• eicker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Batteries would like a word. They’re already storing solar power, getting cheaper, and improving at a pace nuclear construction schedules can only dream of. For longer gaps, pumped hydro and thermal storage can pitch in. Turns out the answer isn’t one magical box, but a bunch of technologies that actually exist.

      • AppleMango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        From what I know, for large scale solar farms, batteries arent there yet. The maintainance and replacement costs cut into the money saved by using solar by quite a lot.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 minutes ago

          Not enough to reduce the benefits to zero and that’s all we need. As improvements come in you can upgrade the batteries over time and get better and better margins. But the system is already good enough for deployment.

        • redballooon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          From what I know there are many many many such projects in the permit phase in Germany, all of them run on capitalist interest without state funding. The only thing between now and them getting build is our government which seems to prefer a 180° turn into the fossil age.

      • denial@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        For long term storage most countries will need more than pumping hydro. But green hydrogen can be produced from wind and solar to use in times of need in claasic power plants adapted for hydrogen. This technology also exists. But it is very inefficient, so should and will he used only as a backup.

          • redballooon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            But it can be stored as Methane in exactly those containers that many countries already have at a large scale for their winters.

    • redballooon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      That’s an argument from 2017. Today the Technologies are there, and we can build it on scale. Battery for short term, green gas for the longer term.

      • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 minutes ago

        It doesn’t really matter what we have if it’s not commercially viable, or we are missing something from the supply chain.

    • Quacksalber@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Adding to the other answer, for longer lulls in energy generation, the power can be used to create hydrogen gas that can be burnt in gas plants.

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Right, because hydrogen is not working. It’s expensive to produce but most importantly incredibly hard to store and very dangerous if it catches fire.

        • Quacksalber@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Because hydrogen-ready power plants are not the same as natural gas power plants, as hydrogen gas is not a drop-in replacement for natural gas. And right now, when natural gas is still relatively cheap and renewable energy is not yet absolutely dominating the energy mix, politicians are fearing the cost of building the infrastructure for generating, transporting, storing and burning hydrogen gas.

          In the future, hydrogen gas plants promise to be the best fit to pair renewable energy with, but right now the cost of it and the availability of fossil fuels do not force the hand of the people responsible for planning the future of the energy grid.

        • jagermo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, yeah, same arguments as with solar, too expensive, not feasible, yadda yadda. Always the same.

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            No, it’s different with hydrogen. If you want green hydrogen, you’ll waste at least 50% of energy. Then there are storage and flammability etc. We have everything we need for using hydrogen today, but somehow it is not used besides minor experiments.

            • jagermo@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Yeah, but does energy waste matter if the other option is that you turn wind or solar input off? It should not run during high peak, of course, but if there is more energy in the grid than it uses? Turn it into hydrogen.

              And storage, strangely that safety topic never gets raised with nuclear. If we can build safe nuclear, we can build safe hydrogen storage.

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                52 minutes ago

                True, if we have huge surplus of renewables, then the cost doesn’t matter that much.

                As per storage. Nuclear is far less problematic to handle in many aspects. Hydrogen is notoriously hard to store and if we go at scale, there would be massive amounts of hydrogen stored everywhere. A tiny spark away of a huge bomb.

              • Soggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                If we can build safe nuclear, we can build safe hydrogen storage.

                They’re facing entirely different problems.