Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

rameznaam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 231 posts

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#191

Post by mauricemir »

john61 wrote: post #132
DennisP wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a couple pro-nuclear comments here. I'm perfectly happy with wind and solar and think we should roll it out as fast as we can, as well as nuclear. Many of the wind/solar advocates, on the other hand, are strongly anti-nuclear. Given the state of the climate that just doesn't make sense to me. All these technologies have their own advantages, and we should use each where it's most effective.

Technologies also have risks. If the risk of a technology is the vast devastation of life it should not be used.

There regularly have been single mining accidents that killed far more then ALL the nuclear accidents.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#192

Post by brrt »

DennisP wrote: post #110
beat wrote: post #81

One of the best things about the solar/wind + storage combination is that it's decentralized and cheap at small scale. This makes serious electrification of remote and impoverished places viable. It reminds me of the wildfire spread of cell service in places that didn't have phones before, only on a larger and more important scale. Give a village cheap electricity, and awesome things will happen. This gets to another…

I wrote a couple pro-nuclear comments here. I'm perfectly happy with wind and solar and think we should roll it out as fast as we can, as well as nuclear. Many of the wind/solar advocates, on the other hand, are strongly anti-nuclear. Given the state of the climate that just doesn't make sense to me. All these technologies have their own advantages, and we should use each where it's most effective.

This is an article about energy storage. Nuclear doesn't have much to do with that. Nor does the alleged aversion of 'green people' to nuclear. Please give it a rest.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#193

Post by DennisP »

Lorento wrote: post #161
hyperbovine wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared with the vast devastation of life which is already taking place as a result of climate change? I'll take my chances with the nukes.

Human life? Is it? Remember famines that used to regularly wipe out the peasants in most civilizations? It's been a while since disasters on those scales happened in most countries. Climate change doesn't sound so bad when you compare it to normal life a few centuries ago.

For a look at what's actually projected for the climate, read the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, who read about 3,000 peer-reviewed papers and summarized them, with extensive references. It's quite frightening, and far beyond anything that human civilization has ever experienced, even at +2C. If we go all the way to +6 it's hard to imagine anyone surviving. Somewhere between +2 and +3, climate feedbacks kick in and take it several degrees further with no more help from us. Right now we're at +0.8.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#194

Post by john61 »

maccard wrote: post #178
john61 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technologies also have risks. If the risk of a technology is the vast devastation of life it should not be used.

I agree. How many more thousands of miners must be killed before we finally abolish coal as a fuel source?

Yes I agree. Let's move on to modern and safe technologies. For example wind, solar and energy storage.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#195

Post by exelius »

nl wrote: post #187
ridgeguy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that nuclear power is used to serve base load, which is the demand that isn't subject to significant variation. This allows generator owners to run nuclear generators at their cost-effective maximum output. It's true that there is great variation in electricity pricing, with peak shaving and other so-called "ancillary services" bringing as much as 100X as high a price as base rate (for a short per…

The issue with base load contracts is that they are increasingly being undermined by power that is much cheaper, and reliable almost enough to substitute for base power. Generally speaking most jurisdictions would have to be stupid to sign up to new long term (20 year+) base power contracts, but that's what nuclear power needs to pat for the high upfront costs. As this article shows, new storage tech and load managem…

Yeah, but the long-term outlook for fossil fuels is still rising prices. If given the choice between building a new LNG plant or a new nuclear plant, are LNG fuel prices low enough and stable enough over the long term to justify over a 20 year+ contract? This is an honest question and I'm sure the energy industry has a legion of forecasters and quant jocks on it, but I personally don't know how the economics work out.

There's also the carbon footprint aspect to consider. If the "carbon tax" is successful, nuclear could be a more cost-effective option than hydrocarbon-fired plants in areas without a more stable "natural" power source like hydroelectric or geothermal. The petrochemical industry likely has enough political pull to neuter any carbon tax law, but in theory that's how it should work.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#196

Post by cwal37 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #188
cwal37 wrote: post #34

It stands out to me that pumped storage only gets a passing mention. We've had that as a proven energy storage technology for decades. People in the industry love to talk about it and file FERC applications for preliminary permits on the same sites over and over (I would know, I've had to read nearly all of them over the last year at work), but it's never deployed at the scale people expected. It'll be interesting to…

Pumped hydro is virtually all deployed grid-scale storage -- 90%+ (and plus quite a bit as memory serves). It's cheap, effective, scalable, and highly efficient. It's also got limited sites and localized environmental impacts. Where you been hiding?

It is most of deployed storage atm, but the bulk of that wasn't deployed recently. I'm staring at a very informative figure I just made last week that I can't share since it's a draft for a report, but if you glance at EIA 860 data you'll see the breakdown for storage by nameplate capacity is:

Battery - 0.7%

Compressed Air - 0.5%

Concentrated Solar Power Storage - 1.3% (which doesn't always exactly count)

Flywheels - 0.2%

Pumped Storage - 97.4%

You can also see that the average operational year for pumped storage is 1974, not anytime recent. You could weight the years by capacity, but most plants are pretty big, and it shouldn't change it too much. Also, pumped storage capacity only totals 21.6GW.

