In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... We have some effective storage, like pumped hydro, yes, but we have them where we can, we do not build mountains so far, for instance. Compressed air storage prove to be possible at a certain scale, but so far is just a promise with some experiments and honestly I doubt the actual push is ONLY for environmental and economical reasons. I think we start suspecting that oil is at the end, and we have just 2 decades or so remaining so we need to rush finding alternatives...

ben_w 4y ago
> In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. Sounds about right. > If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... Recycling is possible — even the absolute dumbest way I can imagine, which is grind the battery into dust and put that dust into the process used to separate rocks into their constituent elements, is still better than mining the actual rocks you'd otherwise get them from. Recycling facilities better than that necessarily only scale to whatever battery quantity existed x years ago. But also, the pollution mostly comes from energy, so making the grid greener makes the batteries greener which makes the grid greener etc. However, you're missing one of the cheapest storage systems: hydrogen. The round-trip efficiency isn't great, but given how cheap PV is, this isn't bad enough to be a problem.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Yes, recycling is possible, but so far it's almost not done because it's still far more expensive than mining... Perhaps a day things will be different, but seen the actual progress I'm not such optimistic... About hydrogen... Well... How much it costs an hydrolysis plant with relevant compression system and storage PLUS the needed fuel-cell to use it once milked? Personally I've already spent for a new house, with relevant not-that-cheap systems, heat-pumps included, who might last 10 years as well (compressor), in the near future an EV who might last 10 years but 5 to 8 seems to be more realistic... Adding the price of a smaller house to add hydrogen start to be REALLY expensive. Long story short: if the Green New Deal demand such big investments I think just 2-3% of the total population in the western countries can afford it, witch does not make anything ecological just for mere scale. If we try bigger scale... So far I see nothing really big (beside old scams). Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. Only a handful of projects do differently around the world and seems to be in a really early stage of experimentation... I have nothing against pay to be a pre-alpha tester BUT there is a limit for that honestly...
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I'm finding it difficult to parse what you're saying; it feels like you're using speech recognition and not proofreading the output? In particular: > Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. What's "PP scale"? And are you aware the combined nameplate capacity of all global PV is now close to one terawatt?
    - kkfx 4y ago
      > What's "PP scale"? The typical power capacity of a gas/coal/nuclear power plant vs the typical capacity of a p.v. one. In general flourishing p.v. plants are far smaller than typical fossil/nuclear power plant. Some big projects in exotic places do exists, in early stage, like the recent Uzbekistan push (who already made unrest and armed revolts) like the old Desertec scam. But real-world active p.v. power plant offer a nominal far little mean power respect of the others. > And are you aware the combined nameplate capacity of all global PV is now close to one terawatt? How does it count? I can state equally that the actual uranium collected in human hands can produce far far far more, but that's just a statement simply because "nominal" count nothing. What count is that so far no one is autonomous with p.v. alone, living a normal life, running business etc and so few are partially autonomous with very expensive and little lasting batteries. I'm one of them, since I have a small p.v. with lithium storage. Oh with the artificially skyrocketed electricity prices perhaps (still unsure) it will pay back. But I still need the grid for 50% of my consumption, while some state enthusiastically that "hey you can produce 130% of your energy needs", witch is formally true, practically false because I can't shift my consumption just when the Sun shine AND use it at 100%. I call it the difference between the beancounter computed reality and the physical world reality. Seeing that, and the actual climate I suspect we have the same issue with Green New Deal claims.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > In general flourishing p.v. plants are far smaller than typical fossil/nuclear power plant. Why do you consider this important, rather than the aggregate output of all of them together? As you say later, you've got PV on your own roof. If everyone in a small city does that, it's the same output as a nuclear plant, if they do that with a battery pack each (and I add a caveat about installation costs which I'm told are needlessly high in some places such as the US) then it can also be the same cost and reliability as a nuclear plant. (Nuclear is expensive, so batteries backing PV is not (yet) no-brainer cheap, this is part of why I suggest hydrogen and/or global grid whenever the topic comes up). > Some big projects in exotic places do exists, in early stage, like the recent Uzbekistan push (who already made unrest and armed revolts) like the old Desertec scam. What Uzbekistan push? What are the rioters supposed to do with any of this? What Desertec scam? The investors backing out? Because that's just normal for business, and the organisation of that name is still around. > offer a nominal far little mean power respect of the others. I have no idea what this is trying to say. > How does it count? I can state equally that the actual uranium collected in human hands can produce far far far more, but that's just a statement simply because "nominal" count nothing. What do you mean "how does it count"? It's a significant contributor to the global electricity supply. > I'm one of them, since I have a small p.v. with lithium storage. Oh with the artificially skyrocketed electricity prices perhaps (still unsure) it will pay back. Given lithium batteries are the most expensive storage option, and despite that cost it's still something close enough you're unsure about, and it's still getting cheaper, why are you so pessimistic?

