5 ms·

> "baseload" is a misnomer, what is required is storage to cover periods when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow" "Storage" can't do that for mor

> "baseload" is a misnomer, what is required is storage to cover periods when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow" "Storage" can't do that for more than smoothing out daily peaks. The only longer-term storage that matters when you look at the numbers is pumped hydro, and that's built out. That's why "baseload" is in fact quite relevant; it's way better to supply those critical needs via a highly reliable source.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
One would think people would learn from the disastrous results of the German Energiewende, where this has already been tried, but no. The problem is that the issue of intermittent energy generation is unsolved. It is currently not feasible to use batteries for base load needs, it would be insanely expensive. Some day perhaps, but not yet. There was never a technically solid plan to solve this issue by the German Greens, just wishful thinking. They undertook this massive project without having the faintest clue about the underlying physics and financials, which is hard to believe but true. The overwhelming majority of green party members are from the humanities, not STEM. So you either have a lot of pumped hydro, in which case great, or you don’t, which is the case nearly everywhere but the nordics and perhaps Switzerland. Solar is much better than wind btw, wind is simply a costly mistake as it is a lot more intermittent than solar. The math doesn’t add up.
- energy123 1y ago
  > It is currently not feasible to use batteries for base load needs, it would be insanely expensive. The CSIRO report says that nuclear is almost 2x more expensive than renewables even after factoring in all costs of storage and interconnects. > Solar is much better than wind btw, wind is simply a costly mistake as it is a lot more intermittent than solar. That depends on the location. Insolation and seasonality vary depending on distance from the equator, among other factors. Also, solar and wind are negatively correlated on both seasonal scales and intraday scales, so it often makes sense to mix the two if you're in Europe, rather than pick a simple winner.
  - MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
    Unlike solar, power wind makes very little sense even if storage improves. This is true even in first principles so technological progress is unlikely to overcome these limitations.
    - energy123 1y ago
      I mean, you didn't address what I said, you just looped back to what you originally said.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      What's with the utterly uninformed takes on energy on HN? Wind makes extremely good sense and has been making good sense for 30 years or more now depending on where on the globe you are looking. There is a ton of FUD about it but it is practical, affordable, available and relatively fast to deploy. Moreover there is readily financing available to take care of the capex. There are 7 MW turbines deployed regularly https://www.enercon.de/en/turbines/e-175-ep5 https://www.enercon.de/en/turbines/e-175-ep5 And there are 10 MW turbines and higher on the drawing board. Offshore and onshore options are available.
      - MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
        > it is practical, affordable, available and relatively fast to deploy It is none of those things.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        Sorry, but you are not arguing in good faith. There 1.1+ TW of installed capacity producing approximately 30 to 35% of that installed capacity continuously. Turbine payback time is less than a decade. You are in the most literal sense tilting at windmills here.
      - pjc50 1y ago
        > What's with the utterly uninformed takes on energy on HN? Culture war, innit.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  "Disastrous" by what metric? What are you even talking about? Germany went from >50% fossil fuel (mostly coal, not even gas!) to >60% renewables for electricity within the last two decades. This is a huge success already.
  - hopw_roewur_ne 1y ago
    I don't think it's a huge success, considering they're unable to meet their own demands for electricity, instead driving up energy prices in neighboring countries as well.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      It's a huge success considering where they would have been if not for doing that, and then energy prices would have been higher still.
    - peterpost2 1y ago
      That is largely due to the war in Ukraine and Russian gas/oil being a big no-no in Europe right now. Continuing to burn fossil fuel is simply not an option. Not if we want to comfortable keep living on this planet.
    - jamil7 1y ago
      The problem of meeting demand is in industrial use and residential heating, both of which aren’t typically electrified in Germany. The problem has more to do with an active war and an industrial sector built on cheap Russian gas.
      - aldonius 1y ago
        Yes, and if they want to net-zero all their energy, not just their electricity, they will need to do some mix of: 1. electrify those applications currently served by gas 2. import or manufacture carbon-neutral synthetic gas 3. buy a heck of a lot of offsets
        1y ago
- cycomanic 1y ago
