|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Orbital solar seems like one of those things that could work if you have poo poo like orbital autonomous construction robots and an orbital economy that brings in raw materials from near Earth objects. At that point you’re basically installing the first billionth of a Dyson sphere. Yeah once you get asteroid mining at scale down, and orbital manufacturing construction down, then seems like it could be a pretty workable thing. Those are two pretty bloody big "once"s though, and both are at least decades away. Entirely possible as well by the time it's feasible we have other power solutions already in place to make it not worth the effort. Or you know humanity collapses before we get around to it.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
There"s been a lot of talk about sodium-ion batteries lately. Indian mega conglomerate Reliance acquired English company Faradion in January with the intent to start mass production in India soon. I don't know enough to say how realistic this, but Na-ion does have the advantage of requiring less exotic materials. Salt and carbon instead of lithium and cobalt. Also less toxic and flammable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Grey Area posted:There"s been a lot of talk about sodium-ion batteries lately. Indian mega conglomerate Reliance acquired English company Faradion in January with the intent to start mass production in India soon. I don't know enough to say how realistic this, but Na-ion does have the advantage of requiring less exotic materials. Salt and carbon instead of lithium and cobalt. Also less toxic and flammable. also already being released by china’s CATL
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Given the growth of Ev's I've heard interesting proposals as using them as a big means of storage. I've heard that the Ford lighting can power the average home for three days. Use that as a back up battery. Doing this for grid stability seems like a great way to knock 50% off your EV battery's lifespan. I guess I could see it being useful once a year during a power outage, but for Big Problems like hurricanes or snowfall in Texas do you really want to remove your mode of transportation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
well the snowfall in texas is exactly when you’d probably use the truck to power your house but otherwise i agree; i’d never want to use my car energy storage to regularly power my house
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The thing about storage isn't just that it's expensive, which it is, because prices are coming down slowly. How much degradation are we talking about after 5-10 years? It seems like it would be cheaper for the utility/owner to continue to use the batteries even if they're down to 80% capacity. Adding an extension of 20% would probably be cheaper than demoing and replacing them. A lot like residential solar. When my panels start degrading after ten years, I'm not tearing them off and replacing them. I'll just throw a couple more up to get back to the capacity I need.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
spf3million posted:How much degradation are we talking about after 5-10 years? It seems like it would be cheaper for the utility/owner to continue to use the batteries even if they're down to 80% capacity. Adding an extension of 20% would probably be cheaper than demoing and replacing them. A lot like residential solar. When my panels start degrading after ten years, I'm not tearing them off and replacing them. I'll just throw a couple more up to get back to the capacity I need. yup. i just googled around for some facts about this and found an article suggesting they cycle long-duration utility-scale batteries (i.e., not the batteries with expected outputs of minutes that are used to smooth out the grid flow) once per day so i have to assume among similar chemistries that they'll degrade like more consumer-focused batteries might. a few places suggest that the expected time to replacement for these systems is around 25 years though i expect it'll be as you say, done piecemeal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
From what I understand about battery chemistry, degraded batteries have multiple problems. The distribution of dendrites are stochastic, so there's no easy way to figure out which battery cells in the installation are failing, for one. Once a cell begins failing, as I understand, the electrochemistry makes it turn more electricity into heat as it charges, instead of performing the reversible chemical reaction that stores electrical energy, which also accelerates the dendrite formation and further taints the battery. Compounding that problem, the parallel wiring of the cells gets disrupted when a faulty cell is in the mix. The bad cell has a lower voltage potential, so more energy naturally flows into it to even out the voltage over the entire circuit, lowering the performance of all the other cells and stealing energy from them. Even worse, the heating increases resistance, making it possible to have a runaway reaction where more electricity flows into the faulty cells, further concentrating heat, forming more dendrites, making it even more resistive, etc. That's how Li-ion batteries explode. Aside from that, there's no real way to measure how much energy is stored in a cell. You can know what the original capacity was, and you can track how much current you supply, so in an ideal world you know how full the cells are, but if they self-discharge or have degraded capacity, you don't know that until you try and draw power from them and there's no juice left. So the long story is that you don't want to just use old batteries, it's not safe, it's not effective, and you end up not having the energy you need when you need it if it's part of critical infrastructure. Also, because of the mode of failure, trying to use faulty cells can end up destroying more than just the batteries. There's tech to try and identify faulty cells and bypass them within battery controllers, but that only delays the inevitable so well - the degradation is exponential, so as more time passes, the whole battery fails very quickly instead of just the early outliers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
