3 ms·

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 significan

by 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.

by xupybd 4y ago

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.