It's hard enough just now matching supply to demand on the grid. Increasing the solar capacity (especially as a replacement for natural gas generation) inceases the difficulty. More needs done at the consumer end, things like smart meters and real-time pricing at the user level to more closely match demand to supply (to encourage things like charging batteries during mid-day)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines, especially running east-west to spread out the available sun. Late morning sun in Florida can power waffle irons in California. Afternoon sun in Arizona can provide power to the East Coast in the evening.
No we don't. What we need is grid-scale vanadium redox batteries [wikipedia.org] to hold the charge. At 80% charge/discharge efficiency and a minimum lifetime of 20 years (after which it can be recycled), it's a highly viable option for grid-scale power.
If you want grid-scale batteries, the best choice right now is sodium-sulfur [utilitydive.com]. There are already dozens of utility-scale installations worldwide, with several in the US. It's a proven technology that uses readily available, inexpensive materials.
The only thing that might be better is Ambri's magnesium-antimony [ambri.com] cells, which use a molten salt electrolyte/separator which makes the whole thing mechanically and chemically more robust. Those are still in early trials though, so while I have high hopes I'm not going to count those just yet. =Smidge=
And what's great about upping our solar and wind generation is that regardless of when in the future we roll out whatever the current grid scale battery tech is at that point, it can immediately start benefiting the grid.
There is going to be huge money to be made in Texas exporting renewable energy. And even huger money exporting it on demand. If anywhere is ideal for massive battery farms, it's Texas. Huge expansive area, flat, and tons and tons of renewables to fill them. The
The only thing that might be better is Ambri's magnesium-antimony cells, which use a molten salt electrolyte/separator which makes the whole thing mechanically and chemically more robust.
384 Wh/L is decent volumetric energy density. 82 Wh/kg is rubbish weight energy density. Lithium-ion formulations achieve 380 Wh/kg. Maybe ok for stationary applications, but they're more reminiscent of lead-acid than lithium-ion when it comes to handling and installation. Ambri is claiming 20+ year lifespan of daily cycling, so 7000+ charge cycles, compared to 1400-ish for lithium-ion. If Ambri comes reasonably close to their stated robustness, I'd prefer it for household energy storage. That's the k
Batteries based on lithium or sodium make far more sense,
Fine, whatever works.
but are still less cost-effective than wider geographic distribution with HVDC.
HVDC cannot provide power 24/7 which is the problem. Eventually you need something to keep us warm at night and if it's not nuclear then it's going to have to be battery backed somehow. Investing in both seems like it wouldn't be cost efficient.
When one area is becalmed, the winds are stronger somewhere else. So geographical distribution with HVDC fixes that problem.
Solar works because power demand is high in the day and low at night. The problem is the "gap" from 4 pm to 7 pm when people get home from work, turn on the AC and start cooking dinner. But HVDC alleviates that problem by shifting power from west to east. 7 pm in NYC is 3 pm in the cloud-free Mojave and Sonoran deserts.
When one area is becalmed, the winds are stronger somewhere else. So geographical distribution with HVDC fixes that problem.
That sure sounds like a fragile system, like it's one big storm (which happen annually) away from a massive blackout. Batteries ensure the exact opposite by decentralizing the source of power.
On top of that, it seems it's an expensive and underdeveloped industry. Per wikipedia:
Operating an HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often exclusively for one system, as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes more quickly.
I'll grant you that it's an interesting idea but I would never want to rely on something so uncertain.
Are you stupid? HVDC would reduce the amount of storage required from multiple weeks to 12-24 hours. Why? Because it would move electricity from where we are producing it to where it is being used(which can be across the continent).
Of course 4 hours of storage is not viable in the short term let alone 12 hours and HVDC.
Maybe. I mean, I'm not going to discount it as a possibility but I'm not a medical doctor, so I couldn't tell you for sure.
HVDC would reduce the amount of storage required from multiple weeks to 12-24 hours.
If it works and is low cost then I'm all for it. However, you have also left out that we do need power during the night. Eventually, we will need either batteries or plenty of nuclear, so why bother installing HVDC in the first place?
