Posted on 02/23/2023 1:44:42 PM PST by M. Dodge Thomas
Many stakeholders are pinning their long-term storage hopes on lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery storage solutions, with this market expected to grow by almost 20% per year between 2022 and 2023, according to Precedence Research.
But the reality is that, although Li-ion batteries have an important role to play on the road to net zero, this technology is neither robust nor versatile enough to single-handedly fulfill energy storage requirements.
As a result, a diverse range of alternative grid-scale solutions that can deliver an unprecedented expansion in storage capacity are needed to offset our reliance on Li-ion batteries and drive the renewable energy transition.
(Excerpt) Read more at energy-storage.news ...
Wind / Solar + batteries can already underprice open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) peakers in many locations.
Now we are at the point where some of the proposed alternatives to conventional battery storage can start competing head-to-head with cycle gas turbine (CCGT) generators for primary generation.
And if current cost trends continue, and ANY of the more cost-efficient expensive storage are validated at scale, by 2025-27 newly ordered Wind / Solar + storage at utility standard reliability will be the lowest cost power in most locations.
If so we will well be entering an era of energy independence AND cheaper electricity.
You want CHEAP electricity? Go nuclear.
And for alternative fuel sources:
https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html
Battery storage of energy is just too wasteful of resources, when used on any more than very specialized applications.
What are you babbling about.
The first paragraph said:
"...Dubbed the “decade of delivery” by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the ‘Decade of Action’ by the International Renewable Energy Agency, the 2020s is a crucial decade for the energy transition. However, to realise the full potential of renewables and meet ambitious energy transition objectives, we must have the capacity to store energy more effectively..."
These people are not our friends, FRiend, and I suspect you may know that already. I want cheap energy as much as the next person, but the things outlined in this article are not going to do it. Anytime I see the word "decarbonization", I move on, because accepting that premise we need to do that means accepting a lie and the entire logistical tail of tyranny and control that goes along with it.
This is not the path.
Some may be useful, and it is true that many mickles can make a muckle.
The pumped hydro concept has been used in a lot of places, I have one less than fifty miles from my house that they pump water to a reservoir at the top of a mountain at night when energy is cheap, then drain it during the day to generate hydroelectric power when energy is expensive. I am good with that, but it isn't going to be a solution. I like the concept of bladders filled at different depths and such, but knowing the sea as I do, and the problems of things that live at sea, this isn't a solution, although I admit I find it fascinating that the environmentalists haven't gone after them with tenterhooks because they interfere with the North Atlantic Shad population or something.
To say it is an improvement of LION batteries is damning with faint praise.
He is optimistic, as we would all like to be, but as I say in my post above, these people the author is referencing are no friends of liberty.
Exactly. But hey, unless we get a license to line the reactor cores with the bodies of conservatives, climate deniers, or racists to provide shielding, I have given up on the concept of common sense solutions to energy problems.
I am into any concept that leverages nuclear power from pebble bed reactors to thorium reactors, but...stupid people are in power, and stupid people hold the keys.
Just think of the momentum associated with the rotation of the earth. All we need to do is attach a huge gearbox (step up) to the north or south pole (or both!) and tie it to a bank of generators.
and when they go up in flames where will you get your power
Does your cost observations take into account federal tax credits? I would be surprised if any renewable/storage options are cheaper than gas/coal generation when you take out subsidies and tax credits. Even with those incentives and growing renewable penetration, electricity costs are rising dramatically everywhere.
Hahahaha! But… But what if global warming stops the earths rotation? Would be totally screwed!
Hard to say...
But, solar panels and a large Liquid Metal battery would give a site a real UPS advantage. Like in Reno....
Nuclear power available 24/7.
Search: How much land area does a power plant take up?
A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate.
Search: how much uranium to power a nuclear plant
How much uranium is needed for a nuclear power plant?
About 27 tonnes of uranium – around 18 million fuel pellets housed in over 50,000 fuel rods – is required each year for a 1000 MWe pressurized water reactor. In contrast, a coal power station of equivalent size requires more than two and a half million tonnes of coal to produce as much electricity.
_________________________
How much electricity can 1 gram of uranium produce?
about 1 MW
The fission of 1 g of uranium or plutonium per day liberates about 1 MW. This is the energy equivalent of 3 tons of coal or about 600 gallons of fuel oil per day, which when burned produces approximately 1/4 tonne of carbon dioxide.
________________________________
Search: How many acres do you need for a power plant?
Depending on the specific technology, a utility-scale solar power plant may require between 5 and 10 acres per megawatt (MW) of generating capacity. Like fossil fuel power plants, solar plant development requires some grading of land and clearing of vegetation.
________________________________
Wind and solar have already PROVEN to be the most expensive form of energy on the planet. There’s nothing on the table that can change that. The useless pipe dreams in the article certainly won’t. Wind and solar are certainly not ‘free’ like claimed by the zealots. Oil is just as free. There’s no bill from mother earth for any of them. The cost comes from getting the energy to where and when it’s needed in a form that can be used. That’s why wind and solar are the most expensive.
Still not thinking outside the box.
Uranium-fueled Light Water Reactors are OBSOLETE. Newer designs are available, and could be put into mass production, using modular design, trucked to site, and be up and running within WEEKS. These newer designs use a far smaller quantity of uranium to be operational, and when the energy is down to a level where useful heat is no longer available, the module is pulled out, sent back to the manufacturer, and recycled with a new charge of nuclear fuel. And the land requirements? We are talking about less than ten acres for a multiple installation, to perhaps no more than an acre for a specialized application, like a remote area, or a military post.
I am all for any kind of piecemeal solution…EVs, as currently constituted, are no rational solution for transportation energy usage. Coal fired vehicles.
IMO, Treating these as any more than focused solutions to specific problems is wasteful at best, and foolish and destructive at worst.
Agreed. Modern solutions to obsolete nuclear power technical problems are readily available. But the Left has salted the ground so thoroughly that nobody is even allowed to discuss them.
We (the US) should be world leaders in this technology, but that is not allowed either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.