Grid Storage Systems for Renewable Energy - Technology and Projects (No Politics)

[beefkabob]

I wonder if they calculate the carbon emissions of making all that concrete.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I wonder if they calculate the carbon emissions of making all that concrete.

They do.

 

[MediumRare]

I wonder if they calculate the carbon emissions of making all that concrete.

They (the example posted with a 100’ x 100’ x 400’ facility) don’t actually use concrete, but it’s a useful proxy for ChatGPT to calculate the maximum weight of a block. They use rammed earth mixed with a small amount of polymer. That is to avoid the CO2 problem.

I think the most amazing thing is to realize the power content of electricity and the storage capability of EV batteries. Plus, the new generation of silicon anode batteries (already in production planning for Mercedes late next year) are twice as dense.

 

[beefkabob]

They (the example posted with a 100’ x 100’ x 400’ facility) don’t actually use concrete, but it’s a useful proxy for ChatGPT to calculate the maximum weight of a block. They use rammed earth mixed with a small amount of polymer. That is to avoid the CO2 problem.

I think the most amazing thing is to realize the power content of electricity and the storage capability of EV batteries. Plus, the new generation of silicon anode batteries (already in production planning for Mercedes late next year) are twice as dense.

Twice as dense on a block volume or facility volume basis? Having to raise those blocks means the system takes up a lot of volume. Same with these water systems. But then volume really matters most when mobile. A fixed base system can be built somewhere cheap. It doesn't have to be in Manhattan, for instance. Of course, cars could be modified to use mostly overhead or inductive road power, too, with smaller batteries for the off-grid portion of driving. One lane of cross country overhead lines would probably cost less than building the charging system necessary for trucking plus all the huge batteries. Huge trucks could get buy with 100 kw instead of 1000 kw, which would also make a massive savings. But then we don't have sensible policies. I'd even be a fan of eventually regulating battery size maximums. Once charging speeds get high enough, there should be no reason to go over 50kw, and 20-30kw should do the job for 95% of use cases.

 

[MediumRare]

Twice as dense on a block volume or facility volume basis? Having to raise those blocks means the system takes up a lot of volume. Same with these water systems. But then volume really matters most when mobile. A fixed base system can be built somewhere cheap. It doesn't have to be in Manhattan, for instance. Of course, cars could be modified to use mostly overhead or inductive road power, too, with smaller batteries for the off-grid portion of driving. One lane of cross country overhead lines would probably cost less than building the charging system necessary for trucking plus all the huge batteries. Huge trucks could get buy with 100 kw instead of 1000 kw, which would also make a massive savings. But then we don't have sensible policies. I'd even be a fan of eventually regulating battery size maximums. Once charging speeds get high enough, there should be no reason to go over 50kw, and 20-30kw should do the job for 95% of use cases.

The power density refers only to EV batteries.

There’s no need for any inductive charging or automotive overhead lines when batteries are so cheap, dense, and fast-charging is in place. The capital cost and maintenance costs are exorbitant.

Long-haul trucks, trains, most aircraft and large maritime applications will use liquid fuels as their density is 10x batteries. My guess is ammonia fuel cells but there are a number of other synthetic fuels under development for either fuel cells or carbon-free/carbon-neutral combustion.

But let’s stick to Grid Storage in this thread.

 

[MediumRare]

I think many of you would be interested in this Thread as well:

Car Powertrain of the Future - E-Fuels, Fuel cells or Battery based

Here's a presentation from Maximilian Fichtner, he is Professor of Solid State Chemistry at the Ulm University, Director of the Helmholtz Institute Ulm and spokesperson of of the Cluster of Excellence POLiS. The POLiS cluster of excellence is Germany's attempt to catch up again with the leading...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MediumRare]

Follow the money.

 

[Willem]

It is happening fast, because of pressures from two sides.On the one hand the technogy for alternative sources of energy is improving fast, and on the other hand demand is increasing, not just because of price advantages, but also because more and more people are realizing that we have to move fast. This involves governments, but also private citizens who feel responsible for the future of their children and the planet. So investors see the writing on the wall for traditional fossil fuel. Economically this innovation can only be good.

 

[levimax]

Economically this innovation can only be good.

Economically good for who? All I see is massive misalocation of reasources. For example in Calfiornia the cost of residential solar panels went up 250% from 2020 to 2023 because of an expiring irrational Net Metering plan. Whether or not all these subsidies end up being good for the enviorment is an open question but I think it is clear that subsidies do nothing postive economically, they only enrich some at the expense of others and on balance everyone is poorer because of them.

 

[Willem]

Economically good for everone apart from those who stick to outdated technologies. These days new wind farms in the Netherlands no longer need subsidies and easily beat the alternatives, and unsubsidized private solar panels have been among the best ways to get a high return on your investment.
This is the whole point of Medium Rare's post: money is moving to green alternatives because they have become a better investment. This flexibility and openness to innovation is precisely why capitalism is such an engine for growth. The cold wind of creative destruction or something like this is what Schumpeter called it.

 

[MediumRare]

Economically good for who? All I see is massive misalocation of reasources. For example in Calfiornia the cost of residential solar panels went up 250% from 2020 to 2023 because of an expiring irrational Net Metering plan. Whether or not all these subsidies end up being good for the enviorment is an open question but I think it is clear that subsidies do nothing postive economically, they only enrich some at the expense of others and on balance everyone is poorer because of them.

With respect, your anecdote does not reflect the picture in other places. My panels have an IRR of 12%; electricity generation costs are dropping - as is the price of oil (down 20% in 5 years after inflation) due to less demand.

