3 ms·

The blog post is right that storage is the key problem if you are trying to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels from electricity generation and electrify all the things

The blog post is right that storage is the key problem if you are trying to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels from electricity generation and electrify all the things at the same time. And also right that there is no "one size fits all" magic solution for carbon-free energy storage. For all the self-congratulation that European countries do (and the US is starting to do, with the IRA's energy provisions) about their progress, no policy maker seems to understand how woefully short of what is needed we are.

jacquesm 4y ago
I don't actually completely agree with that premise. The problem is not just one of storage, but one of uneven distribution and by combining a significant overcapacity on the generation side with a massive high voltage DC transmission network you could reduce the storage requirement to a small fraction of what it would be otherwise. HVDC allows you to transmit power across distances that were so far not economical and that in turn allows you to move solar and wind power around from one place to another across multiple timezones. This would go a long way towards offsetting the effect of the length of the day and the existence of dead zones in wind generation. Electrons are far easier transported than stored and we should use that fact to our advantage rather than to try to blockheadedly aim for the exact configuration that is the hardest to make viable.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Yeah, I know those arguments. I like the overcapacity approach, but policymakers seem to struggle with it. In principle you could install a world-circling transmission grid and obviate the need for storage entirely. But long distance transmission carries its own risks and costs. The radius of loss arising from adverse events goes up a lot, for example. And new-build long-distance projects take decades, which we can ill afford. In the world in which we live, storage will be important and there is no panacea.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That's fair, the attacks on the Nordstream pipelines (whoever did it) are a good example of such a vulnerability.

jacquesm 4y ago

I don't actually completely agree with that premise. The problem is not just one of storage, but one of uneven distribution and by combining a significant overcapacity on the generation side with a massive high voltage DC transmission network you could reduce the storage requirement to a small fraction of what it would be otherwise. HVDC allows you to transmit power across distances that were so far not economical and that in turn allows you to move solar and wind power around from one place to another across multiple timezones. This would go a long way towards offsetting the effect of the length of the day and the existence of dead zones in wind generation. Electrons are far easier transported than stored and we should use that fact to our advantage rather than to try to blockheadedly aim for the exact configuration that is the hardest to make viable.

tuatoru 4y ago
Yeah, I know those arguments. I like the overcapacity approach, but policymakers seem to struggle with it. In principle you could install a world-circling transmission grid and obviate the need for storage entirely. But long distance transmission carries its own risks and costs. The radius of loss arising from adverse events goes up a lot, for example. And new-build long-distance projects take decades, which we can ill afford. In the world in which we live, storage will be important and there is no panacea.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That's fair, the attacks on the Nordstream pipelines (whoever did it) are a good example of such a vulnerability.