5 ms·

"plus energy storage" Grid scale energy storage doesn't exist.

by HyperSane 4y ago

maxerickson 4y ago
What's the definition of grid scale energy storage in that statement?
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Lets say 24 hours of the US's electrical demand.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      I wouldn't be willing to bet my economy on that.
    - lazide 4y ago
      That’s BS. For several reasons. 1) grid connections fail sometimes. Do you want people freezing to death in NY when the Texas interconnect goes down for a day or two, or vice versa? 2) regional storms (Florida hurricanes, NY ice storms, etc), periodically take out large swathes of grid and would take out grid interconnections too. Currently, the scope of the impact of these things is quite limited because everyone also has regional capacity. But if you’re in a giant storm, you’d be super screwed and the whole region would be blacked out for awhile, because renewables also are impacted by these storms - far more than a gas turbine, for instance. And that’s not even counting demand spikes and the like due to weather issues (longer than usual hot or cold, etc.)
      - wumpus 4y ago
        > Do you want people freezing to death Have you ever had a useful discussion after accusing the other side of wanting to kill people?
        HyperSane 4y ago
        It is a legitimate risk of your proposal.
        wumpus 4y ago
        Did you reply to the correct comment? I didn't propose anything.
        bigfudge 4y ago
        Nuclear power plants also have a low probability catastrophic failure mode. If it was a risk we’d engineer to mitigate it.
        lazide 4y ago
        The referenced plan was to explicitly not do so. And ‘happens every decade or so in the US’ is a lot more frequent than meltdowns, and not very far down the tail as far as such things go.
        lazide 4y ago
        Where is the accusation exactly? I was pointing out the real risks involved, and asking them if they were ok with them. Statistically, such a plan would result in that outcome pretty quickly. Personally I just assumed they had no idea, not that they didn’t care.
        wumpus 4y ago
        Roughly 0% of experts behind more renewables and storage agree with you. But maybe you don't realize that, given that you'd driven them away with this style of argument.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    The hydrogen storage facility at Delta Utah has enough space in the salt formation for 100 caverns, each storing 150 GWh of energy. That's about 30 hours worth (well, maybe less, if that 150 GWh is before conversion to electrical energy, but still this is just one location.)
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      1) That doesn't actually exist yet. 2) You would need a huge number of generators to actually generate enough electricity to power the entire US.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Combined cycle power plants cost about $1/W; simple cycle, about $0.50/W. Combustion turbines are cheap. A nuclear plant, $10/W. We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants. As for "not actually existing yet", that's not anything close to a valid argument. Also, hydrogen storage doesn't require anything new -- all the component technologies exist, they just have to be integrated. This is the easiest and surest kind of innovation. It would be nice if higher demand drive electrolysers down their experience curve some more, I will admit. Cheaper is always nice.
        HyperSane 4y ago
        "We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants." I really want this to be true, I just don't think it is.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        How hard is it to compare the numbers "1" and "10"?
        Godel_unicode 4y ago
- arise 4y ago
  For context, suppose Vogtle 3 & 4 generates 2200 MW during 16 hours of winter darkness. That's 35.2 GWh. If you had to replace that with Tesla Powerwalls you'd need 2.6 million of them or 22 copies of Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility (the world's largest). And that's back of the envelope numbers assuming a 100% duty cycle for the batteries and no degradation.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    That facility cost "more than $400 million" so let's say 22 of them cost $10 billion. "The total bill for the reactor expansion project at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia is now expected to exceed $30 billion" Seems doable. > And that's back of the envelope numbers assuming a 100% duty cycle for the batteries and no degradation. Okay, toss on another 50% to make it $15 billion. If the factories don't exist, the time scale of a nuclear plant should be enough to make more factories.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      There is no way we could make that many lithium ion cells.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        If the limit is factories, we can make the factories. If the limit is materials bloating the costs horribly, then keep going until it stops being cheap. And the batteries don't have to be lithium ion.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pfdietz 4y ago
Ah yes, the "nothing can happen for the first time" argument. Such tendentious and mindless reactionary conservatism.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    You've set a new record for absurdity of an HN comment. No, grid storage does not require violating the laws of physics. Indeed, it doesn't even need 20th century science to be done in a scalable way (see pumped thermal storage). The main problem with grid storage is trying to figure out which of the many possible solutions will come out on top.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
- jhgkjhlkhjkljk 4y ago
  It's "mindless" to point out that grid scale energy storage doesn't exist in a discussion about solar + wind + storage being "a compelling alternative to nuclear" which "can be built faster?" GP is making a simple point that these back of the napkin calculations are exactly that; they don't take some factors into account - one being that grid scale energy storage doesn't exist. Where does GP say that "nothing can happen for the first time?" Where in that post is "tendentious and mindless reactionary conservatism?" I don't see any argument at all in GP. That comment is only saying that the calculation relies on technology that doesn't exist. Also, if GP is making an argument with that statement, why is it necessarily that one? Couldn't it be that the argument is that since the time needed to create this technology is either too long or unknown, it may be better to focus or at lest not withdraw from nuclear? If not that argument, why specifically does the argument have to be "nothing can happen for the first time?"
  - 4y ago

"plus energy storage" Grid scale energy storage doesn't exist.

maxerickson 4y ago

What's the definition of grid scale energy storage in that statement?