  In what way was the energiewwende disastrous, give actual numbers. German electricity production is increasingly dominated by renewables, in the first quarter of 2025 (which had unfavourable weather conditions) 46.9% of electricity was produced by renewables (mostly wind). Coal and gas has been declining steadily and Germany regularly exports electricity to nuclear focused France. Currently on average Germany is a net importer from France, but that does mean little because of the way cross border trade is an integral part of the European grid (note that Germany also is a net importer from Denmark whos grid is largely wind based). So to me that sounds like a success story.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    The cost of electricity is very high or at least it was during the latest period for which I have data, namely the second half of 2023: 45.65 US cents per kilowatt-hour for households in Germany compared to 16.06 US cents per kilowatt-hour for US households.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      Which mostly comes from very high taxes to promote efficiency gains. The interesting question is: What is the wholesale cost + subsidies? Subsidies which now are being phased out for new production, or in some cases even lead to companies having to bid to get the privilege to build.
    - k_g_b_ 1y ago
      End consumer prices are utterly unusable to determine success or failure of the Energiewende. They are also utterly useless to compare across nations, as they are made up of very different components - e.g. in Germany only 40% is determined by market factors, in France the price is held artificially low by massive subsidies https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025_6023740_98.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france... and so on.
      - hollerith 1y ago
- seec 1y ago
  Unsurprisingly you got downvoted. It is a very unpopular opinion on HN. But I agree with you, the math does not add up. I have looked at the data and it makes no sense. Germany still needs to build a shit ton of wind turbines (150GW) and they are already decommissioning the first install, which is costing them a lot of money and is requiring them to think about the recycling, which will cost a lot of money. At some point we will know the true cost of wind power at least, I hope. Germany's electricity price is almost twice of its "dirty" nuclear neighbor (France). Proof is in the pudding as they say. But most here seem to be unwilling to even look at the pudding, let alone eat it.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
If you compare the combination of renewables and batteries to pumped hydro it loses badly. It's like pumped hydro with a very predictable rainstorm directly above it every day. You'd be able to get by with a much smaller reservoir.
myrmidon 1y ago
First, "providing baseload" is a privilege you enjoy if you are the unconditionally cheapest provider of electricity at all times, not something that anyone ever needs you to do. If you only need power for short periods of time when renewables are unavailable, then "constant output" plants like coal or nuclear are the last thing you want to build-- they are simply not worth it for the the short periods of time when renewables are down. You want simple, cheap powerplants instead that trade off higher fuel costs for low capex, and that is currently gas. You want cheap MW (max power) from those plants instead of cheap MWh (energy), basically.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  It's easy to be "unconditionally cheapest" when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. "Simple, cheap" power plants that burn a lot of expensive natural gas (or even worse, coal) are the current approach to that problem, which is not working very well. The point is to do better, and nuclear may be a very sensible choice since a single nuclear plant can replace a whole lot of natural gas peakers.
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already at highest possible capacity factors (running 90% of the time). If they get undercut by renewables most of the time, there is simply no way they can stay competitive. Nuclear peaker plants are not ever gonna be a thing, because that makes no sense economically: High capex is the last thing you want for that usecase, and it implies that the economics for your plant have to stay decent for the next 30 years. Meanwhile batteries, solar and wind are still getting cheaper every year right now. This is the worst bet you could ever make as an investor. > nuclear may be a very sensible choice since a single nuclear plant can replace a whole lot of natural gas peakers. This argument does not help nuclear power if the equivalent number of gas plants is still cheaper than a single nuclear reactor (and built much faster).
    - weregiraffe 1y ago
      >Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already Because they are over-regulated. Why? Because of nucleophobia, which is fueled by fossil fuel producers.
willvarfar 1y ago
Can sand batteries work? Recent post on HN about use in Finland https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45112653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45112653
- ezst 1y ago
  Isn't that to store energy as heat so you don't produce it by other means during winter? Seems to address a specific class of storage needs
- 2000UltraDeluxe 1y ago
  For district heating, sure. For electricity? Yes, in theory, but not at efficiencies that would make financial sense.
  - tcfhgj 1y ago
    do efficiencies matter that much when you don't need much and can "charge" with "free" energy?
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Higher efficiency storage can outbid you for the "free" energy.
      - tcfhgj 1y ago
        perhaps, but the other way around is a possible scenario as well, because it may still be cheaper to have inefficient storage when the way you store the energy is expensive (e.g. some batteries may have very high efficiency, but you need difficult to obtain materials)
