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.
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.