Well I am in favor of nuclear energy completely. Building a nuclear baseload would be cheaper and easier than building 2x solar, 2x wind, 12 hours of storage and a HVDC supergrid. The reality is that storage is really expensive and not viable for grid level.
HVDC would significantly reduce the amount of storage needed in a 80-100% renewables system. Dropping the amount of storage required from weeks to 12 hours. You are right we won't need it we pursue a nuclear energy though(I assumed you were against
Nuclear is great but there are people that will fight against it's installation rabidly, the most foundational requirement for any successful technology. It may be inefficient but I think pursuing all possible avenues is the wise choice because you aren't betting the future on the success of single technology but rather you are betting on the success of at least one technology.
The reality is that storage is really expensive and not viable for grid level.
Grid level storage may be expensive (now) but it also ensures a lot of redundancy by decentralizing the source of power. It could
Also because larger markets are more efficient. Not only will an upgraded grid bring intermittent renewable energy to distant customers, it will enable battery storage installations to stabilize the grid while purchasing energy from distant, cheap sources.
Solar capacity is quite predictable (days ahead to hours ahead - based on weather). Also, you can basically "turn off" solar capacity at will and at a moment's notice (just disconnect individual panels). The difficulty is increased more by adding wind power (wind might not be so predictable as cloud cover). Also, you can't stop instantly a wind turbine, as the huge propeller contains a lot of energy which must be slowly shed.
Texas has gone WAY out of their way to isolate themselves from the national grid. This is one of those cases where "Texas independence, yay!" is a BAD thing. And it's the primary reason so many Texans got to sit in the dark and shiver for a week recently.
The way it works for most other states that have lots of solar is you make more power than you use during the day, selling a bunch of it to other states in the grid, (this means you have more soar than you "need" during the day) and then at night you turn around and buy power back from the grid from states from either gas power plants or other electrical storage. (where you could easily be buying back your own solar power to sent them that day!) Basically you get overnight storage for your own power at very little cost.
If Texas is going to continue to promise to winterize their production plants and not actually DO it, then getting more connected to the grid is the only other option, unless you count chattering your teeth in the dark as an "option". Or, if they want to stay "independent", then they need to maintain their systems, since they won't be able to rely on other systems maintained by someone else.
They had a choice, "pick A or B". And they chose "C, none of the above", and had an exciting spring as a result. Can't say as I feel sorry for them. (I live up in Iowa, we maintain our power grid, and we get a HUGE amount of it from wind and also do a lot of solar - so try to ignore the ERCOT con-men that tell you wind and solar aren't reliable in the winter - we know a thing or two about that!)
Texas put cronies in charge of the utilities and intentionally gutted any enforcement strength they had. They went as far as to sue the federal government just to keep those pesky regulators at bay. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
They can recommend plants do upgrades or make changes but can't force them. So back in 2011 when cold weather caused rolling blackouts they recommended the plants winterize. The plants said fuck you this is Texas we do what we want. So fast forward 10 years and guess what happened again? Rolling blackouts so bad that the grid almost failed. You can't start up a power plant without external power, so you could see how this would end poorly. Have the power plants done the necessary upgrades now?
Pretty much everyone in Texas has a smart meter and I suspect that the energy capital knows how to load balance. Just to head off an argument, the recent outages were caused by the water intake freezing at traditional power plants, not load balancing or wind or solar.
Variable rates are why people have to choose between freezing or $10,000 electricity bills. The people who invest in these wind and solar farms are upset that Texas is going to outlaw the price gouging, which we saw in a article here on/. A
You see but you do not observe.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"
More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:2)
It's hard enough just now matching supply to demand on the grid. Increasing the solar capacity (especially as a replacement for natural gas generation) inceases the difficulty. More needs done at the consumer end, things like smart meters and real-time pricing at the user level to more closely match demand to supply (to encourage things like charging batteries during mid-day)
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:5, Interesting)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines, especially running east-west to spread out the available sun. Late morning sun in Florida can power waffle irons in California. Afternoon sun in Arizona can provide power to the East Coast in the evening.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:5, Interesting)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines...