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        LFP batteries are > 95% efficient and only use common elements.
crote 1y ago
But how often is it cloudy and windless for weeks at a time? And for those once-every-few-years scenarios, why shouldn't we build (far cheaper) carbon-captured natural gas peaker plants? Besides, you've got to keep in mind that we aren't going to be building for yearly-average kWh consumption. Companies will be building overcapacity to take advantage of high-demand/low-supply peak pricing. I don't think it is unlikely that we'll end up with a situation where PV on an overcast day is enough for "baseload", with the practically-free electricity on sunny/windy days opening up new economic opportunities.
- mkj 1y ago
  I agree generally, but is carbon-captured natural gas generation actually a thing? The only carbon capture I've heard of is at the gas production site removing CO2 from the reservoir gas and pumping it back underground - that's not after combustion. (And the pumping it back underground hasn't been particularly successful, eg https://www.boilingcold.com.au/regulator-limits-chevrons-troubled-gorgon-co2-injection-to-one-third-capacity/ https://www.boilingcold.com.au/regulator-limits-chevrons-tro... )
- throw0101a 1y ago
  > But how often is it cloudy and windless for weeks at a time? '“Energy Droughts” in Wind and Solar Can Last Nearly a Week, Research Shows': * https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/energy-droughts-wind-and-solar-can-last-nearly-week-research-shows https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/energy-droughts-wind-and-sol... See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute I think it would be location-dependent (low risk that (e.g.) the UK would be windless for long stretches of time, especially off the coast).
  - natmaka 1y ago
    Not at continental scale, and grids are or will soon be at this scale. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115017013 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148116308680 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119302319#abs0010 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811...
pfdietz 1y ago
> "Storage" can't do that for more than smoothing out daily peaks. See the system described in the OP link at this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45012942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45012942 Long term literally dirt cheap thermal storage coupled with extreme cost optimized PV that would provide 600 C heat 365/24/7 for as little as $3/GJ, on par with combustion of inexpensive natural gas. Complementary with diurnal storage from batteries, this would be a complete solution to the renewable intermittency problem.
natmaka 1y ago
A typical car battery stores 60 kWh (the average capacity of models is increasing), so, charged during the day using inexpensive renewable electricity (particularly solar), it can power a household during one of the rare winter nights with insufficient wind. Case in point: France. A household consumes an average of 14 kWh of electricity per day. The capacity of electric cars will exceed 500 GWh before 2035 and 2000 GWh between 2040 and 2050. Trucks, utility vehicles, and stationary batteries (domestic and industrial) will add to this. Batteries from retired vehicles will increasingly be converted into static batteries before being recycled (see "Redwood Materials" in the US). In California, when the sun is at its peak (midday), solar power produces up to three-quarters of the electricity. Batteries are charged in the afternoon, when solar electricity is cheap, and released in the evening, when Californians return home. At their peak consumption, around 8 p.m., batteries can supply up to 30% of the state's electricity.
- tonyarkles 1y ago
  Just to clarify for anyone who's confused... that's an EV battery, not the 12V lead-acid that's in an ICE vehicle.
- ponector 1y ago
  >> A household consumes an average of 14 kWh of electricity per day. If there is a motivation, consumed amount for particular cloudy day could be 1\4 easily. Simply do the laundry, other energy intensive task next day.
  - camel_gopher 1y ago
    “Simply do the laundry, other energy intensive task next day.” lol the single life
gpm 1y ago
Baseload is quite irrelevant, because baseload also doesn't supply those critical needs. "Baseload" is by definition power production that can't follow the demand curve, and thus can't provide the power to keep the grid stable. It's as bad as solar and wind in this way, it's just that instead of having a fixed but variable supply curve it has a fixed but flat supply curve. What you want is dispatchable power. Gas peaker plants for instance. Or overbuilt solar + batteries. Not baseload.
adrian_b 1y ago
"Storage" can synthesize hydrocarbons, i.e. fuel, which can then be stored forever, until energy is needed. This was already possible by the time of WWII, but now there are many methods in development for reducing carbon dioxide by electrolysis, and then use the product to synthesize longer hydrocarbons, which have higher efficiency than the older methods. The round-trip efficiency of this will always be worse than for batteries, which remain a better option for short time storage, but synthesizing fuel will be a valid method for storing energy for the winter during the summer, and also for applications where batteries are unsuitable, like aircraft and spacecraft.
- trillic 1y ago
  We can also do things like desalinate water and pump it uphill when solar is plentiful and prices are negative. No need to get hydrocarbons involved. Creating fresh water and pumping it uphill to a reservoir that is uphill of a turbine would help solves two problems in Southern California.
tcfhgj 1y ago
you forgot gas

