4 ms·

But you can't deny the reality that the electricity supply is rapidly changing and that the issues of non-intermittency are turn out as not so relevant than ant

by oezi 2y ago

But you can't deny the reality that the electricity supply is rapidly changing and that the issues of non-intermittency are turn out as not so relevant than anticipated. We have the existing non-intermittent power plants and can use them if we need to. Batteries are helping us rely less on them and since cost of batteries and PV/wind is trending so strongly down, it is already happening that many markets prefer batteries over using gas/coal plants. This will push down CO2 emittance. That all that matters really (at reasonable cost).

Manuel_D 2y ago
> We have the existing non-intermittent power plants and can use them if we need to. Not if you want to solve climate change. Reducing emissions to 50% of present levels and then just keeping them there isn't going to prevent climate change. Overproduction during peak hours doesn't help unless you have a way to release that energy in non-peak hours. Again, growing battery production isn't actually resulting in grid storage. Even dedicating 100% of battery production to grid storage isn't going to make significant changes in grid storage, but it will stop EV adoption.
- oezi 2y ago
  Sorry this just false. Battery deployment for electricity grid storage is progressing with unprecedented and accelerating speed. We will solve this. It just requires some money. If you research it, it is surprisingly little in relation to global annual GDP (at least less than I was expecting).
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > Sorry this just false. Battery deployment for electricity grid storage is progressing with unprecedented and accelerating speed. And what, exactly, is that speed? The US plans to deploy "15GW" (presumably the authors mean GWh of storage, GW is not a unit of storage) of grid storage in 2024. That's less than 2 minutes of storage! https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202#:~:text=Planned%20and%20currently%20operational%20U.S.,Preliminary%20Monthly%20Electric%20Generator%20Inventory.&text=Battery%20storage%20projects%20are%20getting%20larger%20in%20the%20United%20States https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202#:~:tex.... Again, global battery production is only about 6-700 GWh (be careful with figures that cite capacity, which is distinct from actual production). And very little of that is dedicated to grid storage.
    - oezi 2y ago
      Those figures are about maximum dispatchable power usually for a time of more than 1 hour (2 to 4 seems typical). So 16 GW battery allow you to power the US similarly to 3x times the power of the largest US nuclear reactor for probably 3 hours. If such projects are economically feasible now, the economics are just getting better and better and this means we will see exponential growth. California is seeing improved grid stability and reduction in CO2 emissions due to batteries today. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/batte...
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        Somewhere between 4 and 8 minutes worth of storage deployed over the span of a whole year is not even remotely close to feasible. Even diurnal storage to even out solar production will require 8-12 hours worth of storage. Seasonal intermittency will require days or even weeks. Since 2020, battery prices have gone flat. Moore's law works because computers get faster as transistors get smaller. That's not the case for batteries, or most other goods. A new car cost a million dollars in 1900, $100k in 1910, and $10K in 1920. Would it have been reasonable to assume that a new car would cost $10 by 1950? Of course not, the steel and rubber in the car is worth much more than $10. A car cannot cost less than the input materials used to build it. Input materials account for 75% of the cost of a battery already (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-the-cost-of-an-ev-battery-cell/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-the-cost-of-a...) The room for further price reductions become ever more slim.

by oezi 2y ago

Manuel_D 2y ago

> We have the existing non-intermittent power plants and can use them if we need to. Not if you want to solve climate change. Reducing emissions to 50% of present levels and then just keeping them there isn't going to prevent climate change. Overproduction during peak hours doesn't help unless you have a way to release that energy in non-peak hours. Again, growing battery production isn't actually resulting in grid storage. Even dedicating 100% of battery production to grid storage isn't going to make significant changes in grid storage, but it will stop EV adoption.

oezi 2y ago
Sorry this just false. Battery deployment for electricity grid storage is progressing with unprecedented and accelerating speed. We will solve this. It just requires some money. If you research it, it is surprisingly little in relation to global annual GDP (at least less than I was expecting).
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > Sorry this just false. Battery deployment for electricity grid storage is progressing with unprecedented and accelerating speed. And what, exactly, is that speed? The US plans to deploy "15GW" (presumably the authors mean GWh of storage, GW is not a unit of storage) of grid storage in 2024. That's less than 2 minutes of storage! https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202#:~:text=Planned%20and%20currently%20operational%20U.S.,Preliminary%20Monthly%20Electric%20Generator%20Inventory.&text=Battery%20storage%20projects%20are%20getting%20larger%20in%20the%20United%20States https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61202#:~:tex.... Again, global battery production is only about 6-700 GWh (be careful with figures that cite capacity, which is distinct from actual production). And very little of that is dedicated to grid storage.
  - oezi 2y ago
    Those figures are about maximum dispatchable power usually for a time of more than 1 hour (2 to 4 seems typical). So 16 GW battery allow you to power the US similarly to 3x times the power of the largest US nuclear reactor for probably 3 hours. If such projects are economically feasible now, the economics are just getting better and better and this means we will see exponential growth. California is seeing improved grid stability and reduction in CO2 emissions due to batteries today. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/batte...
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Somewhere between 4 and 8 minutes worth of storage deployed over the span of a whole year is not even remotely close to feasible. Even diurnal storage to even out solar production will require 8-12 hours worth of storage. Seasonal intermittency will require days or even weeks. Since 2020, battery prices have gone flat. Moore's law works because computers get faster as transistors get smaller. That's not the case for batteries, or most other goods. A new car cost a million dollars in 1900, $100k in 1910, and $10K in 1920. Would it have been reasonable to assume that a new car would cost $10 by 1950? Of course not, the steel and rubber in the car is worth much more than $10. A car cannot cost less than the input materials used to build it. Input materials account for 75% of the cost of a battery already (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-the-cost-of-an-ev-battery-cell/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-the-cost-of-a...) The room for further price reductions become ever more slim.