I’m certainly no expert here, but just throwing out some rough estimates of battery degradation, it doesn’t seem to be cost-effective vs natural gas, which is already only slightly more expensive than solar. So solar plus battery storage seems to be significantly more expensive than natural gas.
It’s certainly more complex than that (i.e. you’d need less generation if battery backup is plentiful), but that’s the data I’m looking at.
No, the point is to put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas is way cleaner than coal, and it’s quite a bit cheaper (from what I can tell) vs battery storage. Everything has a cost tradeoff, and the cost tradeoff for natural gas is very attractive right now. Maybe we’ll develop some really inexpensive energy storage (sodium batteries look promising), but regardless of what we come up with, there will be a transition period where we roll it out, and natural gas is a fantastic alternative until that’s done because supply lines are already in place.
gas turbines are also fantastically versatile. any petroleum fraction lighter than grease, ethanol, biogas, syngas, hydrogen, ammonia, really anything that burns and can get through nozzle can be used as a fuel. if you have a carbon-neutral source of liquid fuel that can be stored, you have carbon neutral peaker plant
Which is why hydrogen is so interesting to me, especially solar-generated hydrogen. It’s a pain to store, but if it’s used relatively quickly, the losses should be small enough to make it worthwhile. AFAIK, most hydrogen generation is powered by fossil fuels, but there is a path for shifting to renewable generation. I’m a big fan of warehouses generating their own hydrogen and supplementing it with grid-powered hydrogen generation because there’s a path toward full renewable hydrogen.
I don’t know how hard it is to transition a natural gas plant to a hydrogen plant (or other fuel source), but I do think any step that reduces our emissions is a step we ought to seriously consider taking. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
easy high power generation from hydrogen would be in gas turbines, but this will have horrendous roundtrip efficiency. which is why it’d be better to soak up peak power in hydrogen and use it for non-power uses, like ammonia and then fertilizers, or direct reduced iron, or various hydrogenations in fine chemicals segment. these things take a solid chunk of energy to make. it’s net positive because it replaces gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming while storing hydrogen is pain it’s easier than electricity, and some intermediate can be stored too if hydrogen consumption can be surged
Which is why hydrogen is so interesting to me, especially solar-generated hydrogen. It’s a pain to store, but if it’s used relatively quickly, the losses should be small enough to make it worthwhile.
The pain with hydrogen storage isn’t just leakage (which is a huge problem because of how small the molecule is), but energy density. Gaseous hydrogen needs either extremely large containers or really extreme pressures (meaning thick, heavy, expensive) and even then its not very much energy storage. To get even higher density requires liquification, which means which is only reached at −253°C (−423°F), and that also requires large expensive machinery and energy to run it.
Unless you’re changing hydrogen into something else (like ammonia), hydrogen isn’t a great solution for energy storage or transportation.
Not for transportation (e.g. pipes), but it seems pretty good for localized energy storage, like for forklifts/heavy machinery at a warehouse/factory. It’s probably not a good fit for grid scale storage, but who knows, maybe we’ll find a use case to replace natural gas plants for night-time generation. I don’t think hydrogen cars will really be a thing, but maybe hydrogen long-haul trucks or trains could be (i.e. machines with predictable stops where they can refuel).
Yes, the current state is a pretty near constant improvement on standard of living and a pretty steady decrease in greenhouse emissions (at least in the US) despite rising population and access to gadgets. Electric vehicles exist because capitalists found a niche and exploited it at a time when battery densities could finally support a reasonable range. Rooftop solar exists because people care and can afford to place them on their houses. Governments came in later to help encourage those, but the tech existed before the subsidies did.
Capitalism isn’t the enemy, it’s merely a force that can be channeled to create a lot of good in the world. If a society sets up the right incentives, capitalism is incredibly efficient at meeting the demand.
So we shouldn’t be destroying the economy to combat climate change, we should be channeling the economy to combat climate change. For example:
carbon taxes on everything - coal would get taxed out the nose, while solar would pay pretty much nothing, with natural gas falling somewhere in the middle
eliminate subsidies and loopholes - charge big trucks significantly more for damage to roads, which makes things like fracking a lot less attractive (if they have to pay to repair the roads they tear up, costs go way up)
remove protections for corporations - arrest execs instead of just issuing fines for irresponsible, greedy behavior that hurts people
Most of the reason renewables are less attractive vs fossil fuels is because fossil fuels don’t need to pay for negative externalities like pollution. If we add that in, the market will adapt and change their operations to reduce costs.