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

MrBuddyCasino 1y ago

One would think people would learn from the disastrous results of the German Energiewende, where this has already been tried, but no. The problem is that the issue of intermittent energy generation is unsolved. It is currently not feasible to use batteries for base load needs, it would be insanely expensive. Some day perhaps, but not yet. There was never a technically solid plan to solve this issue by the German Greens, just wishful thinking. They undertook this massive project without having the faintest clue about the underlying physics and financials, which is hard to believe but true. The overwhelming majority of green party members are from the humanities, not STEM. So you either have a lot of pumped hydro, in which case great, or you don’t, which is the case nearly everywhere but the nordics and perhaps Switzerland. Solar is much better than wind btw, wind is simply a costly mistake as it is a lot more intermittent than solar. The math doesn’t add up.

energy123 1y ago
> It is currently not feasible to use batteries for base load needs, it would be insanely expensive. The CSIRO report says that nuclear is almost 2x more expensive than renewables even after factoring in all costs of storage and interconnects. > Solar is much better than wind btw, wind is simply a costly mistake as it is a lot more intermittent than solar. That depends on the location. Insolation and seasonality vary depending on distance from the equator, among other factors. Also, solar and wind are negatively correlated on both seasonal scales and intraday scales, so it often makes sense to mix the two if you're in Europe, rather than pick a simple winner.
- MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
  Unlike solar, power wind makes very little sense even if storage improves. This is true even in first principles so technological progress is unlikely to overcome these limitations.
  - energy123 1y ago
    I mean, you didn't address what I said, you just looped back to what you originally said.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    What's with the utterly uninformed takes on energy on HN? Wind makes extremely good sense and has been making good sense for 30 years or more now depending on where on the globe you are looking. There is a ton of FUD about it but it is practical, affordable, available and relatively fast to deploy. Moreover there is readily financing available to take care of the capex. There are 7 MW turbines deployed regularly https://www.enercon.de/en/turbines/e-175-ep5 https://www.enercon.de/en/turbines/e-175-ep5 And there are 10 MW turbines and higher on the drawing board. Offshore and onshore options are available.
    - MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
      > it is practical, affordable, available and relatively fast to deploy It is none of those things.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        Sorry, but you are not arguing in good faith. There 1.1+ TW of installed capacity producing approximately 30 to 35% of that installed capacity continuously. Turbine payback time is less than a decade. You are in the most literal sense tilting at windmills here.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      > What's with the utterly uninformed takes on energy on HN? Culture war, innit.
myrmidon 1y ago
"Disastrous" by what metric? What are you even talking about? Germany went from >50% fossil fuel (mostly coal, not even gas!) to >60% renewables for electricity within the last two decades. This is a huge success already.
- hopw_roewur_ne 1y ago
  I don't think it's a huge success, considering they're unable to meet their own demands for electricity, instead driving up energy prices in neighboring countries as well.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    It's a huge success considering where they would have been if not for doing that, and then energy prices would have been higher still.
  - peterpost2 1y ago
    That is largely due to the war in Ukraine and Russian gas/oil being a big no-no in Europe right now. Continuing to burn fossil fuel is simply not an option. Not if we want to comfortable keep living on this planet.
  - jamil7 1y ago
    The problem of meeting demand is in industrial use and residential heating, both of which aren’t typically electrified in Germany. The problem has more to do with an active war and an industrial sector built on cheap Russian gas.
    - aldonius 1y ago
      Yes, and if they want to net-zero all their energy, not just their electricity, they will need to do some mix of: 1. electrify those applications currently served by gas 2. import or manufacture carbon-neutral synthetic gas 3. buy a heck of a lot of offsets
      - 1y ago
cycomanic 1y ago
In what way was the energiewwende disastrous, give actual numbers. German electricity production is increasingly dominated by renewables, in the first quarter of 2025 (which had unfavourable weather conditions) 46.9% of electricity was produced by renewables (mostly wind). Coal and gas has been declining steadily and Germany regularly exports electricity to nuclear focused France. Currently on average Germany is a net importer from France, but that does mean little because of the way cross border trade is an integral part of the European grid (note that Germany also is a net importer from Denmark whos grid is largely wind based). So to me that sounds like a success story.
- hollerith 1y ago
  The cost of electricity is very high or at least it was during the latest period for which I have data, namely the second half of 2023: 45.65 US cents per kilowatt-hour for households in Germany compared to 16.06 US cents per kilowatt-hour for US households.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Which mostly comes from very high taxes to promote efficiency gains. The interesting question is: What is the wholesale cost + subsidies? Subsidies which now are being phased out for new production, or in some cases even lead to companies having to bid to get the privilege to build.
  - k_g_b_ 1y ago
    End consumer prices are utterly unusable to determine success or failure of the Energiewende. They are also utterly useless to compare across nations, as they are made up of very different components - e.g. in Germany only 40% is determined by market factors, in France the price is held artificially low by massive subsidies https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france-to-continue-subsidizing-electricity-bills-until-2025_6023740_98.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/04/21/france... and so on.
    - hollerith 1y ago
seec 1y ago
Unsurprisingly you got downvoted. It is a very unpopular opinion on HN. But I agree with you, the math does not add up. I have looked at the data and it makes no sense. Germany still needs to build a shit ton of wind turbines (150GW) and they are already decommissioning the first install, which is costing them a lot of money and is requiring them to think about the recycling, which will cost a lot of money. At some point we will know the true cost of wind power at least, I hope. Germany's electricity price is almost twice of its "dirty" nuclear neighbor (France). Proof is in the pudding as they say. But most here seem to be unwilling to even look at the pudding, let alone eat it.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