I'd imagine grid scale storage will be monitored extensively and will be made in such a way that cells or modules will be able to be swapped without too much work when they're degraded. Monitoring on substation battery banks is becoming common enough that I'd think it would be the default on anything grid scale. I still don't see storage making a meaningful impact anytime soon, this appears to be overlooked by the let's only build solar people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:I'd imagine grid scale storage will be monitored extensively and will be made in such a way that cells or modules will be able to be swapped without too much work when they're degraded. Monitoring on substation battery banks is becoming common enough that I'd think it would be the default on anything grid scale. Not really. The people most opposed to doing storage research/expansion are the people who want to run gas plants instead. And the second largest are the ones who want to run nuclear instead. The all renewables groups have always had plans that were as concrete as the "storage is impossible" complains. Which is not much. And if you ask someone who wants a high (let alone 100%) true renewables power mix, then you mostly hear about long term transmission, non-battery storage and consumption changes that reduce base load. Nobody really cares about batteries for grid storage, it only seems popular because it profits from the high investments that went into batteries for unrelated reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Battery tech has reliably improved in capacity, cost and form factor ever since it was first invented as it is not only the renewable industry that benefits from improved battery tech. However, it has not had and there is no likely expectation that it will have the order of magnitude improvements that are required to make batteries feasible for grid scale storage beyond grid services or minor same day load shifting. A hydro plant will store 100's to 10,000's of TWhrs of power and the biggest batteries today are a few 10's to 100's of MWhrs. The tech to install those 100 MWhrs battery plants has existed for a hundred years but the need has only arisen recently - ie do not mistake the current dramatic rise of grid battery installations as some sort of paradigm shift in battery tech. I can only speak for Europe, but at the current price point there is little demand for long term battery storage for the grid right now. It's usually just so much more profitable and efficient to improve the grid/transmission infrastructure and sell the electricity from areas of overproduction to other parts of Europe that have a shortfall. This will probably continue to be true until we are in the region of 60-90% renewables and decades into the future. So the question is if battery tech will be up to the task by 2042 to remove the last 10-20% of fossil power plants, not now. As far as long term storage is concerned, hydrogen from electrolysis might become a practical solution by that point. Maybe not from a market perspective, but if there is a regulatory demand to keep a certain amount of it storage for energy security reasons it could be a solution. The energy market is already heavily regulated with security in mind today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
for the record are we making a differentiation here between short- and long-term grid storage? cause i gotta assume some utilities care about using batteries as either stabilizers or peaker replacements completely outside of backing up renewables
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:As far as long term storage is concerned, hydrogen from electrolysis might become a practical solution by that point. Maybe not from a market perspective, but if there is a regulatory demand to keep a certain amount of it storage for energy security reasons it could be a solution. The energy market is already heavily regulated with security in mind today. We're going to have to make hydrogen and biogas anyway for industry, heating and heavy transport so we might as well use it for energy storage too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:
The last few gas power plants I was at were built with the intention of being able to run on hydrogen or a hydrogen natural gas blend, there's current investment from large utilities in that technology. I'm not very familiar with the bulk power transmission system in Europe but in the States there would need to be a massive investment probably on the scale of building a bunch of new nuclear power plants. If that's going to happen the factories to build the extra equipment should have been built yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:This will probably continue to be true until we are in the region of 60-90% renewables and decades into the future. So the question is if battery tech will be up to the task by 2042 to remove the last 10-20% of fossil power plants, not now. If Europe is still 40% gas in a few decades time, we are irretrievably hosed on a civilisational level. It is perhaps good that there will have been lots of profits made in the mean time, but I am not sure what there will be to spend that money on. The stated EU policy is carbon neutrality by 2050. Given that, I struggle to see how there is room for enough gas peakers to make unstored renewables a significant sector.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