No we don't. What we need is grid-scale vanadium redox batteries [wikipedia.org] to hold the charge. At 80% charge/discharge efficiency and a minimum lifetime of 20 years (after which it can be recycled), it's a highly viable option for grid-scale power.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want grid-scale batteries, the best choice right now is sodium-sulfur [utilitydive.com]. There are already dozens of utility-scale installations worldwide, with several in the US. It's a proven technology that uses readily available, inexpensive materials.
The only thing that might be better is Ambri's magnesium-antimony [ambri.com] cells, which use a molten salt electrolyte/separator which makes the whole thing mechanically and chemically more robust. Those are still in early trials though, so while I have high hopes I'm not going to count those just yet.
=Smidge=
count me in. (Score:3)
I'll go with whatever works. If it's molten metal batteries, so be it!
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely the answer.
And what's great about upping our solar and wind generation is that regardless of when in the future we roll out whatever the current grid scale battery tech is at that point, it can immediately start benefiting the grid.
There is going to be huge money to be made in Texas exporting renewable energy. And even huger money exporting it on demand. If anywhere is ideal for massive battery farms, it's Texas. Huge expansive area, flat, and tons and tons of renewables to fill them. The
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that might be better is Ambri's magnesium-antimony cells, which use a molten salt electrolyte/separator which makes the whole thing mechanically and chemically more robust.
384 Wh/L is decent volumetric energy density. 82 Wh/kg is rubbish weight energy density. Lithium-ion formulations achieve 380 Wh/kg. Maybe ok for stationary applications, but they're more reminiscent of lead-acid than lithium-ion when it comes to handling and installation. Ambri is claiming 20+ year lifespan of daily cycling, so 7000+ charge cycles, compared to 1400-ish for lithium-ion. If Ambri comes reasonably close to their stated robustness, I'd prefer it for household energy storage. That's the k
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is grid-scale vanadium redox batteries [wikipedia.org]
Have you checked the price of vanadium or the production volume?
Depending on vanadium redox to fix the problem is as realistic as believing in the Easter Bunny.
Batteries based on lithium or sodium make far more sense, but are still less cost-effective than wider geographic distribution with HVDC.
At 80% charge/discharge efficiency and a minimum lifetime of 20 years
HVDC is over 90% efficient and lasts much longer than 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries based on lithium or sodium make far more sense,
Fine, whatever works.
but are still less cost-effective than wider geographic distribution with HVDC.
HVDC cannot provide power 24/7 which is the problem. Eventually you need something to keep us warm at night and if it's not nuclear then it's going to have to be battery backed somehow. Investing in both seems like it wouldn't be cost efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night.
When one area is becalmed, the winds are stronger somewhere else. So geographical distribution with HVDC fixes that problem.
Solar works because power demand is high in the day and low at night. The problem is the "gap" from 4 pm to 7 pm when people get home from work, turn on the AC and start cooking dinner. But HVDC alleviates that problem by shifting power from west to east. 7 pm in NYC is 3 pm in the cloud-free Mojave and Sonoran deserts.
Re: (Score:2)
The wind doesn't stop blowing at night.
When one area is becalmed, the winds are stronger somewhere else. So geographical distribution with HVDC fixes that problem.
That sure sounds like a fragile system, like it's one big storm (which happen annually) away from a massive blackout. Batteries ensure the exact opposite by decentralizing the source of power.
On top of that, it seems it's an expensive and underdeveloped industry.
Per wikipedia:
Operating an HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often exclusively for one system, as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes more quickly.
I'll grant you that it's an interesting idea but I would never want to rely on something so uncertain.
Re: (Score:2)
We also need more long-distance HVDC lines...
No we don't.
Are you stupid? HVDC would reduce the amount of storage required from multiple weeks to 12-24 hours. Why? Because it would move electricity from where we are producing it to where it is being used(which can be across the continent).