Take another look here: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...gy-technology-and-projects-no-politics.40753/

 

[levimax]

Economically good for everone apart from those who stick to outdated technologies. These days new wind farms in the Netherlands no longer need subsidies and easily beat the alternatives, and unsubsidized private solar panels have been among the best ways to get a high return on your investment.
This is the whole point of Medium Rare's post: money is moving to green alternatives because they have become a better investment. This flexibility and openness to innovation is precisely why capitalism is such an engine for growth. The cold wind of creative destruction or something like this is what Schumpeter called it.

I don't have any problem with captial moving to better new ideas but at least in the United States green energy has massive (In the Trillion Dollars Range) subsidies and as expected this is making a mess of rational capital allocation. Does the average tax payer really need to be giving $7,500 dollars to every Tesla buyer? In Sourthern California with electric rates between $0.45 and $0.65 per Kilowatt hour and lots of sun why do homeowners need massive subsidies for solar panels? The list goes on and on as $1,000,000,000+ of subsidies goes a long way to wrecking rational captial allocation and creates inequities and on balance makes society poorer. It would be interesting to see how the green economy would be doing without all the subsidies.... my guess is much better and cheaper and society would be much better off on balance.

 

[Ornette]

I don't have any problem with captial moving to better new ideas but at least in the United States green energy has massive (In the Trillion Dollars Range) subsidies and as expected this is making a mess of rational capital allocation. Does the average tax payer really need to be giving $7,500 dollars to every Tesla buyer? In Sourthern California with electric rates between $0.45 and $0.65 per Kilowatt hour and lots of sun why do homeowners need massive subsidies for solar panels? The list goes on and on as $1,000,000,000+ of subsidies goes a long way to wrecking rational captial allocation and creates inequities and on balance makes society poorer. It would be interesting to see how the green economy would be doing without all the subsidies.... my guess is much better and cheaper and society would be much better off on balance.

Do you realize that the Internet and world wide web were born out of research subsidized by the US (and other) government(s)? Feel free to prosecute your argument that "subsidies [...] on balance make society poorer" in that context.

 

[MediumRare]

I don't have any problem with captial moving to better new ideas but at least in the United States green energy has massive (In the Trillion Dollars Range) subsidies and as expected this is making a mess of rational capital allocation. Does the average tax payer really need to be giving $7,500 dollars to every Tesla buyer? In Sourthern California with electric rates between $0.45 and $0.65 per Kilowatt hour and lots of sun why do homeowners need massive subsidies for solar panels? The list goes on and on as $1,000,000,000+ of subsidies goes a long way to wrecking rational captial allocation and creates inequities and on balance makes society poorer. It would be interesting to see how the green economy would be doing without all the subsidies.... my guess is much better and cheaper and society would be much better off on balance.

Your numbers are suspect; please check and support claim of “trillion” of subsidies. Also recall the vast subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries. If you are paying 45 to 60 cents for electricity you seem to be overpaying by 50% to 100%. "Los Angeles area households paid an average of 26.9 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity in May 2023.”

 

[levimax]

Do you realize that the Internet and world wide web were born out of research subsidized by the US (and other) government(s)? Feel free to prosecute your argument that "subsidies [...] on balance make society poorer" in that context.

So without subsidies there would no internet?

 

[levimax]

Your numbers are suspect; please check and support claim of “trillion” of subsidies. Also recall the vast subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries. If you are paying 45 to 60 cents for electricity you seem to be overpaying by 50% to 100%. "Los Angeles area households paid an average of 26.9 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity in May 2023.”

Two wrongs don't make a right. See below from my Tesla battery app current energy costs in San Diego.

 

[blueone]

Do you realize that the Internet and world wide web were born out of research subsidized by the US (and other) government(s)? Feel free to prosecute your argument that "subsidies [...] on balance make society poorer" in that context.

This is misleading. The L3 and L4 networking protocols, TCP/IP, were invented by researchers Bob Kahn and Vinton Cerf, who either worked for the US government (Kahn) or in a funded university project (Cerf, who later worked at DARPA), but they did not build the internet as we know it. The World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee while he was at CERN, but your implication that governments subsidized the creation of the internet is wildly overstating the governments' contributions. In the US the physical public internet was funded and built by corporate Internet Service Providers. Even ARPANET, the original internet for defense supercomputing, was a relatively small project built under contract by BBN (a 20th century supercomputing company), which is now part of the defense contractor Raytheon.

 

[Ornette]

So without subsidies there would no internet?

It surely would have taken longer to manifest and would very likely have been poorer in quality/reliability. You seem to be arguing against all taxation and government spending as "making society poorer". Do you think we'd have landed on the moon sooner without government involvement? I could give you dozens of such examples, but don't want to derail the thread further.

 

[levimax]

It surely would have taken longer to manifest and would very likely have been poorer in quality/reliability. You seem to be arguing against all taxation and government spending as "making society poorer". Do you think we'd have landed on the moon sooner without government involvement? I could give you dozens of such examples, but don't want to derail the thread further.

My guess is the Internet would be "better" and what really was so great about rushing to the moon when that money could have been spent elsewhere and we would have gotten to the moon eventually anyway? I do agree to not derail this thread further, peace.

 

[Doodski]

what really was so great about rushing to the moon when that money could have been spent elsewhere and we would have gotten to the moon eventually anyway?

Technology trickle down effect hopefully occurred. The USA has the lead on aviation and that is the de facto lead globally. I hope that came about partially from the space program.