Just from looking at some government studies. This doesn’t necessarily compare longer-term costs, but it does give some direct comparisons between storage options.
I’m certainly no expert here, but just throwing out some rough estimates of battery degradation, it doesn’t seem to be cost-effective vs natural gas, which is already only slightly more expensive than solar. So solar plus battery storage seems to be significantly more expensive than natural gas.
It’s certainly more complex than that (i.e. you’d need less generation if battery backup is plentiful), but that’s the data I’m looking at.
But how can one consider natural gas? The whole point is to avoid getting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?!
No, the point is to put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas is way cleaner than coal, and it’s quite a bit cheaper (from what I can tell) vs battery storage. Everything has a cost tradeoff, and the cost tradeoff for natural gas is very attractive right now. Maybe we’ll develop some really inexpensive energy storage (sodium batteries look promising), but regardless of what we come up with, there will be a transition period where we roll it out, and natural gas is a fantastic alternative until that’s done because supply lines are already in place.
gas turbines are also fantastically versatile. any petroleum fraction lighter than grease, ethanol, biogas, syngas, hydrogen, ammonia, really anything that burns and can get through nozzle can be used as a fuel. if you have a carbon-neutral source of liquid fuel that can be stored, you have carbon neutral peaker plant
Which is why hydrogen is so interesting to me, especially solar-generated hydrogen. It’s a pain to store, but if it’s used relatively quickly, the losses should be small enough to make it worthwhile. AFAIK, most hydrogen generation is powered by fossil fuels, but there is a path for shifting to renewable generation. I’m a big fan of warehouses generating their own hydrogen and supplementing it with grid-powered hydrogen generation because there’s a path toward full renewable hydrogen.
I don’t know how hard it is to transition a natural gas plant to a hydrogen plant (or other fuel source), but I do think any step that reduces our emissions is a step we ought to seriously consider taking. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
easy high power generation from hydrogen would be in gas turbines, but this will have horrendous roundtrip efficiency. which is why it’d be better to soak up peak power in hydrogen and use it for non-power uses, like ammonia and then fertilizers, or direct reduced iron, or various hydrogenations in fine chemicals segment. these things take a solid chunk of energy to make. it’s net positive because it replaces gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming while storing hydrogen is pain it’s easier than electricity, and some intermediate can be stored too if hydrogen consumption can be surged
The pain with hydrogen storage isn’t just leakage (which is a huge problem because of how small the molecule is), but energy density. Gaseous hydrogen needs either extremely large containers or really extreme pressures (meaning thick, heavy, expensive) and even then its not very much energy storage. To get even higher density requires liquification, which means which is only reached at −253°C (−423°F), and that also requires large expensive machinery and energy to run it.
Unless you’re changing hydrogen into something else (like ammonia), hydrogen isn’t a great solution for energy storage or transportation.
Not for transportation (e.g. pipes), but it seems pretty good for localized energy storage, like for forklifts/heavy machinery at a warehouse/factory. It’s probably not a good fit for grid scale storage, but who knows, maybe we’ll find a use case to replace natural gas plants for night-time generation. I don’t think hydrogen cars will really be a thing, but maybe hydrogen long-haul trucks or trains could be (i.e. machines with predictable stops where they can refuel).
It might be cheaper but that is a pure capitalistic point of view. And capitalism is what brought us to our worlds current state
Yes, the current state is a pretty near constant improvement on standard of living and a pretty steady decrease in greenhouse emissions (at least in the US) despite rising population and access to gadgets. Electric vehicles exist because capitalists found a niche and exploited it at a time when battery densities could finally support a reasonable range. Rooftop solar exists because people care and can afford to place them on their houses. Governments came in later to help encourage those, but the tech existed before the subsidies did.
Capitalism isn’t the enemy, it’s merely a force that can be channeled to create a lot of good in the world. If a society sets up the right incentives, capitalism is incredibly efficient at meeting the demand.
So we shouldn’t be destroying the economy to combat climate change, we should be channeling the economy to combat climate change. For example:
Most of the reason renewables are less attractive vs fossil fuels is because fossil fuels don’t need to pay for negative externalities like pollution. If we add that in, the market will adapt and change their operations to reduce costs.