7 ms·

> Solar and wind are winning They will not and cannot win until we have cheap, highly dense, efficient power storage. That is, unfortunately, at least 20 years

> Solar and wind are winning They will not and cannot win until we have cheap, highly dense, efficient power storage. That is, unfortunately, at least 20 years off (if we're lucky). They will continue to be an important part of our energy ecosystem, and we should aggressively build them out, but we still need the fundamental power solution.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Why does the storage has to be dense, if they are stationary?
- kuratkull 3y ago
  Dense means they have a good size to kw/h ratio. If it's too low, nobody will install them. Space is a premium after all.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Space in the cities is premium. Space in rural areas is not. I really don't think space is the problem, mass producing maybe, but otherwise have a big powerbank in every basement and you are done.
    - pengaru 3y ago
      > have a big powerbank in every basement and you are done. Especially in the case of flooding, Fukushima style.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Flooding destroys alsl batteries obviously, but the slightly important difference to Fukoshima is, a saltwater batterie does not contaminate the area.
      - _ph_ 3y ago
        Besides that most areas aren't in the risk of flooding, there is litte preventing you to water proof your batteries to the point that submerging them into water has no ill effects. The housing of the batteries usually is water-proof anyway. Just look at all the Teslas driving through deep water. Oil tanks for heating are a huge problem with flooding though, as they tend to leak oil into the environment.
    - tuatoru 3y ago
      This is right. For grid connected storage, two things matter: 10-year total cost, and durability. At least a 30-year design life. (Well, reliability matters too: that 's implicit.) Volume and mass are just whatever they are. They don't matter.
epistasis 3y ago
Fortunately we do have cheap, dense batteries that are being deployed on a massive scale with new solar. The idea that we are not currently, today, deploying massive amounts of batteries everywhere with today's technology is just plain ignorance It is no longer 2003. By 2030 it's likely that annual world production of battery storage will be 20-30 TWh. Today, we are getting close to 1TWh production per year. Edit: just for example, take Texas's grid, which is one of the few places where storage is allowed to compete on its own cost merits. There are multiple GW, currently, much more in the pipeline, and prices still have a long ways to fall on battery installations (grid assets are usually measured by power, to convert to energy multiply by 4 hours: > Installed battery capacity increased from 153 MW in 2019 to 3,518 MW in 2023. Interconnection agreements have been signed for an additional 7,945 MW of battery storage through 2024, allowing batteries to play a growing role in daily power needs in the near future. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2023/1017 https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2023/1017
- alvah 3y ago
  "The idea that we are not currently, today, deploying massive amounts of batteries everywhere with today's technology is just plain ignorance" I don't see anyone making this weirdly-specific claim. However, it's widely acknowledged that sufficient battery storage to guarantee national grid-wide power on-demand, sufficient for a modern industrial economy, is not currently feasible, in both economic and practical terms.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    What you say is "widely acknowledged" is in direct contradiction to what is actually getting deployed on the grid. And what you say is a "weirdly specific claim" is also a surprise to people. If a large chunk of current grid investment in Texas, profit-drivej by independent investors, how could it not be feasible to continue this level of investment? Especially when costs are falling dramatically and production capacity for batteries is just getting started and is scaling at a tremendous rate that will result in a complete excess of battery capacity within the time period that we could only build a thousandth of the same amount of nuclear wattage? What is the blocker on feasibility?
matthewdgreen 3y ago
The first two Swedish nuclear plants won't come online for at least 12 years, and the next eight aren't scheduled to be operational until 2045. That's 22 years in the future. Personally I think your timeline for storage is going to prove wildly conservative (we already have 5GW installed in CA, China is building capacity exponentially.) But even if you're right: these nuclear plants are going to come online right at the moment when storage makes them economically obsolete.
- childintime 3y ago
  Exactly. And their construction will have pumped 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere they were supposed to prevent during their lifetime. Nuclear is a really bad idea if construction takes that long.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
imo that's outdated mantra repeated while we are just getting there.. but anyway: as is any nuclear 10 year planning now 20 years out then in reality, at least here in the west.

hutzlibu 3y ago

Why does the storage has to be dense, if they are stationary?

kuratkull 3y ago
Dense means they have a good size to kw/h ratio. If it's too low, nobody will install them. Space is a premium after all.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Space in the cities is premium. Space in rural areas is not. I really don't think space is the problem, mass producing maybe, but otherwise have a big powerbank in every basement and you are done.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    > have a big powerbank in every basement and you are done. Especially in the case of flooding, Fukushima style.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Flooding destroys alsl batteries obviously, but the slightly important difference to Fukoshima is, a saltwater batterie does not contaminate the area.
    - _ph_ 3y ago
      Besides that most areas aren't in the risk of flooding, there is litte preventing you to water proof your batteries to the point that submerging them into water has no ill effects. The housing of the batteries usually is water-proof anyway. Just look at all the Teslas driving through deep water. Oil tanks for heating are a huge problem with flooding though, as they tend to leak oil into the environment.
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    This is right. For grid connected storage, two things matter: 10-year total cost, and durability. At least a 30-year design life. (Well, reliability matters too: that 's implicit.) Volume and mass are just whatever they are. They don't matter.

epistasis 3y ago

Fortunately we do have cheap, dense batteries that are being deployed on a massive scale with new solar. The idea that we are not currently, today, deploying massive amounts of batteries everywhere with today's technology is just plain ignorance It is no longer 2003. By 2030 it's likely that annual world production of battery storage will be 20-30 TWh. Today, we are getting close to 1TWh production per year. Edit: just for example, take Texas's grid, which is one of the few places where storage is allowed to compete on its own cost merits. There are multiple GW, currently, much more in the pipeline, and prices still have a long ways to fall on battery installations (grid assets are usually measured by power, to convert to energy multiply by 4 hours: > Installed battery capacity increased from 153 MW in 2019 to 3,518 MW in 2023. Interconnection agreements have been signed for an additional 7,945 MW of battery storage through 2024, allowing batteries to play a growing role in daily power needs in the near future. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2023/1017 https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2023/1017

alvah 3y ago
"The idea that we are not currently, today, deploying massive amounts of batteries everywhere with today's technology is just plain ignorance" I don't see anyone making this weirdly-specific claim. However, it's widely acknowledged that sufficient battery storage to guarantee national grid-wide power on-demand, sufficient for a modern industrial economy, is not currently feasible, in both economic and practical terms.
- epistasis 3y ago
  What you say is "widely acknowledged" is in direct contradiction to what is actually getting deployed on the grid. And what you say is a "weirdly specific claim" is also a surprise to people. If a large chunk of current grid investment in Texas, profit-drivej by independent investors, how could it not be feasible to continue this level of investment? Especially when costs are falling dramatically and production capacity for batteries is just getting started and is scaling at a tremendous rate that will result in a complete excess of battery capacity within the time period that we could only build a thousandth of the same amount of nuclear wattage? What is the blocker on feasibility?

matthewdgreen 3y ago

The first two Swedish nuclear plants won't come online for at least 12 years, and the next eight aren't scheduled to be operational until 2045. That's 22 years in the future. Personally I think your timeline for storage is going to prove wildly conservative (we already have 5GW installed in CA, China is building capacity exponentially.) But even if you're right: these nuclear plants are going to come online right at the moment when storage makes them economically obsolete.

childintime 3y ago
Exactly. And their construction will have pumped 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere they were supposed to prevent during their lifetime. Nuclear is a really bad idea if construction takes that long.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

imo that's outdated mantra repeated while we are just getting there.. but anyway: as is any nuclear 10 year planning now 20 years out then in reality, at least here in the west.