4 ms·

Storage is not, in fact, hard. Its efficiency is not important beyond a few hours' worth, because it is rarely needed. For those few hours, battery efficiency

by ncmncm 4y ago

Storage is not, in fact, hard. Its efficiency is not important beyond a few hours' worth, because it is rarely needed. For those few hours, battery efficiency is very good.

xupybd 4y ago
If it was rarely needed and only needed for a few hours we wouldn't need all the fossil fuel based generation to fill the gaps. I'm not aware of any significant battery based storage system deployed at scale that solves this problem. There are some large battery banks but none even close to the scale required. It's a hard problem as it would require a huge increase in global manufacturing. I'd like to be wrong here. I'd love it if it was possible to build an affordable grid based on 100% renewable generation. It will be possible one day. I look forward to that day.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It would be stupid to spend money building out storage before there is renewable generating capacity to charge it from. So, they spend on that, first. Most of the storage, in the end, will not be batteries. Most existing storage is pumped hydro, because the dams were already there. There are lots of alternatives: underground or underwater compressed air, liquified air, underground hydrogen, tanked ammonia, buoyancy, mineshaft gravity. Most places will keep a few days' ammonia that they can burn where they do NG today, and order more if it looks like they may need it, and can't book transmission line power. Other times, they will synthesize ammonia for sale. Regional storage of underground hydrogen is already under construction. Hydrogen synthesis efficiency is now well over 90%, up from 60% very recently. Until ammonia synthesis ramps up in the '30s, they will burn NG at need, without apology.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    I hope you're right
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    "Hydrogen synthesis efficiency is now well over 90%" From what source? Hydrocarbons?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Obviously not. Anyway that efficiency will not be important.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    As far as I know the best we can do is PEM electrolysis with about 80% efficiency, but as you say, efficiency is not very important.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    It's not relevant what source is used to charge the batteries. Right now there is a massive price difference between peak and off peak power (partly due to renewables daily cycle), so anyone able to build a battery can charge at the off-peak rate and sell at the peak rate every day. This means that batteries have a revenue source right now, and therefore, the only reason they don't exist is because the cost exceeds that revenue source.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      That would not displace any CO2 emission. Storage as a separate business is not viable beyond a few years, so investment is limited. Original producers of energy will have their own storage, and prices will level out. Excess generation capacity (e.g. noon) after recharging storage will be devoted to synthesizing liquid fuels and desalination, which serve unlimited demand. By the time there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge storage, storage will be very, very cheap. Right now, it costs more, so money produces much better results building generation capacity and factories for storage. As the factories are completed, production ramps up, and costs fall.
thatfrenchguy 4y ago
Storage emits a lot more co2/kwh though, and that's a big problem. Even when you remove cost from the equation. There's also no grid in the world that runs on wind/solar+storage, it's obvious from looking at California that it would take 20+ years to arrive there.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Storage needn't emit any CO2 at all. In a world that has transitioned entirely to non-fossil energy sources, where are you thinking this CO2 is coming from? Cement production? Batteries aren't made of cement.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Storage emits CO2... Really, you think so? Before you have built a thing, you have to build it. After you build it, you have it. Building will be a big job, but nowhere near as big as building nukes instead would have been. The good news is that renewables start displacing CO2 emission almost immediately after ground is broken. It would be stupid to build storage without renewable capacity to charge it from. You spend on that first.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
And even where storage is hard, things are developing FAST. EVs are still at, what, 1% of cars on the road, and only a small percentage of dozens of transport modes by air, land, sea, from single person motorcycles to busses or even container ships. Grid storage still basically is an "EV batteries on land". This is going to change as well. WHich is funny because the fundamental issue any nuclear plant has to deal with isn't the current price of alternative energy + grid storage. The REAL problem is that in ten years when the thing comes online, what will the price of alternatives be then given the cost improvement curves of the last decade? I would hazard a guess that alt energy will be half of natural gas turbine by then (and natural gas turbine is already untouchably cheaper than nuclear), and probably 2/3 the cost with functional grid storage. I believe home solar will be cheaper than grid natural gas turbine in 10 years too. And that's without carbon taxes.