Of course 4 hours of storage is not viable in the short term let alone 12 hours and HVDC.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you stupid?
Maybe. I mean, I'm not going to discount it as a possibility but I'm not a medical doctor, so I couldn't tell you for sure.
HVDC would reduce the amount of storage required from multiple weeks to 12-24 hours.
If it works and is low cost then I'm all for it. However, you have also left out that we do need power during the night. Eventually, we will need either batteries or plenty of nuclear, so why bother installing HVDC in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I am in favor of nuclear energy completely. Building a nuclear baseload would be cheaper and easier than building 2x solar, 2x wind, 12 hours of storage and a HVDC supergrid. The reality is that storage is really expensive and not viable for grid level.
HVDC would significantly reduce the amount of storage needed in a 80-100% renewables system. Dropping the amount of storage required from weeks to 12 hours. You are right we won't need it we pursue a nuclear energy though(I assumed you were against
Re: (Score:2)
Well I am in favor of nuclear energy completely.
Nuclear is great but there are people that will fight against it's installation rabidly, the most foundational requirement for any successful technology. It may be inefficient but I think pursuing all possible avenues is the wise choice because you aren't betting the future on the success of single technology but rather you are betting on the success of at least one technology.
The reality is that storage is really expensive and not viable for grid level.
Grid level storage may be expensive (now) but it also ensures a lot of redundancy by decentralizing the source of power. It could
Re: (Score:2)
Also because larger markets are more efficient. Not only will an upgraded grid bring intermittent renewable energy to distant customers, it will enable battery storage installations to stabilize the grid while purchasing energy from distant, cheap sources.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar capacity is quite predictable (days ahead to hours ahead - based on weather). Also, you can basically "turn off" solar capacity at will and at a moment's notice (just disconnect individual panels).
The difficulty is increased more by adding wind power (wind might not be so predictable as cloud cover). Also, you can't stop instantly a wind turbine, as the huge propeller contains a lot of energy which must be slowly shed.
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:4, Interesting)
Texas has gone WAY out of their way to isolate themselves from the national grid. This is one of those cases where "Texas independence, yay!" is a BAD thing. And it's the primary reason so many Texans got to sit in the dark and shiver for a week recently.
The way it works for most other states that have lots of solar is you make more power than you use during the day, selling a bunch of it to other states in the grid, (this means you have more soar than you "need" during the day) and then at night you turn around and buy power back from the grid from states from either gas power plants or other electrical storage. (where you could easily be buying back your own solar power to sent them that day!) Basically you get overnight storage for your own power at very little cost.
If Texas is going to continue to promise to winterize their production plants and not actually DO it, then getting more connected to the grid is the only other option, unless you count chattering your teeth in the dark as an "option". Or, if they want to stay "independent", then they need to maintain their systems, since they won't be able to rely on other systems maintained by someone else.
They had a choice, "pick A or B". And they chose "C, none of the above", and had an exciting spring as a result. Can't say as I feel sorry for them. (I live up in Iowa, we maintain our power grid, and we get a HUGE amount of it from wind and also do a lot of solar - so try to ignore the ERCOT con-men that tell you wind and solar aren't reliable in the winter - we know a thing or two about that!)
Re:More Solar Requires More Load Balancing (Score:4, Interesting)
Texas put cronies in charge of the utilities and intentionally gutted any enforcement strength they had. They went as far as to sue the federal government just to keep those pesky regulators at bay. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
They can recommend plants do upgrades or make changes but can't force them. So back in 2011 when cold weather caused rolling blackouts they recommended the plants winterize. The plants said fuck you this is Texas we do what we want. So fast forward 10 years and guess what happened again? Rolling blackouts so bad that the grid almost failed. You can't start up a power plant without external power, so you could see how this would end poorly. Have the power plants done the necessary upgrades now?
Re: (Score:2)
Variable rates are why people have to choose between freezing or $10,000 electricity bills. The people who invest in these wind and solar farms are upset that Texas is going to outlaw the price gouging, which we saw in a article here on /. A