5 ms·

Care to elaborate on what we do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, then?

pydry 3y ago
Demand shaping - Germany pioneered this by dialing aluminum smelter usage up and down in the early days. They didn't talk about it much, I think because it functioned as a kind of hidden subsidy and they didn't want to attract undue attention. There's LOTS of scope for stuff like heaters and vehicles batteries to use electricity when it's plentiful and cheap and turn it off when it's not. The UK has a special electricity tariff for this already which is very popular with electric car drivers. Demand shaping is, relative to storage, really cheap and usually gets forgotten about in skeptical renewable energy models. Pumped storage and batteries for short term energy storage - hours to weeks. Australia is already building one pumped storage battery which should provide them with roughly 350GWh - roughly half of the short term storage they'd need if they had a 100% solar and wind based grid. With one plant. You can't do this in, e.g. Florida but the geography to build this is more than plentiful enough in most of the world (this topic is pretty well settled: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y but for some reason people keep disputing it). Hydrogen for seasonal storage - for weeks when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Roughly 2-3% of power will need to be stored this way on a 100% solar/wind grid. It's not efficient and expensive to generate hydrogen from electricity and then turn it back into electricity but still cheaper than generating and using nuclear power at the point of generation. It is cheap to store enormous amounts of power for long periods this way though.
- matkoniecz 3y ago
  The Australian project is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power... But it seems hardly replicable say in central Europe.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Maybe not now. But prices are reducing at 80% per decade, so it's likely only a few years away from being achievable.
    - matkoniecz 3y ago
      Even if solar would cost literally zero, then it does not solve problem that there is no place to fit such megasized pumped storage. (I am speaking about central Europe or more specifically Poland)
      - pydry 3y ago
        See the study linked to in my comment above. The one where I said "weirdly people keep disputing this". In Europe there's some geography known as "the alps" which has been used for years this way by the countries surrounding it. Poland's environmental record is atrocious on almost every level. I guess the coal lobby must run the government or something because nobody else in Europe that reliant on fuel that dirty. They're a model of how not to do anything right.
        matkoniecz 3y ago
        > In Europe there's some geography known as "the alps" which has been used for years this way by the countries surrounding it. Well, that is hardly solution for Poland.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        You don't need rivers or even much of a slope for pumped storage. Just water and a few hundred feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...
        matkoniecz 3y ago
        Hmm, apparently that is more demanding for locations than I thought Though > The plant takes advantage of the natural steep sand dune landform of eastern Lake Michigan
- shakow 3y ago
  Germany has still on average one of the dirtiest electricity of Western Europe, must import from its neighbors quite frequently, and is currently seeing the premises of an exodus of its industry due to energy cost; I'm not sure that using them as an example is pushing your argument.
  - oezi 3y ago
    The sources of the high energy cost are: - Ukraine conflict's impact on gas prices - Cost of renewables from over 10 years ago when Germany jumpstarted the solar industry using subsidies. - An ill-advised by highly popular switching off of nuclear plants. The Germans preferred higher energy prices now for less hassle and worries due to having Nuclear plants. None of these points have any impact on the argument that solar is the clear winner of becoming the dominant energy source until 2050.
- dahfizz 3y ago
  Dam! 350GWh is massive. That's like 10x the current largest pumped hydro storage. Projects like that do make renewables much more compelling

Demand shaping - Germany pioneered this by dialing aluminum smelter usage up and down in the early days. They didn't talk about it much, I think because it functioned as a kind of hidden subsidy and they didn't want to attract undue attention. There's LOTS of scope for stuff like heaters and vehicles batteries to use electricity when it's plentiful and cheap and turn it off when it's not. The UK has a special electricity tariff for this already which is very popular with electric car drivers. Demand shaping is, relative to storage, really cheap and usually gets forgotten about in skeptical renewable energy models. Pumped storage and batteries for short term energy storage - hours to weeks. Australia is already building one pumped storage battery which should provide them with roughly 350GWh - roughly half of the short term storage they'd need if they had a 100% solar and wind based grid. With one plant. You can't do this in, e.g. Florida but the geography to build this is more than plentiful enough in most of the world (this topic is pretty well settled: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y but for some reason people keep disputing it). Hydrogen for seasonal storage - for weeks when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Roughly 2-3% of power will need to be stored this way on a 100% solar/wind grid. It's not efficient and expensive to generate hydrogen from electricity and then turn it back into electricity but still cheaper than generating and using nuclear power at the point of generation. It is cheap to store enormous amounts of power for long periods this way though.

matkoniecz 3y ago
The Australian project is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power... But it seems hardly replicable say in central Europe.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Maybe not now. But prices are reducing at 80% per decade, so it's likely only a few years away from being achievable.
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    Even if solar would cost literally zero, then it does not solve problem that there is no place to fit such megasized pumped storage. (I am speaking about central Europe or more specifically Poland)
    - pydry 3y ago
      See the study linked to in my comment above. The one where I said "weirdly people keep disputing this". In Europe there's some geography known as "the alps" which has been used for years this way by the countries surrounding it. Poland's environmental record is atrocious on almost every level. I guess the coal lobby must run the government or something because nobody else in Europe that reliant on fuel that dirty. They're a model of how not to do anything right.
      - matkoniecz 3y ago
        > In Europe there's some geography known as "the alps" which has been used for years this way by the countries surrounding it. Well, that is hardly solution for Poland.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      You don't need rivers or even much of a slope for pumped storage. Just water and a few hundred feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...
      - matkoniecz 3y ago
        Hmm, apparently that is more demanding for locations than I thought Though > The plant takes advantage of the natural steep sand dune landform of eastern Lake Michigan
shakow 3y ago
Germany has still on average one of the dirtiest electricity of Western Europe, must import from its neighbors quite frequently, and is currently seeing the premises of an exodus of its industry due to energy cost; I'm not sure that using them as an example is pushing your argument.
- oezi 3y ago
  The sources of the high energy cost are: - Ukraine conflict's impact on gas prices - Cost of renewables from over 10 years ago when Germany jumpstarted the solar industry using subsidies. - An ill-advised by highly popular switching off of nuclear plants. The Germans preferred higher energy prices now for less hassle and worries due to having Nuclear plants. None of these points have any impact on the argument that solar is the clear winner of becoming the dominant energy source until 2050.
dahfizz 3y ago
Dam! 350GWh is massive. That's like 10x the current largest pumped hydro storage. Projects like that do make renewables much more compelling