6 ms·

Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Research on batteries may get us there soon, but today they aren't feasible. It's very much worth pu

Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Research on batteries may get us there soon, but today they aren't feasible. It's very much worth putting effort into both approaches. IMO the best outcome is a wide variety of clean energy sources and storage solutions, so the best solution can be chosen for a given geographical/political/etc situation.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108
- Matticus_Rex 4y ago
  "Places where sun availability makes solar inefficient" is still a niche so massive that "niche" seems like a bad descriptor.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Keep in mind HVDC. 3300 KM north of the Sahara desert, and you are relatively close to the Arctic circle. North of that is still a "niche," but now we're talking about a million people living hugely spread out. Most of those people living in Russia, Norway, and Sweden with easy access to an abundance of hydro, to the level that energy flows north to south in the Scandinavian countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      Well maybe once they finish blowing up the ones they built in Donbass and half-built near Saratov we can revisit it.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Are solar + batteries feasible to heat every house in Minnesota with electricity when it's below -20F (-30C) for a week, we have <9 hours of daylight per day, and failing power literally means death? I genuinely don't know. Like I said, having a variety of solutions is the best outcome so we can choose the right one & have backups. > just show your math. I admit I can't. It's mostly gut-feeling from various science news sources I keep up with (e.g. Ars Technica; Skeptic's Guide to the Universe).
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I wonder if we should seriously consider moving people away from such cold climates and towards warmer ones. Air conditioning is cheaper and coincidentally happens at about the same time as maximum solar power.
    - coldpie 4y ago
      This might work with post-Surak Vulcans, but it's not gonna fly here on Earth with humans :)
    - finnh 4y ago
      We are doing that actually, but the other way: rather than moving the people, we are moving the climate.
  - hadlock 4y ago
    I honestly wonder if large scale population of the northern areas is feasible without carbon fuels. Historically chopped wood was used to heat northern homes and camps, later coal and oil and I guess now to some extent electricity, but as you say, renewable energy doesn't apply there. If places like Minnesota are a net negative for green/renewable energy, their costs may be much higher to offset generation in more favorable climates.
    - VaxWithSex 4y ago
      Minnesota can use wind, which is also cheaper.
- melling 4y ago
  That’s great! Because there are [ONLY] 8500 coal power plants producing 20% of the CO2 emissions globally. Removing 20% of emissions will make a huge difference. ETA on this should be around 2030? What I don’t get is since solar is cheaper, why are we building so many coal power plants? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-building-more-than-half-of-the-worlds-new-coal-power-plants/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-buildi...
  - throitallaway 4y ago
    Solar generates electricity during the day. It would have to be overprovisioned and paired with storage in order to handle dark hours. There are some battery banks out there (Tesla), but I don't think they're very common. Coal handles baseline load. We should be using nuclear for baseline instead.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Construction still hasn't begun on that project, 3 years later. When is the last time LA had a large construction project come in under budget? I'll believe it when the batteries are actually installed and the bill is paid. Also, the solar farm is planned for 800-MWh of storage. In 2021, LA used over 65 TWh of electricity[1]. That's over 7 GWh, per hour. So this storage would run the city for a few minutes. Not exactly a replacement for base load generation. [1] https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    See you in ten years at the earliest when any nuclear generator you break ground on today generates its first kWh of power (assuming it isn’t wildly late or over budget, as every one built since the 70s has been).
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      I'm not saying fusion is necessarily the answer. I'm just tired of hearing "solar plus storage is the cheapest option" when the sources always rely on projected costs and a pathetically small amount of storage. We need a major breakthrough in storage tech to make grid-scale storage a reality. Li-ion batteries are never going to cut it. Who knows whether grid scale storage will come along faster than fusion.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        We don't need major breakthroughs, we just need to watch technologies proceed down their experience curves.
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      But at least we’ve built them and we know we can provide the necessary capacity.
- q1w2 4y ago
  > Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. This is false. This has only ever been shown to be true in extremely narrow edge cases where the batteries only needed to last overnight in extremely sunny locations. For solar+batteries to be cheaper they need to be large enough to power through weeks/months of cloudy/snowy/leafy/rainy weather in places that are at least near higher latitude locations.
rapsey 4y ago
> Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Mechanical, lithium based, flow, heat, compressed air, pumped hydro are all types of batteries that are able to store quite large amounts of power today or in the near future. Certainly cheaper than fusion has any hope to be within 20 years.
conradev 4y ago
CATL is working on sodium batteries as a lithium replacement shipping in 2023 Form Energy is working on iron air batteries as a new class of multi-day energy storage, launching its first test installation in 2023 The US passed a tax credit for energy storage, to encourage building more pumped storage capacity Congress is working on transmission line permitting reform There are some good reasons to be optimistic in the near term