by ncmncm 4y ago

Storage is not, in fact, hard. Its efficiency is not important beyond a few hours' worth, because it is rarely needed. For those few hours, battery efficiency is very good.

xupybd 4y ago

If it was rarely needed and only needed for a few hours we wouldn't need all the fossil fuel based generation to fill the gaps. I'm not aware of any significant battery based storage system deployed at scale that solves this problem. There are some large battery banks but none even close to the scale required. It's a hard problem as it would require a huge increase in global manufacturing. I'd like to be wrong here. I'd love it if it was possible to build an affordable grid based on 100% renewable generation. It will be possible one day. I look forward to that day.

ncmncm 4y ago
It would be stupid to spend money building out storage before there is renewable generating capacity to charge it from. So, they spend on that, first. Most of the storage, in the end, will not be batteries. Most existing storage is pumped hydro, because the dams were already there. There are lots of alternatives: underground or underwater compressed air, liquified air, underground hydrogen, tanked ammonia, buoyancy, mineshaft gravity. Most places will keep a few days' ammonia that they can burn where they do NG today, and order more if it looks like they may need it, and can't book transmission line power. Other times, they will synthesize ammonia for sale. Regional storage of underground hydrogen is already under construction. Hydrogen synthesis efficiency is now well over 90%, up from 60% very recently. Until ammonia synthesis ramps up in the '30s, they will burn NG at need, without apology.
- xupybd 4y ago
  I hope you're right
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  "Hydrogen synthesis efficiency is now well over 90%" From what source? Hydrocarbons?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Obviously not. Anyway that efficiency will not be important.
- adrianN 4y ago
  As far as I know the best we can do is PEM electrolysis with about 80% efficiency, but as you say, efficiency is not very important.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  It's not relevant what source is used to charge the batteries. Right now there is a massive price difference between peak and off peak power (partly due to renewables daily cycle), so anyone able to build a battery can charge at the off-peak rate and sell at the peak rate every day. This means that batteries have a revenue source right now, and therefore, the only reason they don't exist is because the cost exceeds that revenue source.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    That would not displace any CO2 emission. Storage as a separate business is not viable beyond a few years, so investment is limited. Original producers of energy will have their own storage, and prices will level out. Excess generation capacity (e.g. noon) after recharging storage will be devoted to synthesizing liquid fuels and desalination, which serve unlimited demand. By the time there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge storage, storage will be very, very cheap. Right now, it costs more, so money produces much better results building generation capacity and factories for storage. As the factories are completed, production ramps up, and costs fall.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago

Storage emits a lot more co2/kwh though, and that's a big problem. Even when you remove cost from the equation. There's also no grid in the world that runs on wind/solar+storage, it's obvious from looking at California that it would take 20+ years to arrive there.

pfdietz 4y ago
Storage needn't emit any CO2 at all. In a world that has transitioned entirely to non-fossil energy sources, where are you thinking this CO2 is coming from? Cement production? Batteries aren't made of cement.
ncmncm 4y ago
Storage emits CO2... Really, you think so? Before you have built a thing, you have to build it. After you build it, you have it. Building will be a big job, but nowhere near as big as building nukes instead would have been. The good news is that renewables start displacing CO2 emission almost immediately after ground is broken. It would be stupid to build storage without renewable capacity to charge it from. You spend on that first.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

And even where storage is hard, things are developing FAST. EVs are still at, what, 1% of cars on the road, and only a small percentage of dozens of transport modes by air, land, sea, from single person motorcycles to busses or even container ships. Grid storage still basically is an "EV batteries on land". This is going to change as well. WHich is funny because the fundamental issue any nuclear plant has to deal with isn't the current price of alternative energy + grid storage. The REAL problem is that in ten years when the thing comes online, what will the price of alternatives be then given the cost improvement curves of the last decade? I would hazard a guess that alt energy will be half of natural gas turbine by then (and natural gas turbine is already untouchably cheaper than nuclear), and probably 2/3 the cost with functional grid storage. I believe home solar will be cheaper than grid natural gas turbine in 10 years too. And that's without carbon taxes.