HyperSane 4y ago
Lets say 24 hours of the US's electrical demand.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    I wouldn't be willing to bet my economy on that.
  - lazide 4y ago
    That’s BS. For several reasons. 1) grid connections fail sometimes. Do you want people freezing to death in NY when the Texas interconnect goes down for a day or two, or vice versa? 2) regional storms (Florida hurricanes, NY ice storms, etc), periodically take out large swathes of grid and would take out grid interconnections too. Currently, the scope of the impact of these things is quite limited because everyone also has regional capacity. But if you’re in a giant storm, you’d be super screwed and the whole region would be blacked out for awhile, because renewables also are impacted by these storms - far more than a gas turbine, for instance. And that’s not even counting demand spikes and the like due to weather issues (longer than usual hot or cold, etc.)
    - wumpus 4y ago
      > Do you want people freezing to death Have you ever had a useful discussion after accusing the other side of wanting to kill people?
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        It is a legitimate risk of your proposal.
        wumpus 4y ago
        Did you reply to the correct comment? I didn't propose anything.
        bigfudge 4y ago
        Nuclear power plants also have a low probability catastrophic failure mode. If it was a risk we’d engineer to mitigate it.
        lazide 4y ago
        The referenced plan was to explicitly not do so. And ‘happens every decade or so in the US’ is a lot more frequent than meltdowns, and not very far down the tail as far as such things go.
      - lazide 4y ago
        Where is the accusation exactly? I was pointing out the real risks involved, and asking them if they were ok with them. Statistically, such a plan would result in that outcome pretty quickly. Personally I just assumed they had no idea, not that they didn’t care.
        wumpus 4y ago
        Roughly 0% of experts behind more renewables and storage agree with you. But maybe you don't realize that, given that you'd driven them away with this style of argument.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  The hydrogen storage facility at Delta Utah has enough space in the salt formation for 100 caverns, each storing 150 GWh of energy. That's about 30 hours worth (well, maybe less, if that 150 GWh is before conversion to electrical energy, but still this is just one location.)
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    1) That doesn't actually exist yet. 2) You would need a huge number of generators to actually generate enough electricity to power the entire US.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Combined cycle power plants cost about $1/W; simple cycle, about $0.50/W. Combustion turbines are cheap. A nuclear plant, $10/W. We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants. As for "not actually existing yet", that's not anything close to a valid argument. Also, hydrogen storage doesn't require anything new -- all the component technologies exist, they just have to be integrated. This is the easiest and surest kind of innovation. It would be nice if higher demand drive electrolysers down their experience curve some more, I will admit. Cheaper is always nice.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        "We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants." I really want this to be true, I just don't think it is.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        How hard is it to compare the numbers "1" and "10"?
        Godel_unicode 4y ago
arise 4y ago
For context, suppose Vogtle 3 & 4 generates 2200 MW during 16 hours of winter darkness. That's 35.2 GWh. If you had to replace that with Tesla Powerwalls you'd need 2.6 million of them or 22 copies of Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility (the world's largest). And that's back of the envelope numbers assuming a 100% duty cycle for the batteries and no degradation.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  That facility cost "more than $400 million" so let's say 22 of them cost $10 billion. "The total bill for the reactor expansion project at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia is now expected to exceed $30 billion" Seems doable. > And that's back of the envelope numbers assuming a 100% duty cycle for the batteries and no degradation. Okay, toss on another 50% to make it $15 billion. If the factories don't exist, the time scale of a nuclear plant should be enough to make more factories.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    There is no way we could make that many lithium ion cells.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If the limit is factories, we can make the factories. If the limit is materials bloating the costs horribly, then keep going until it stops being cheap. And the batteries don't have to be lithium ion.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pfdietz 4y ago

Ah yes, the "nothing can happen for the first time" argument. Such tendentious and mindless reactionary conservatism.

HyperSane 4y ago
- pfdietz 4y ago
  You've set a new record for absurdity of an HN comment. No, grid storage does not require violating the laws of physics. Indeed, it doesn't even need 20th century science to be done in a scalable way (see pumped thermal storage). The main problem with grid storage is trying to figure out which of the many possible solutions will come out on top.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
jhgkjhlkhjkljk 4y ago
It's "mindless" to point out that grid scale energy storage doesn't exist in a discussion about solar + wind + storage being "a compelling alternative to nuclear" which "can be built faster?" GP is making a simple point that these back of the napkin calculations are exactly that; they don't take some factors into account - one being that grid scale energy storage doesn't exist. Where does GP say that "nothing can happen for the first time?" Where in that post is "tendentious and mindless reactionary conservatism?" I don't see any argument at all in GP. That comment is only saying that the calculation relies on technology that doesn't exist. Also, if GP is making an argument with that statement, why is it necessarily that one? Couldn't it be that the argument is that since the time needed to create this technology is either too long or unknown, it may be better to focus or at lest not withdraw from nuclear? If not that argument, why specifically does the argument have to be "nothing can happen for the first time?"
- 4y ago