by kkfx 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

> In 8-9 years I expect it will be just rubbish. Sounds about right. > If I compute how it's produced, how much energy, pollution, it need to exists brand new in my home, and how so far we can't recycle... Recycling is possible — even the absolute dumbest way I can imagine, which is grind the battery into dust and put that dust into the process used to separate rocks into their constituent elements, is still better than mining the actual rocks you'd otherwise get them from. Recycling facilities better than that necessarily only scale to whatever battery quantity existed x years ago. But also, the pollution mostly comes from energy, so making the grid greener makes the batteries greener which makes the grid greener etc. However, you're missing one of the cheapest storage systems: hydrogen. The round-trip efficiency isn't great, but given how cheap PV is, this isn't bad enough to be a problem.

kkfx 4y ago
Yes, recycling is possible, but so far it's almost not done because it's still far more expensive than mining... Perhaps a day things will be different, but seen the actual progress I'm not such optimistic... About hydrogen... Well... How much it costs an hydrolysis plant with relevant compression system and storage PLUS the needed fuel-cell to use it once milked? Personally I've already spent for a new house, with relevant not-that-cheap systems, heat-pumps included, who might last 10 years as well (compressor), in the near future an EV who might last 10 years but 5 to 8 seems to be more realistic... Adding the price of a smaller house to add hydrogen start to be REALLY expensive. Long story short: if the Green New Deal demand such big investments I think just 2-3% of the total population in the western countries can afford it, witch does not make anything ecological just for mere scale. If we try bigger scale... So far I see nothing really big (beside old scams). Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. Only a handful of projects do differently around the world and seems to be in a really early stage of experimentation... I have nothing against pay to be a pre-alpha tester BUT there is a limit for that honestly...
- ben_w 4y ago
  I'm finding it difficult to parse what you're saying; it feels like you're using speech recognition and not proofreading the output? In particular: > Yes, some p.v. plants pops up continuously but they are small in classic PP scale terms and just grid-connected systems. What's "PP scale"? And are you aware the combined nameplate capacity of all global PV is now close to one terawatt?
  - kkfx 4y ago
    > What's "PP scale"? The typical power capacity of a gas/coal/nuclear power plant vs the typical capacity of a p.v. one. In general flourishing p.v. plants are far smaller than typical fossil/nuclear power plant. Some big projects in exotic places do exists, in early stage, like the recent Uzbekistan push (who already made unrest and armed revolts) like the old Desertec scam. But real-world active p.v. power plant offer a nominal far little mean power respect of the others. > And are you aware the combined nameplate capacity of all global PV is now close to one terawatt? How does it count? I can state equally that the actual uranium collected in human hands can produce far far far more, but that's just a statement simply because "nominal" count nothing. What count is that so far no one is autonomous with p.v. alone, living a normal life, running business etc and so few are partially autonomous with very expensive and little lasting batteries. I'm one of them, since I have a small p.v. with lithium storage. Oh with the artificially skyrocketed electricity prices perhaps (still unsure) it will pay back. But I still need the grid for 50% of my consumption, while some state enthusiastically that "hey you can produce 130% of your energy needs", witch is formally true, practically false because I can't shift my consumption just when the Sun shine AND use it at 100%. I call it the difference between the beancounter computed reality and the physical world reality. Seeing that, and the actual climate I suspect we have the same issue with Green New Deal claims.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > In general flourishing p.v. plants are far smaller than typical fossil/nuclear power plant. Why do you consider this important, rather than the aggregate output of all of them together? As you say later, you've got PV on your own roof. If everyone in a small city does that, it's the same output as a nuclear plant, if they do that with a battery pack each (and I add a caveat about installation costs which I'm told are needlessly high in some places such as the US) then it can also be the same cost and reliability as a nuclear plant. (Nuclear is expensive, so batteries backing PV is not (yet) no-brainer cheap, this is part of why I suggest hydrogen and/or global grid whenever the topic comes up). > Some big projects in exotic places do exists, in early stage, like the recent Uzbekistan push (who already made unrest and armed revolts) like the old Desertec scam. What Uzbekistan push? What are the rioters supposed to do with any of this? What Desertec scam? The investors backing out? Because that's just normal for business, and the organisation of that name is still around. > offer a nominal far little mean power respect of the others. I have no idea what this is trying to say. > How does it count? I can state equally that the actual uranium collected in human hands can produce far far far more, but that's just a statement simply because "nominal" count nothing. What do you mean "how does it count"? It's a significant contributor to the global electricity supply. > I'm one of them, since I have a small p.v. with lithium storage. Oh with the artificially skyrocketed electricity prices perhaps (still unsure) it will pay back. Given lithium batteries are the most expensive storage option, and despite that cost it's still something close enough you're unsure about, and it's still getting cheaper, why are you so pessimistic?