4 ms·

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to get of the opinion that this entire call or worry about "storage" when it comes to solar is a giant distract

by zo1 3y ago

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to get of the opinion that this entire call or worry about "storage" when it comes to solar is a giant distraction. This first thing we need to do is align the costs and incentives. What I mean by that is simply allow the market, or government, to dictate the real cost of providing electricity at night. If there are no solar panels (nighttime), and whatever grid-scale batteries are available cost 1$/kwh then so be it, charge that amount to the consumer. People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away. As a side-effect of this whole "switching off the endless tap", micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation.

Gare 3y ago
Well, for one I (and I presume many other people) would not vote for a platform with such an extremist position.
- chihuahua 3y ago
  Yes, imagine there was a governor whose position is "at night, everyone will be limited to no more than 100W." The best-case scenario for the governor would be that they're recalled quickly.
  - zo1 3y ago
    It would be more like "at night (or when there is little solar), you pay progressively more for your electricity." A lot of places do that already, you just do it to a slightly-palatable level instead of to the true cost. Partly because of, as you guys point out it's politically nonviable, but also partly because it's electricity from cheap coal as opposed to green solar + super expensive batteries.
smegger001 3y ago
"People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away." I take it you live somewhere warm in the winter. We are already looking at removing other heating options like propane and natural gas furnaces, coal and oil heating is mostly phased out, and burning wood isn't great for the environment either. So electrical heating is necessary anywhere where its normal to freeze for several months. Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit. "micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation." Why don't you ask Texas residents how not being part of the national synchronized grid worked out for them 2 years ago?
- zo1 3y ago
  > "Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit." I never said anything of the sort. You're taking a really bad-faith and extreme straw-man of what I said, and I refuse to participate.
- avar 3y ago
  It's normal in many very cold places to entirely switch off your heating overnight. You heat your home up during the day and evening, and as you retire for the night it's switched off. With sufficient insulation and warm bedding you don't need active heating overnight. So it's absolutely compatible with an electric supply that's heavily biased towards the daytime.
  - zo1 3y ago
    As an example, it may start becoming more economical to include heat-batteries (I forget the name) in house construction such that they retain heat and radiate it to maintain a not freezing ambient temperature inside a house. That, along with insulation, and some rather moderate changes to behaviour, could entirely eliminate the need for electricity-use during night time hours. We don't know what ingenious and wonderful things people may do when the real-cost of electricity at night is exposed to them.
heavenlyblue 3y ago
The future is the macro-grid: use electricity in northern hemisphere while it's summer in the southern hemisphere. Pardon me, but there's zero future for the micro grids.
DeathArrow 3y ago
>For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away. Why shouldn't I be able to have oodles of energy at the flick of a switch? Why is it bad that people had more than 100 years of using energy at a reasonable price point? Why do you think it's good for the energy to become more expensive or not to be available at all? We do need energy for everything.
- defrost 3y ago
  As you're asking, the bulk of the world's population survives with a much lower energy per capita usage than, say, a median US citizen. For the high energy consumers it's more a perceived need than an actual need. Further, energy availability appears to work akin to road availability; if you build a six lane highway traffic expands to fill it. The obvious reason for wanting lower global energy use at this particular point in time is reduce the still increasing by products of energy production, greenhouse gases. Once the climate parameters return to safer values energy production without those side effects can expand .. while we look at addressing the unwanted toxic by products of our new sources of energy - less greenhouse gases, more acids and waste associated with nickel, copper, lithium, et al.

by zo1 3y ago

Gare 3y ago

Well, for one I (and I presume many other people) would not vote for a platform with such an extremist position.

chihuahua 3y ago
Yes, imagine there was a governor whose position is "at night, everyone will be limited to no more than 100W." The best-case scenario for the governor would be that they're recalled quickly.
- zo1 3y ago
  It would be more like "at night (or when there is little solar), you pay progressively more for your electricity." A lot of places do that already, you just do it to a slightly-palatable level instead of to the true cost. Partly because of, as you guys point out it's politically nonviable, but also partly because it's electricity from cheap coal as opposed to green solar + super expensive batteries.

smegger001 3y ago

"People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away." I take it you live somewhere warm in the winter. We are already looking at removing other heating options like propane and natural gas furnaces, coal and oil heating is mostly phased out, and burning wood isn't great for the environment either. So electrical heating is necessary anywhere where its normal to freeze for several months. Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit. "micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation." Why don't you ask Texas residents how not being part of the national synchronized grid worked out for them 2 years ago?

zo1 3y ago
> "Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit." I never said anything of the sort. You're taking a really bad-faith and extreme straw-man of what I said, and I refuse to participate.
avar 3y ago
It's normal in many very cold places to entirely switch off your heating overnight. You heat your home up during the day and evening, and as you retire for the night it's switched off. With sufficient insulation and warm bedding you don't need active heating overnight. So it's absolutely compatible with an electric supply that's heavily biased towards the daytime.
- zo1 3y ago
  As an example, it may start becoming more economical to include heat-batteries (I forget the name) in house construction such that they retain heat and radiate it to maintain a not freezing ambient temperature inside a house. That, along with insulation, and some rather moderate changes to behaviour, could entirely eliminate the need for electricity-use during night time hours. We don't know what ingenious and wonderful things people may do when the real-cost of electricity at night is exposed to them.

heavenlyblue 3y ago

The future is the macro-grid: use electricity in northern hemisphere while it's summer in the southern hemisphere. Pardon me, but there's zero future for the micro grids.

DeathArrow 3y ago

>For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away. Why shouldn't I be able to have oodles of energy at the flick of a switch? Why is it bad that people had more than 100 years of using energy at a reasonable price point? Why do you think it's good for the energy to become more expensive or not to be available at all? We do need energy for everything.

defrost 3y ago
As you're asking, the bulk of the world's population survives with a much lower energy per capita usage than, say, a median US citizen. For the high energy consumers it's more a perceived need than an actual need. Further, energy availability appears to work akin to road availability; if you build a six lane highway traffic expands to fill it. The obvious reason for wanting lower global energy use at this particular point in time is reduce the still increasing by products of energy production, greenhouse gases. Once the climate parameters return to safer values energy production without those side effects can expand .. while we look at addressing the unwanted toxic by products of our new sources of energy - less greenhouse gases, more acids and waste associated with nickel, copper, lithium, et al.