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

61–70 of 231 posts

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

#61

Post by diminoten »

melling wrote: post #58
diminoten wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN isn't where you go to learn , HN is where you go to expand the realm of possible information for you to consume. When you read a comment like the above, your response shouldn't be to demand for sources, your response should be to go research the topic on your own. This site would be much better if folks understood that HN itself isn't a place for someone to "get wonky". On my debate team, we had a rule of "no wonk…

It certainly could and should be a place to learn. How do chest pounding statements add value, especially when they fall apart after the first question? There are definitely a lot of knowledgable people who read this site. Why wouldn't you want them to contribute and take deeper dives? Superficial conversations are essentially noise.

If you don't see a qualitative potential difference between a quick reply (HN's comments section), and a well thought out article (HN submissions), then I can't help you.

HN comments sections cannot be more than superficial. Anything more than superficial deserves to be put in a more accessible and readable place, as a topic in its own right.

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

#62

Post by cstross »

api wrote: post #3

If we do get cheap scalable energy storage, it's pretty much game over (in the long run) for everything but solar and wind. We are basically drenched in free energy, but we can't store it cheaply enough. If that's fixed, we're done here. Nuclear fission may still have on-paper advantages in some markets/climates, but the high PITA (pain in the aXX) factor would probably mean we wouldn't bother going there. We'd just…

There are places where solar is less than helpful -- up here in Scotland, we're north of Moscow: in midwinter we get as little as 4.5 hours of daylight every 24 hours (6 hours here in Edinburgh, in the south). Also, we tend to live in apartment buildings: many dwellings, only one roof, shared gardens.

(On the flip side, we're in one of the world's best areas for wind and tidal power.)

The point is, the far north (think Scandinavia, Russia, the UK) really needs non-solar. And the far-far north is a lousy environment to go out and fix a broken wind turbine. So there's probably a role for nuclear there.

There may also be a role for nuclear in shipping, although civil nuclear shipping peaked early (in the 1950s/60s) and the only folks currently doing much of it are the military and the Russian arctic icebreaker fleet. If oil becomes too expensive for propulsion, nuclear may be necessary as backup for wind power (sails and weather satellites work great together -- until you're becalmed).

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

#63

Post by 6d0debc071 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #36
jimktrains2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear plants take years to build and have shitty failure scenarios That's only because we won't build any newer designs that don't have shitty failure modes and insist that we keep old reactors with very shitty failure modes online, though.

I don't disagree that we can build better designs. I disagree that we can build them quickly and cheap. According to the OECD: "As nuclear power plants are complex construction projects, their construction periods are longer than other large power plants. It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit (not including the time required for planning and licensing)." "Between 2002 and 2008, f…

How does that compare with other sources? 5 Years and a few billion doesn't seem that bad to me. Even plans for building a few thousand new homes can be over the next ten to fifteen years.

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

#64

Post by walterbell »

melling wrote: post #58
diminoten wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN isn't where you go to learn , HN is where you go to expand the realm of possible information for you to consume. When you read a comment like the above, your response shouldn't be to demand for sources, your response should be to go research the topic on your own. This site would be much better if folks understood that HN itself isn't a place for someone to "get wonky". On my debate team, we had a rule of "no wonk…

It certainly could and should be a place to learn. How do chest pounding statements add value, especially when they fall apart after the first question? There are definitely a lot of knowledgable people who read this site. Why wouldn't you want them to contribute and take deeper dives? Superficial conversations are essentially noise.

Readable deep dives by knowledgeable people are more likely to appear on distribution channels with higher compensation than HN.

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

#65

Post by jimktrains2 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #36
jimktrains2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear plants take years to build and have shitty failure scenarios That's only because we won't build any newer designs that don't have shitty failure modes and insist that we keep old reactors with very shitty failure modes online, though.

I don't disagree that we can build better designs. I disagree that we can build them quickly and cheap. According to the OECD: "As nuclear power plants are complex construction projects, their construction periods are longer than other large power plants. It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit (not including the time required for planning and licensing)." "Between 2002 and 2008, f…

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/ puts the costs of a coal and natural gas plant right in that price range, though.

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

#66

Post by walterbell »

diminoten wrote: post #47
melling wrote: post #46

Got any real numbers to back that up? I'm guessing that it just feels good to bang on your chest and make that call. The reality is probably a lot different. How are all the megacities going to get enough solar and wind power, for example? Tokyo, NYC, Mexico City, Shanghai, etc. all running from solar? How big will the grid need to be to power NYC? Anyway, I'd love to see a deeper analysis and less chest pounding.

