3 ms·

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 m

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?
  - alvah 3y ago
    Among the blockers are (1) economics and (2) availability of raw & finished materials. This is all in the public domain, if you go looking for the numbers. I’m not saying your claim about the rapid pace of building out battery storage is false - your claim is true. However, there is no currently-feasible way to run an advanced industrial economy on intermittent energy sources backed by chemical batteries. It may become technically feasible at some point in the future (never bet against human ingenuity in the long run), but it’s technically and economically impractical right now.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      Not sure what you mean by blockers or "impractical right now" but at best that's "we haven't built the mines or factories, yet." Which is not in any way a fundamental blocker on our ability to build what we want to build. There are of course feasible ways of running our entire economy entirely on renewables, saying otherwise means ignoring the massive amount of literature on the topic: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 Every argument I have ever seen attempted to say it is not possible makes simplifying unrealistic assumptions. Such as saying something silly like "here's our known lithium reserves, that's not enough."" Of course, our known reserves of lithium is going up every year, because we keep on looking for more, and the argument is not even sophisticated enough to acknowledge what proven reserves means as a concept. So if you think you have a solid argument present it, and if I'm convinced let's get it published and overturn all this other literature.
      - alvah 3y ago
        Your link talks (theoretically, not practically) about 100% RE by 2060! Do you understand what “currently” means? You hand-wave with “we haven’t built the mines or factories, yet”. In the real world, discovery, proving, permits, construction, and commissioning new mines can take many years - and that’s if sufficient quantities of the required minerals are feasibly recoverable, or in a jurisdiction that allows extraction and export (e.g. not China). So let’s get back to the real world & be realistic. 100% RE is not currently viable for an advanced industrial economy. Let’s get all the published literature revised to get rid of the hand-waves and ivory tower theoretical BS.
parl_match 3y ago
> Fortunately we do have cheap, dense batteries that are being deployed on a massive scale with new solar. I would not consider that cheap. I would not consider that highly efficient. It is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough > The idea that we are not currently, today, deploying massive amounts of batteries everywhere with today's technology is just plain ignorance Nowhere did I say we weren't. They just simply aren't good enough for our needs. We can't get there without this intermediate step - and it _is_ doing good and helping humanity. But we're simply not there and won't be for at least a decade. > take Texas's grid, which is one of the few places where storage is allowed to compete on its own cost merits You mean the Texas grid that keeps failing and sticking people with $1000 monthly power bills? Not a great example lol

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?
- alvah 3y ago
  Among the blockers are (1) economics and (2) availability of raw & finished materials. This is all in the public domain, if you go looking for the numbers. I’m not saying your claim about the rapid pace of building out battery storage is false - your claim is true. However, there is no currently-feasible way to run an advanced industrial economy on intermittent energy sources backed by chemical batteries. It may become technically feasible at some point in the future (never bet against human ingenuity in the long run), but it’s technically and economically impractical right now.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Not sure what you mean by blockers or "impractical right now" but at best that's "we haven't built the mines or factories, yet." Which is not in any way a fundamental blocker on our ability to build what we want to build. There are of course feasible ways of running our entire economy entirely on renewables, saying otherwise means ignoring the massive amount of literature on the topic: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 Every argument I have ever seen attempted to say it is not possible makes simplifying unrealistic assumptions. Such as saying something silly like "here's our known lithium reserves, that's not enough."" Of course, our known reserves of lithium is going up every year, because we keep on looking for more, and the argument is not even sophisticated enough to acknowledge what proven reserves means as a concept. So if you think you have a solid argument present it, and if I'm convinced let's get it published and overturn all this other literature.
    - alvah 3y ago
      Your link talks (theoretically, not practically) about 100% RE by 2060! Do you understand what “currently” means? You hand-wave with “we haven’t built the mines or factories, yet”. In the real world, discovery, proving, permits, construction, and commissioning new mines can take many years - and that’s if sufficient quantities of the required minerals are feasibly recoverable, or in a jurisdiction that allows extraction and export (e.g. not China). So let’s get back to the real world & be realistic. 100% RE is not currently viable for an advanced industrial economy. Let’s get all the published literature revised to get rid of the hand-waves and ivory tower theoretical BS.

parl_match 3y ago

> Fortunately we do have cheap, dense batteries that are being deployed on a massive scale with new solar. I would not consider that cheap. I would not consider that highly efficient. It is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough > The idea that we are not currently, today, deploying massive amounts of batteries everywhere with today's technology is just plain ignorance Nowhere did I say we weren't. They just simply aren't good enough for our needs. We can't get there without this intermediate step - and it _is_ doing good and helping humanity. But we're simply not there and won't be for at least a decade. > take Texas's grid, which is one of the few places where storage is allowed to compete on its own cost merits You mean the Texas grid that keeps failing and sticking people with $1000 monthly power bills? Not a great example lol