There are battery technologies with lower kWh/kg but with useable lifetimes of 50 years or more (NiFe). I’m sure there are more examples.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:for the record are we making a differentiation here between short- and long-term grid storage? cause i gotta assume some utilities care about using batteries as either stabilizers or peaker replacements completely outside of backing up renewables There is substantial investment going into batteries for voltage and reactive power support, at least where I work. They're usually smaller and deep in the distribution grid, say on long rural feeders particularly if there are a lot of households feeding solar power in. So they are "grid scale" in that they are not behind the meter, but not the scale that gets talked about in the press. I don't think anyone in the industry is reasonably expecting to run the grid on batteries for a substantial period of time. I expect thtat the batteries will be used to firm up renewable generation, rather than store it in any meaningful quanties. Despite solar and wind having low capactiy factors, the models are very good at predicting output several days in advance and so allowing the operators to bid into the market. Where batteries help solar and wind is to cover the brief dips due to isolated clouds, or local calming of wind for several minutes. Maybe they will become increasingly useful in peak shifting, but the expectation is that they won't solve the overnight storage issues with solar. That's far better handled by pumped hydro if the opportunities exist, and *magic technology X* in the future. As somone upthread said, we need to build everything as quickly as possible, except coal and oil plants. I'd love to see gas go completely but it'll be used to firm renewables for some time yet so if we can focus on reducing the amount it's needed, that's a win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MattZeitlin/status/1560657874895794183 https://twitter.com/HelenCRobertson/status/1560628783920517120
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
The solution is to turn off even more baseload capability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
Well, of course. Nuclear power is too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Why do these nuclear supporters keep doing this to Europe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:We're going to have to make hydrogen and biogas anyway for industry, heating and heavy transport so we might as well use it for energy storage too. The efficiency of a round trip(electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity) is just horrible. IIRC ~20-40%. It still makes sense in situations where there is absolutely no alternative (like aviation or ships), but for storage we will probably try to avoid it like the plague unless absolutely necessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 09:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Why do these nuclear supporters keep doing this to Europe? Well, now that the German government is no longer a coalition of nuclear supporters, there are serious talks about slowing down the nuclear shutdown at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 09:44
|
|
|
They can't keep getting away with this!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:The efficiency of a round trip(electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity) is just horrible. IIRC ~20-40%. It still makes sense in situations where there is absolutely no alternative (like aviation or ships), but for storage we will probably try to avoid it like the plague unless absolutely necessary. this is such an infuriatingly common and hyper dumb line of reasoning when renewables (especially solar) exceed marginal amounts of the energy supply there will be soooooooooo much loving curtailment that it doesn't matter if electricity->hydrogen->electricity is ONE percent efficient, if its free loving money its free loving money. spare capacity will be monetized however the gently caress they can and every loving penny of it will be profit. edit: its like saying "photosynthesis is only 2 - 3% efficient so it sucks and will never go anywhere" MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Aug 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
I think the point they were trying to make is: why do electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity at 20% efficiency when there are cheaper ways to store energy with efficicies equal to or greater than that which you can achieve with hydrogen? Not claiming to know what technologies they were proposing instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I think the point they were trying to make is: why do electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity at 20% efficiency when there are cheaper ways to store energy with efficicies equal to or greater than that which you can achieve with hydrogen? Pumped storage? The problem of course is that you can't have it everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Pumped storage? The problem of course is that you can't have it everywhere. You can have 100+m diameter rock pistons anywhere though so
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:You can have 100+m diameter rock pistons anywhere though so Oh wow that's a new one, energy vault is in trouble now!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this is such an infuriatingly common and hyper dumb line of reasoning On top of what was said about it being poo poo compared to other methods of saving curtailed energy, it takes large capex to utilise power of a certain MW, so you don't build for peaky cheap supply but for steady and consistent supply that otherwise would not be used. You know. Like overbuilt nuclear. How about just making petrol with curtailed power? It has the added benefit of some of the carbon utilised would be ashed and taken out of the cycle altogether.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:On top of what was said about it being poo poo compared to other methods of saving curtailed energy, it takes large capex to utilise power of a certain MW, so you don't build for peaky cheap supply but for steady and consistent supply that otherwise would not be used. You know. Like overbuilt nuclear. that’s basically just carbon capture unless you’re making biodiesel innit