HN isn't where you go to learn , HN is where you go to expand the realm of possible information for you to consume. When you read a comment like the above, your response shouldn't be to demand for sources, your response should be to go research the topic on your own. This site would be much better if folks understood that HN itself isn't a place for someone to "get wonky". On my debate team, we had a rule of "no wonk…

> HN isn't where you go to learn, HN is where you go to expand the realm of possible information for you to consume.

Yes, i.e. discovery of "unknown unknowns".

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

#67

Post by greggyb »

If there's a legitimate arbitrage opportunity for individual homeowners to buy a battery and charge it overnight to cover peak costs, there should be an even stronger case for energy companies to buy larger batteries, install them in low-land-cost areas, and do the thing themselves. If these peak plants are so expensive, then a major utility can save money using batteries rather than peak plants.

The cost should be lower for a utility to do this than for individual homeowners to do so for equal capacities.

So I ask are we seeing this behavior?

On a slightly different note, it doesn't seem that the article is addressing vehicles. Battery powered cars are not yet practical enough for the mainstream, and aircraft are still entirely dependent on the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels.

I could see batteries becoming feasible for cars "soon" with the current rate of advance, but charging stations don't make sense to me. You want easily accessed battery packs in cars and battery-swap stations. This is a huge infrastructure change, but for out-of-city travel (i.e. a trip where you would need to charge before you get to your destination), you want the equivalent of a gas station, which is 1-10 minutes for a stop, not 45+.

As for aircraft, I don't see them using batteries soon.

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

#68

Post by melling »

diminoten wrote: post #61
melling wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly could and should be a place to learn. How do chest pounding statements add value, especially when they fall apart after the first question? There are definitely a lot of knowledgable people who read this site. Why wouldn't you want them to contribute and take deeper dives? Superficial conversations are essentially noise.

If you don't see a qualitative potential difference between a quick reply (HN's comments section), and a well thought out article (HN submissions), then I can't help you. HN comments sections cannot be more than superficial. Anything more than superficial deserves to be put in a more accessible and readable place, as a topic in its own right.

Of course replies can be more than superficial. They can contain facts, historical perspective, personal experience, back of the envelope calculations, or qualitative statements from people with specific domain knowledge.

After a good HN discussion, there would be enough information for another blog.

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

#69

Post by URSpider94 »

One problem that will surface is that the cost of our transmission infrastructure will have to be covered, one way or the other. Currently, with net metering, customers are able to arbitrage power at the retail price, while effectively making use of the grid for both pushing and pulling load. This would be like flying a round-trip from San Jose to Tokyo and back to SFO, and claiming that you only owe the airline for the Caltrain fare up the peninsula.

The other issue is that our current infrastructure isn't designed for peer-to-peer transmission, with neighborhoods pumping large amounts of power into the transmission lines during peak solar hours. Some areas of Hawaii have had to put a moratorium on installing rooftop solar to prevent potential damage to the branch circuits.

Long story short, it's not simply a matter of storage costs undercutting retail power costs, there are also maintenance costs for the grid that are invariant on demand, which will have to get paid one way or the other.

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

#70

Post by brc »

markbnj wrote: post #54
api wrote: post #3

If we do get cheap scalable energy storage, it's pretty much game over (in the long run) for everything but solar and wind. We are basically drenched in free energy, but we can't store it cheaply enough. If that's fixed, we're done here. Nuclear fission may still have on-paper advantages in some markets/climates, but the high PITA (pain in the aXX) factor would probably mean we wouldn't bother going there. We'd just…

>> We are basically drenched in free energy, but we can't store it cheaply enough. If that's fixed, we're done here. I think that's a simplistic view. Yes there is tremendous energy in the movements of air in the atmosphere, and water in the seas, even more in the daily exposure to sunlight, and quite a bit in the geologic forces operating in the earth's interior. That's all well and good, but what matters in terms o…

This is entirely correct and always forgotten by the 'energy is everywhere, we just have to grab it' thinking.

The point is that wind energy is too diffuse and the capital costs of tying up that much land in wind generators is astronomical - and there is a very real degradation in site quality as you use up all the good sites first. It's pointless to say it's always windy somewhere, because transmission losses and costs make that unfeasible.

Solar is even worse because at even the best site on the best day you only get 50% of energy generation time, so event with perfect storage you have to have 2x the generation capability.

All this is the reason why - even right now with massive subsidies and compensation and special protection from environmental standards other developments have to adhere to - wind and solar account for about 1% of worldwide energy generation.

There is a limited role of grid top-up for solar and wind, but the future of energy generation is not either of them. The near term is in more efficient and less polluting modern gas and coal plants, with conventional nuclear filling increasing in use to provide clean energy without airborne pollution.

If the public can ever get over three decades of nuclear hysteria, that is.

Post reply on HN