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108

Matticus_Rex 4y ago
"Places where sun availability makes solar inefficient" is still a niche so massive that "niche" seems like a bad descriptor.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Keep in mind HVDC. 3300 KM north of the Sahara desert, and you are relatively close to the Arctic circle. North of that is still a "niche," but now we're talking about a million people living hugely spread out. Most of those people living in Russia, Norway, and Sweden with easy access to an abundance of hydro, to the level that energy flows north to south in the Scandinavian countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Well maybe once they finish blowing up the ones they built in Donbass and half-built near Saratov we can revisit it.
coldpie 4y ago
Are solar + batteries feasible to heat every house in Minnesota with electricity when it's below -20F (-30C) for a week, we have <9 hours of daylight per day, and failing power literally means death? I genuinely don't know. Like I said, having a variety of solutions is the best outcome so we can choose the right one & have backups. > just show your math. I admit I can't. It's mostly gut-feeling from various science news sources I keep up with (e.g. Ars Technica; Skeptic's Guide to the Universe).
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I wonder if we should seriously consider moving people away from such cold climates and towards warmer ones. Air conditioning is cheaper and coincidentally happens at about the same time as maximum solar power.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    This might work with post-Surak Vulcans, but it's not gonna fly here on Earth with humans :)
  - finnh 4y ago
    We are doing that actually, but the other way: rather than moving the people, we are moving the climate.
- hadlock 4y ago
  I honestly wonder if large scale population of the northern areas is feasible without carbon fuels. Historically chopped wood was used to heat northern homes and camps, later coal and oil and I guess now to some extent electricity, but as you say, renewable energy doesn't apply there. If places like Minnesota are a net negative for green/renewable energy, their costs may be much higher to offset generation in more favorable climates.
  - VaxWithSex 4y ago
    Minnesota can use wind, which is also cheaper.
melling 4y ago
That’s great! Because there are [ONLY] 8500 coal power plants producing 20% of the CO2 emissions globally. Removing 20% of emissions will make a huge difference. ETA on this should be around 2030? What I don’t get is since solar is cheaper, why are we building so many coal power plants? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-building-more-than-half-of-the-worlds-new-coal-power-plants/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-buildi...
- throitallaway 4y ago
  Solar generates electricity during the day. It would have to be overprovisioned and paired with storage in order to handle dark hours. There are some battery banks out there (Tesla), but I don't think they're very common. Coal handles baseline load. We should be using nuclear for baseline instead.
dahfizz 4y ago
Construction still hasn't begun on that project, 3 years later. When is the last time LA had a large construction project come in under budget? I'll believe it when the batteries are actually installed and the bill is paid. Also, the solar farm is planned for 800-MWh of storage. In 2021, LA used over 65 TWh of electricity[1]. That's over 7 GWh, per hour. So this storage would run the city for a few minutes. Not exactly a replacement for base load generation. [1] https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  See you in ten years at the earliest when any nuclear generator you break ground on today generates its first kWh of power (assuming it isn’t wildly late or over budget, as every one built since the 70s has been).
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    I'm not saying fusion is necessarily the answer. I'm just tired of hearing "solar plus storage is the cheapest option" when the sources always rely on projected costs and a pathetically small amount of storage. We need a major breakthrough in storage tech to make grid-scale storage a reality. Li-ion batteries are never going to cut it. Who knows whether grid scale storage will come along faster than fusion.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      We don't need major breakthroughs, we just need to watch technologies proceed down their experience curves.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    But at least we’ve built them and we know we can provide the necessary capacity.
q1w2 4y ago
> Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. This is false. This has only ever been shown to be true in extremely narrow edge cases where the batteries only needed to last overnight in extremely sunny locations. For solar+batteries to be cheaper they need to be large enough to power through weeks/months of cloudy/snowy/leafy/rainy weather in places that are at least near higher latitude locations.

rapsey 4y ago

> Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Mechanical, lithium based, flow, heat, compressed air, pumped hydro are all types of batteries that are able to store quite large amounts of power today or in the near future. Certainly cheaper than fusion has any hope to be within 20 years.

conradev 4y ago

CATL is working on sodium batteries as a lithium replacement shipping in 2023 Form Energy is working on iron air batteries as a new class of multi-day energy storage, launching its first test installation in 2023 The US passed a tax credit for energy storage, to encourage building more pumped storage capacity Congress is working on transmission line permitting reform There are some good reasons to be optimistic in the near term