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:On top of what was said about it being poo poo compared to other methods of saving curtailed energy, it takes large capex to utilise power of a certain MW, so you don't build for peaky cheap supply but for steady and consistent supply that otherwise would not be used. You know. Like overbuilt nuclear. "how about just making <long chain hydrocarbons>"? because somehow thats... more efficient/economical than hydrogen? wtf. why do you post if you have no idea what you're talking about. this is just embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this is such an infuriatingly common and hyper dumb line of reasoning Sadly it's not that simple. There are substantial capital and operation costs associated with it(running electrolyzers, fuel cells and storage on a massive scale). We don't know yet how substantial it's going to be in 20 years, but it's never going to be as cheap as something like demand response. Maybe not even as cheap as battery storage or just keeping renewables in reserve that you spin up only a couple of times per year. It's definitely not the only way how we can create long term energy storages. We do have biomass, bio fuel and bio gas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:"how about just making <long chain hydrocarbons>"? because somehow thats... more efficient/economical than hydrogen? wtf. why do you post if you have no idea what you're talking about. this is just embarrassing. because there is a whole distribution network around hydrocarbons? or you just dreaming that hydrogen tanks for B777's are going to magic their way into existence. Did it not occur to you that building one factory for 10's of thousands of end users is easier than building one new factory and then 10's of thousands of new end user consumers as well? And that if you commercialize and industrialize long carbon generation from electricity, that you are closer to having an industry around completely removing carbon from the air and just pumping it down a well (loooong way off that though to be fair). So embarrassing indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 11:39
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:You can have 100+m diameter rock pistons anywhere though so Something tells me this will be atocious in terms of resources (concrete, steel, etc) to kWh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 12:19
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Something tells me this will be atocious in terms of resources (concrete, steel, etc) to kWh. I would even be doubtful if it's possible to build such a large piston with a fit tight enough not to let water seep past it, and not get stuck because of thermal expansion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 12:29
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Maybe not even as cheap as battery storage or just keeping renewables in reserve that you spin up only a couple of times per year. Electric Wrigglies posted:because there is a whole distribution network around hydrocarbons? as if there isn't a distribution network around electricity? why did you move the goalposts... hell thats not even moving the goal post thats just confusing two separate topics. quote:or you just dreaming that hydrogen tanks for B777's are going to magic their way into existence. Did it not occur to you that building one factory for 10's of thousands of end users is easier than building one new factory and then 10's of thousands of new end user consumers as well? And that if you commercialize and industrialize long carbon generation from electricity, that you are closer to having an industry around completely removing carbon from the air and just pumping it down a well (loooong way off that though to be fair). quote:So embarrassing indeed. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:it will absolutely without a doubt certainly be cheaper than li-ion storage >10hr and by definition cheaper than idling spent capital (wind & solar capacity) when again they could be making literally *anything* more than zero. I've always been skeptical of the hydrogen economy after it was pushed HARD by the Bush administration. The promise was always electrolysis but the goal was steam reformation of methane and that CCS will be 10 years away. It's now been over 20 years and CCS is still 10 years away. And I don't trust you that electrolysis will be more efficient than steam reformation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
karthun posted:I've always been skeptical of the hydrogen economy after it was pushed HARD by the Bush administration. The promise was always electrolysis but the goal was steam reformation of methane and that CCS will be 10 years away. It's now been over 20 years and CCS is still 10 years away. And I don't trust you that electrolysis will be more efficient than steam reformation. Much like grid storage for renewables is just around the corner any day now seriously, just look at this pop sci article about some new breakthrough that will revolutionize this for sure this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
Owling Howl posted:You can have 100+m diameter rock pistons anywhere though so His Divine Shadow posted:Something tells me this will be atocious in terms of resources (concrete, steel, etc) to kWh. Literally anything else other than nuclear, no matter the cost/feasibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 18:10
|
|