If you compare the combination of renewables and batteries to pumped hydro it loses badly. It's like pumped hydro with a very predictable rainstorm directly above it every day. You'd be able to get by with a much smaller reservoir.

myrmidon 1y ago

First, "providing baseload" is a privilege you enjoy if you are the unconditionally cheapest provider of electricity at all times, not something that anyone ever needs you to do. If you only need power for short periods of time when renewables are unavailable, then "constant output" plants like coal or nuclear are the last thing you want to build-- they are simply not worth it for the the short periods of time when renewables are down. You want simple, cheap powerplants instead that trade off higher fuel costs for low capex, and that is currently gas. You want cheap MW (max power) from those plants instead of cheap MWh (energy), basically.

zozbot234 1y ago
It's easy to be "unconditionally cheapest" when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. "Simple, cheap" power plants that burn a lot of expensive natural gas (or even worse, coal) are the current approach to that problem, which is not working very well. The point is to do better, and nuclear may be a very sensible choice since a single nuclear plant can replace a whole lot of natural gas peakers.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already at highest possible capacity factors (running 90% of the time). If they get undercut by renewables most of the time, there is simply no way they can stay competitive. Nuclear peaker plants are not ever gonna be a thing, because that makes no sense economically: High capex is the last thing you want for that usecase, and it implies that the economics for your plant have to stay decent for the next 30 years. Meanwhile batteries, solar and wind are still getting cheaper every year right now. This is the worst bet you could ever make as an investor. > nuclear may be a very sensible choice since a single nuclear plant can replace a whole lot of natural gas peakers. This argument does not help nuclear power if the equivalent number of gas plants is still cheaper than a single nuclear reactor (and built much faster).
  - weregiraffe 1y ago
    >Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already Because they are over-regulated. Why? Because of nucleophobia, which is fueled by fossil fuel producers.

willvarfar 1y ago

Can sand batteries work? Recent post on HN about use in Finland https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45112653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45112653

ezst 1y ago
Isn't that to store energy as heat so you don't produce it by other means during winter? Seems to address a specific class of storage needs
2000UltraDeluxe 1y ago
For district heating, sure. For electricity? Yes, in theory, but not at efficiencies that would make financial sense.
- tcfhgj 1y ago
  do efficiencies matter that much when you don't need much and can "charge" with "free" energy?
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Higher efficiency storage can outbid you for the "free" energy.
    - tcfhgj 1y ago
      perhaps, but the other way around is a possible scenario as well, because it may still be cheaper to have inefficient storage when the way you store the energy is expensive (e.g. some batteries may have very high efficiency, but you need difficult to obtain materials)
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        LFP batteries are > 95% efficient and only use common elements.

