4 ms·

It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent

It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent on renewable generating capacity that actually displaces CO2 emission. And that is, in fact, what is being done. The only error is in spending less on renewable generating capacity than the looming catastrophe demands. I recommend you put your $500 there, instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988

xyzzyz 4y ago
So I take it you won’t take the other side of the bet, then? Just as I thought.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  I have told you where you may send my winnings, in advance, although I cannot enforce it. But it is far from clear that we will have enough spare renewable generating capacity deployed by 2030 to charge up storage, most places. 2040 seems more likely, provided global civilization has not collapsed by then. We will need to start on factories to make the equipment needed to provide storage well before we need the storage. Factories take appallingly long to build.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Hydro reservoirs seem to cost in the $50-90/kWh range. I don't see that going down as digging and pouring concrete are pretty cost optimized already. Although a holes don't tend to wear out and can be used many more times than a battery, I'm not convinced low cost abundant-material battery options won't eat their lunch if we keep dragging our feet on the renewable buildout. I guess if we were really committed to the idea we could use all that Uranium to make some very cheap holes and have it actually contribute to zero carbon energy rather than being a myth, but I'm not convinced the fallout is worth it.
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      Pumped hydro reservoirs do not, as a rule, require concrete, or overmuch digging, unlike your typical hydro generation dam, which people seem often confuse them with. (But as with most things, you can spend as much as you like, and some have.) It is wholly possible that, in the fullness of time, some battery chemistry will undercut pumped hydro. The main problem with chemical batteries is that the cost is linear with capacity, where pumped hydro cost tends to per square root of marginal capacity (for dike construction), but also costs per watt for the turbine-and-pump(s), with a fixed up-front cost for the penstock.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Have you got some examples of reservoirs in the 10s or 100s of GWh range in non-preexisting hydro projects that beat $50/kWh? If not then asserting that costs scale with the square root of capacity is a massive indictment rather than an argument for it.
        pencilguin 4y ago
        The square-root scaling law means quadrupling the water storage only doubles the length of the perimeter dike. It is a good thing. Dikes are as mature as any technology still in use: they predate writing. We don't need to guess what they cost. We have, similarly, well beyond a century of experience with penstocks and kinetic waterwheels. Pumps have been in use for some time, too.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > The square-root scaling law means quadrupling the water storage only doubles the length of the perimeter dike. It is a good thing. Only if there is a project of reasonable size that has a manageable cost. Otherwise the corolloray that smaller dikes cost more implies that only a small handful of perfectly placed megaprojects will work. Responding with vague rhetoric for something you claim will work when there are hard numbers for finished projects using other technologies makes you look no better than the fission shills. Snowy 2 blows fission out of the water, even being over budget by the usual fission ratio. But it had a watershed and it wasn't greenfield. Are there any actually existing off river PHEL projects (or adequately sized reservoirs) with real budgets that actually got finished to compare?

xyzzyz 4y ago

So I take it you won’t take the other side of the bet, then? Just as I thought.

pencilguin 4y ago
I have told you where you may send my winnings, in advance, although I cannot enforce it. But it is far from clear that we will have enough spare renewable generating capacity deployed by 2030 to charge up storage, most places. 2040 seems more likely, provided global civilization has not collapsed by then. We will need to start on factories to make the equipment needed to provide storage well before we need the storage. Factories take appallingly long to build.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Hydro reservoirs seem to cost in the $50-90/kWh range. I don't see that going down as digging and pouring concrete are pretty cost optimized already. Although a holes don't tend to wear out and can be used many more times than a battery, I'm not convinced low cost abundant-material battery options won't eat their lunch if we keep dragging our feet on the renewable buildout. I guess if we were really committed to the idea we could use all that Uranium to make some very cheap holes and have it actually contribute to zero carbon energy rather than being a myth, but I'm not convinced the fallout is worth it.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    Pumped hydro reservoirs do not, as a rule, require concrete, or overmuch digging, unlike your typical hydro generation dam, which people seem often confuse them with. (But as with most things, you can spend as much as you like, and some have.) It is wholly possible that, in the fullness of time, some battery chemistry will undercut pumped hydro. The main problem with chemical batteries is that the cost is linear with capacity, where pumped hydro cost tends to per square root of marginal capacity (for dike construction), but also costs per watt for the turbine-and-pump(s), with a fixed up-front cost for the penstock.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Have you got some examples of reservoirs in the 10s or 100s of GWh range in non-preexisting hydro projects that beat $50/kWh? If not then asserting that costs scale with the square root of capacity is a massive indictment rather than an argument for it.
      - pencilguin 4y ago
        The square-root scaling law means quadrupling the water storage only doubles the length of the perimeter dike. It is a good thing. Dikes are as mature as any technology still in use: they predate writing. We don't need to guess what they cost. We have, similarly, well beyond a century of experience with penstocks and kinetic waterwheels. Pumps have been in use for some time, too.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > The square-root scaling law means quadrupling the water storage only doubles the length of the perimeter dike. It is a good thing. Only if there is a project of reasonable size that has a manageable cost. Otherwise the corolloray that smaller dikes cost more implies that only a small handful of perfectly placed megaprojects will work. Responding with vague rhetoric for something you claim will work when there are hard numbers for finished projects using other technologies makes you look no better than the fission shills. Snowy 2 blows fission out of the water, even being over budget by the usual fission ratio. But it had a watershed and it wasn't greenfield. Are there any actually existing off river PHEL projects (or adequately sized reservoirs) with real budgets that actually got finished to compare?