5 ms·

What storage system are you referring to when you say it brings that down to 2 or 3? Even provisioning 24 hours of storage for the world would require 60,000 GW

What storage system are you referring to when you say it brings that down to 2 or 3? Even provisioning 24 hours of storage for the world would require 60,000 GWh of storage. This would consume 100% of existing global battery production (~400GWh per year) for the next century. Alternatives like hydroelectric storage are geographically limited and can't serve all regions. It's unclear if it's even possible to provision enough grid storage to make wind and solar viable without fossil fuel backups. This is why plans for a majority-intermittent grid assume something like hydrogen or compressed air will make storage nearly-free.

pydry 4y ago
Apparently we'd need 5 hours of storage to reach 97% carbon free grid: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... It's rivers that are in short supply. Contrary to popular opinion, pumped storage doesnt require rivers. There are actually rather a lot of suitable sites for pumped storage - certainly a lot more than we'd need to hit that 97% mark: https://www.dnv.com/news/estorage-study-shows-huge-potential-capacity-of-exploitable-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-sites-in-europe-63675 https://www.dnv.com/news/estorage-study-shows-huge-potential... For the last 1-2% - anything beyond what pumped storage and batteries and demand shifting can't handle windgas will suffice. Every kwh generated by synthesizing methane at 50% efficiency, storing and using it to generate electricity would still be cheaper than every equivalent kWh generated by a nuclear power plant. Yes, it's that expensive: https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Estimates vary. Others say that 12 hours of storage would be needed to reach 80%: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... And for what it's worth, even just 5 hours of electricity storage is 12,500 GWh, compared to just 400 GWh of battery production (most of which goes to EVs and electronics, not grid storage). Pumped storage does indeed require rivers or lakes to operate effectively. Transporting vast amounts of water to a storage site is prohibitively expensive. It also requires a hill nearby on which to build a reservoir. And this site needs to be near a transportation hub, otherwise construction costs will increase as transportation of material gets more expensive. The number of potential storage sites is indeed large, but the number of economically viable storage sites is much narrower. Most studies regarding hydroelectric storage potential work by running an algorithm over a height map. Very few of the sites flagged by such an algorithm can be developed economically.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >Estimates vary. Others say that 12 hours of storage would be needed They do. The study I cited above used real time production data rather than synthesizing it from weather data like yours. >And for what it's worth, even just 5 hours of electricity storage is 12,500 GWh, My calculations say 2280 GWh in the US. This says 35,000 GWh of potential storage is available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf. 6% of that would be enough. >compared to just 400 GWh of battery production (most of which goes to EVs and electronics, not grid storage). Skeptics said the same thing about solar production in 2012. It'll probably similarly scale up exponentially (as will lithium production) just coz the unit costs are so attractive. Yes, we will probably want to use it mostly for electric cars and use pumped storage as grid storage coz you can store a ridiculous amount. Snowy 2 is a "battery" with 350GWh of storage all by itself. China has one that isnt much smaller. The US can probably handle building the equivalent of 6 and a half of one of those. For what pumped storage can't handle we can synthesize and store gas and we'd still save ~10% compared to nuclear power's abysmal economics. >Very few of the sites flagged by such an algorithm can be developed economically. 6% is apparently enough to get us to 97%. I'll bet we could manage plenty more though. Plus there are disused mines.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > This says 35,000 GWh of potential storage is available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf. 6% of that would be enough. Again, this study just ran an algorithm over a heightmap. Most of the hydroelectric potential exists in remote mountain ranges that would be impossible to develop in practice. > For what pumped storage can't handle we can synthesize and store gas and we'd still save ~10% compared to nuclear power's abysmal economics. Unfortunately, no we can't. The Sabatier process (aka "synthesized gas") requires sources of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The former is almost entirely produced through steam reformation, as electrolysis is not efficient or cheap enough. The latter is present in the atmosphere but in concentrations too small to be useful. The Sabatier process is opportunistically used with concentrated CO2 byproducts from industrial processes. But you can't just build a synthetic gas plant and use it as a battery.

pydry 4y ago

Apparently we'd need 5 hours of storage to reach 97% carbon free grid: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... It's rivers that are in short supply. Contrary to popular opinion, pumped storage doesnt require rivers. There are actually rather a lot of suitable sites for pumped storage - certainly a lot more than we'd need to hit that 97% mark: https://www.dnv.com/news/estorage-study-shows-huge-potential-capacity-of-exploitable-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-sites-in-europe-63675 https://www.dnv.com/news/estorage-study-shows-huge-potential... For the last 1-2% - anything beyond what pumped storage and batteries and demand shifting can't handle windgas will suffice. Every kwh generated by synthesizing methane at 50% efficiency, storing and using it to generate electricity would still be cheaper than every equivalent kWh generated by a nuclear power plant. Yes, it's that expensive: https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...

Manuel_D 4y ago
Estimates vary. Others say that 12 hours of storage would be needed to reach 80%: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... And for what it's worth, even just 5 hours of electricity storage is 12,500 GWh, compared to just 400 GWh of battery production (most of which goes to EVs and electronics, not grid storage). Pumped storage does indeed require rivers or lakes to operate effectively. Transporting vast amounts of water to a storage site is prohibitively expensive. It also requires a hill nearby on which to build a reservoir. And this site needs to be near a transportation hub, otherwise construction costs will increase as transportation of material gets more expensive. The number of potential storage sites is indeed large, but the number of economically viable storage sites is much narrower. Most studies regarding hydroelectric storage potential work by running an algorithm over a height map. Very few of the sites flagged by such an algorithm can be developed economically.
- pydry 4y ago
  >Estimates vary. Others say that 12 hours of storage would be needed They do. The study I cited above used real time production data rather than synthesizing it from weather data like yours. >And for what it's worth, even just 5 hours of electricity storage is 12,500 GWh, My calculations say 2280 GWh in the US. This says 35,000 GWh of potential storage is available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf. 6% of that would be enough. >compared to just 400 GWh of battery production (most of which goes to EVs and electronics, not grid storage). Skeptics said the same thing about solar production in 2012. It'll probably similarly scale up exponentially (as will lithium production) just coz the unit costs are so attractive. Yes, we will probably want to use it mostly for electric cars and use pumped storage as grid storage coz you can store a ridiculous amount. Snowy 2 is a "battery" with 350GWh of storage all by itself. China has one that isnt much smaller. The US can probably handle building the equivalent of 6 and a half of one of those. For what pumped storage can't handle we can synthesize and store gas and we'd still save ~10% compared to nuclear power's abysmal economics. >Very few of the sites flagged by such an algorithm can be developed economically. 6% is apparently enough to get us to 97%. I'll bet we could manage plenty more though. Plus there are disused mines.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > This says 35,000 GWh of potential storage is available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81277.pdf. 6% of that would be enough. Again, this study just ran an algorithm over a heightmap. Most of the hydroelectric potential exists in remote mountain ranges that would be impossible to develop in practice. > For what pumped storage can't handle we can synthesize and store gas and we'd still save ~10% compared to nuclear power's abysmal economics. Unfortunately, no we can't. The Sabatier process (aka "synthesized gas") requires sources of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The former is almost entirely produced through steam reformation, as electrolysis is not efficient or cheap enough. The latter is present in the atmosphere but in concentrations too small to be useful. The Sabatier process is opportunistically used with concentrated CO2 byproducts from industrial processes. But you can't just build a synthetic gas plant and use it as a battery.