crote 1y ago

But how often is it cloudy and windless for weeks at a time? And for those once-every-few-years scenarios, why shouldn't we build (far cheaper) carbon-captured natural gas peaker plants? Besides, you've got to keep in mind that we aren't going to be building for yearly-average kWh consumption. Companies will be building overcapacity to take advantage of high-demand/low-supply peak pricing. I don't think it is unlikely that we'll end up with a situation where PV on an overcast day is enough for "baseload", with the practically-free electricity on sunny/windy days opening up new economic opportunities.

mkj 1y ago
I agree generally, but is carbon-captured natural gas generation actually a thing? The only carbon capture I've heard of is at the gas production site removing CO2 from the reservoir gas and pumping it back underground - that's not after combustion. (And the pumping it back underground hasn't been particularly successful, eg https://www.boilingcold.com.au/regulator-limits-chevrons-troubled-gorgon-co2-injection-to-one-third-capacity/ https://www.boilingcold.com.au/regulator-limits-chevrons-tro... )
throw0101a 1y ago
> But how often is it cloudy and windless for weeks at a time? '“Energy Droughts” in Wind and Solar Can Last Nearly a Week, Research Shows': * https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/energy-droughts-wind-and-solar-can-last-nearly-week-research-shows https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/energy-droughts-wind-and-sol... See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute I think it would be location-dependent (low risk that (e.g.) the UK would be windless for long stretches of time, especially off the coast).
- natmaka 1y ago
  Not at continental scale, and grids are or will soon be at this scale. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115017013 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148116308680 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119302319#abs0010 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811...

pfdietz 1y ago

> "Storage" can't do that for more than smoothing out daily peaks. See the system described in the OP link at this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45012942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45012942 Long term literally dirt cheap thermal storage coupled with extreme cost optimized PV that would provide 600 C heat 365/24/7 for as little as $3/GJ, on par with combustion of inexpensive natural gas. Complementary with diurnal storage from batteries, this would be a complete solution to the renewable intermittency problem.

natmaka 1y ago

A typical car battery stores 60 kWh (the average capacity of models is increasing), so, charged during the day using inexpensive renewable electricity (particularly solar), it can power a household during one of the rare winter nights with insufficient wind. Case in point: France. A household consumes an average of 14 kWh of electricity per day. The capacity of electric cars will exceed 500 GWh before 2035 and 2000 GWh between 2040 and 2050. Trucks, utility vehicles, and stationary batteries (domestic and industrial) will add to this. Batteries from retired vehicles will increasingly be converted into static batteries before being recycled (see "Redwood Materials" in the US). In California, when the sun is at its peak (midday), solar power produces up to three-quarters of the electricity. Batteries are charged in the afternoon, when solar electricity is cheap, and released in the evening, when Californians return home. At their peak consumption, around 8 p.m., batteries can supply up to 30% of the state's electricity.

tonyarkles 1y ago
Just to clarify for anyone who's confused... that's an EV battery, not the 12V lead-acid that's in an ICE vehicle.
ponector 1y ago
>> A household consumes an average of 14 kWh of electricity per day. If there is a motivation, consumed amount for particular cloudy day could be 1\4 easily. Simply do the laundry, other energy intensive task next day.
- camel_gopher 1y ago
  “Simply do the laundry, other energy intensive task next day.” lol the single life

gpm 1y ago

Baseload is quite irrelevant, because baseload also doesn't supply those critical needs. "Baseload" is by definition power production that can't follow the demand curve, and thus can't provide the power to keep the grid stable. It's as bad as solar and wind in this way, it's just that instead of having a fixed but variable supply curve it has a fixed but flat supply curve. What you want is dispatchable power. Gas peaker plants for instance. Or overbuilt solar + batteries. Not baseload.

adrian_b 1y ago

"Storage" can synthesize hydrocarbons, i.e. fuel, which can then be stored forever, until energy is needed. This was already possible by the time of WWII, but now there are many methods in development for reducing carbon dioxide by electrolysis, and then use the product to synthesize longer hydrocarbons, which have higher efficiency than the older methods. The round-trip efficiency of this will always be worse than for batteries, which remain a better option for short time storage, but synthesizing fuel will be a valid method for storing energy for the winter during the summer, and also for applications where batteries are unsuitable, like aircraft and spacecraft.

trillic 1y ago
We can also do things like desalinate water and pump it uphill when solar is plentiful and prices are negative. No need to get hydrocarbons involved. Creating fresh water and pumping it uphill to a reservoir that is uphill of a turbine would help solves two problems in Southern California.

tcfhgj 1y ago

you forgot gas