As for where I've been, I've just been stupidly busy. I keep meaning to jump back in, but I never seem to have the time.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#197

Post by mikeash »

pkulak wrote: post #153
mikeash wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid question: if UHV lines need roughly the space of an interstate highway, could the right of way be acquired by building them along interstate highways? There's lots of grassy medians in which to put towers, and the lines themselves are comfortably off the ground. Dumb idea, or dumbest idea ever?

Millions of DC volts next to a steady stream of cars and trucks?

Yes, nothing can possibligh go wrong.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#198

Post by beat »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #154
beat wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm neither pro- nor anti-nuclear. I'm not afraid of it and recognize that it has value (I really like the idea of using it for base load generation with wind/solar), but I also think it's a very limited solution, due to its expense, complexity, and political difficulties. If we can build a purely solar/wind/storage model that is inexpensive, safe, and uncontroversial, I'd much prefer that.

I am not anti-nuclear, I am just anti-nuclear (of the type that is useful for enriching for weapons) for the global solution to electrical power, given that for a general solution you need something that politically, you don't worry too much about your enemies having. Look at the situation with Iran for instance. Any development of nuclear there is viewed with extreme suspicion, even while we are trying to reduce glo…

The Iran situation highlights what I said in the first place - not only is nuclear not a technical option for the majority of the world, we would be actively hostile to it for a lot of countries. So basically, the nuclear > solar position is, consciously or unconsciously, relegating parts of the world to permanent poverty, deliberately leaving them behind.

And again, take a remote village. Give them electricity and decent internet. What happens? Their lives get a lot better, their opportunities grow. But focusing on government-centralized systems will continue to exclude them.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#199

Post by beat »

nextw33k wrote: post #167
beat wrote: post #81

One of the best things about the solar/wind + storage combination is that it's decentralized and cheap at small scale. This makes serious electrification of remote and impoverished places viable. It reminds me of the wildfire spread of cell service in places that didn't have phones before, only on a larger and more important scale. Give a village cheap electricity, and awesome things will happen. This gets to another…

I am very much pro-nuclear. I argue against wind and wind alone, it is a very unreliable source of energy, I think it is crazy to rely on gusts of wind to power a population. Nuclear is the only technology which offers a base load without burning fossils. Solar I am happy with, it could be better than nuclear but the storage problem needs solving before it gets onto everyone's roof. That's another problem with solar,…

Wind + storage, on the other hand, provides base load just fine. You just need to capture enough wind energy over the course of the storage capacity / baseload to keep it stable. On sufficiently large scale, you can get its probabilities up to the level of nuclear plant uptimes.

We're turning a bandwidth problem into a caching problem. That's the game-changer.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#200

Post by diminoten »

escape_goat wrote: post #172
diminoten wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't implying anything, I was directly stating that the folks who are most beneficial to learn from aren't making elaborate posts on HN, and you shouldn't demand that they do. You're just being lazy by demanding someone to do your research or write an article for you. Think of it from their perspective: why would they? Any reason someone might post on HN with a comment containing original or well-thought content…

I believe you should reread the previous parts of the thread, including your own, because it seems like your understanding of the positions in this argument have shifted. melling isn't demanding that arbitrary experts make elaborate posts on HN for his or her education and betterment. Rather, melling seems to believe that people who present information as knowledge in the comments section should be able and willing t…

You've taken what I wrote and pushed it much further than I did. If you re-read what I've written, I'm not nearly as extreme as you present.

Your argument hinges on me being extreme in my position, when in actuality I am not. I have not said anything nearly as absolute as you've implied. For example, I don't believe me using the words "lazy" or "wasting everyone's time" were an example of what dang refers to as "jabs" -- I was describing an activity. My words were not used as personal insults, but as descriptions of behavior. It is lazy to ask for sources on HN comments, and it is a waste of everyone's time, for the reasons I specified. These aren't insults, because they're specific, and directed at an activity, rather than a person, and I provide reasons for why those activities are as described.

I'm sure some SMEs do make the mistake of posting on HN in an elaborate and detailed fashion, as another example. I've never said it's impossible, that'd be an absurd thing to say. I just said it's not in a) their best interest, and b) many won't for the reasons I outlined.

Coming to HN for the reasons you do is an absolute and unambiguous mistake. What you get here is bad quality, for what you're looking for. You can get much better elsewhere, in the form of blog posts, articles, wiki pages, published papers, etc.

I'll repeat my thesis -- HN holds value as a "back room" where experts can speak without the same rigors with which they usually have to speak. There is value in informal discussion, and that's what happens on HN. Citing sources is a waste of time on HN, because you shouldn't take anything you read here at face value.

Besides, next time you're in a conversation, are you really going to say, "a post I read on HN said..." as a way of citing the source of your knowledge?

Post reply on HN