3 ms·

The right answer is 'yes to all the above'. Yes, we need solar. Yes, we need wind. Yes, we need batteries and, yes, we should be looking at geothermal. Solar ha

by jmward01 11mo ago

The right answer is 'yes to all the above'. Yes, we need solar. Yes, we need wind. Yes, we need batteries and, yes, we should be looking at geothermal. Solar has shown us, again, how artificially holding back a technology for decades has massive costs. Investing a few billion into geothermal right now is cheap and can only lead to a more durable energy infrastructure in the future. There are all sorts of benefits to a rich ecosystem of power generation. Solar and batteries may be amazing but global supply chains can be disrupted. Similarly, having multiple solutions means that niche use cases have more options and a larger likelihood of finding an acceptable solution. So, yes to all of the above. We are big enough to try them all.

bryanlarsen 11mo ago
> Solar and batteries may be amazing but global supply chains can be disrupted. Solar and batteries aren't consumables, so they're not particularly vulnerable to supply chain disruption. If we lose our supply of batteries, we'll have ~10 years or so to find an alternate supply. We won't be able to do new installations during the disruption, but existing installations don't stop working. Unlike a fossil plant when the supply of fuel is disrupted.
- hvb2 11mo ago
  You may need small amounts of rare earth elements. Those are definitely a supply chain nightmare.
  - pfdietz 11mo ago
    Not for solar, and not for most forms of Li-ion batteries.
    - Aloisius 11mo ago
      You need them for solar inverters, but you also need them for the turbines like those used to generate power with geothermal/wind/hydro/nuclear/etc.
      - pfdietz 11mo ago
        Erbium perhaps for some power semiconductors, but in very small amounts. What's the use in turbines? Most generators associated with turbines don't use permanent magnets.
- PaulDavisThe1st 11mo ago
  > but existing installations don't stop working. They will, albeit slowly.
iso1631 11mo ago
One thing which is needed too is spinning load, the grid depends on having enough inertia to maintain the frequency. Flywheels I assume would do that.
- bryanlarsen 11mo ago
  Inverters and batteries (or any other DC source) are also very good at doing this.
  - iso1631 11mo ago
    Not grid following inverters, or "any DC source", as we saw in Spain in Summer
    - jamescrowley 11mo ago
      Nothing to do with the blackout in Spain - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-... - voltage surge and various thermal power generators failing to provide the voltage correction services they were being paid for But yes, grid following alone does not provided the required stability - synthetic inertia etc needed
      - namibj 11mo ago
        True DC grids avoid this stability issue by not having a phase and allowing power flow to pretty much just self-balance through voltage gradients and clipping of connections/devices to whatever current they can handle. With enough voltage range that wouldn't even need the tricky loops of voltage regulation common in incandescent-targeted legacy AC grids.
    - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
      Yes, if you don't install grid stabilization inverters, they don't supply grid stabilization.
    - 11mo ago
senectus1 11mo ago
nobody ever seems to recognize the benefits of Modularising your grid as well. Ukraine is an excellent example of why centralizing your grid energy source is a bad plan... but not just for war situations. If you have an agile, adaptable modular grid you can recover for any form of disaster (natural or man made) very quickly and cheaply. I really feel this is an under valued aspect of electrification and greening of the power sources we use.
- hvb2 11mo ago
  This feels a bit like talking in hindsight. With fossil power plants, the bigger plants were more efficient. This lead to centralization. We now find ourselves in a situation where you can end up with a lot of small/local generation. What happened in Ukraine can probably happen in almost every developed country today as this was all built/planned in a different time.
  - senectus1 11mo ago
    yeah I'm not saying that they messed up, I'm saying that we dont appear to be taking note from the situation. Doing better based one the world as it is now and how history has played out.

bryanlarsen 11mo ago

> Solar and batteries may be amazing but global supply chains can be disrupted. Solar and batteries aren't consumables, so they're not particularly vulnerable to supply chain disruption. If we lose our supply of batteries, we'll have ~10 years or so to find an alternate supply. We won't be able to do new installations during the disruption, but existing installations don't stop working. Unlike a fossil plant when the supply of fuel is disrupted.

hvb2 11mo ago
You may need small amounts of rare earth elements. Those are definitely a supply chain nightmare.
- pfdietz 11mo ago
  Not for solar, and not for most forms of Li-ion batteries.
  - Aloisius 11mo ago
    You need them for solar inverters, but you also need them for the turbines like those used to generate power with geothermal/wind/hydro/nuclear/etc.
    - pfdietz 11mo ago
      Erbium perhaps for some power semiconductors, but in very small amounts. What's the use in turbines? Most generators associated with turbines don't use permanent magnets.
PaulDavisThe1st 11mo ago
> but existing installations don't stop working. They will, albeit slowly.

iso1631 11mo ago

One thing which is needed too is spinning load, the grid depends on having enough inertia to maintain the frequency. Flywheels I assume would do that.

bryanlarsen 11mo ago
Inverters and batteries (or any other DC source) are also very good at doing this.
- iso1631 11mo ago
  Not grid following inverters, or "any DC source", as we saw in Spain in Summer
  - jamescrowley 11mo ago
    Nothing to do with the blackout in Spain - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-power-outage-what-happens-next-2025-06-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-caused-iberian-... - voltage surge and various thermal power generators failing to provide the voltage correction services they were being paid for But yes, grid following alone does not provided the required stability - synthetic inertia etc needed
    - namibj 11mo ago
      True DC grids avoid this stability issue by not having a phase and allowing power flow to pretty much just self-balance through voltage gradients and clipping of connections/devices to whatever current they can handle. With enough voltage range that wouldn't even need the tricky loops of voltage regulation common in incandescent-targeted legacy AC grids.
  - bryanlarsen 11mo ago
    Yes, if you don't install grid stabilization inverters, they don't supply grid stabilization.
  - 11mo ago

senectus1 11mo ago

nobody ever seems to recognize the benefits of Modularising your grid as well. Ukraine is an excellent example of why centralizing your grid energy source is a bad plan... but not just for war situations. If you have an agile, adaptable modular grid you can recover for any form of disaster (natural or man made) very quickly and cheaply. I really feel this is an under valued aspect of electrification and greening of the power sources we use.

hvb2 11mo ago
This feels a bit like talking in hindsight. With fossil power plants, the bigger plants were more efficient. This lead to centralization. We now find ourselves in a situation where you can end up with a lot of small/local generation. What happened in Ukraine can probably happen in almost every developed country today as this was all built/planned in a different time.
- senectus1 11mo ago
  yeah I'm not saying that they messed up, I'm saying that we dont appear to be taking note from the situation. Doing better based one the world as it is now and how history has played out.