←back to thread

131 points mg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
zizee ◴[] No.26598033[source]
I think the future will be robust national/international grids, with a mixture of storage options (batteries/pumped hydro) to smooth out the intermittent nature of wind and solar.

Cynics always talk about the amount of energy storage required for solar as if you need to store 24 hours of energy for solar/wind to be viable.

I'd like to see numbers on having 1 hour of storage for peak demand, a robust national grid, and appropriately provisioned and placed solar and wind, taking the duck curve into consideration.

replies(6): >>26598222 #>>26598329 #>>26598526 #>>26598746 #>>26599340 #>>26599508 #
manfredo ◴[] No.26598222[source]
Even achieving just one hour of storage globally amounts to 2.5 TWh of storage. By comparison the entire world produces ~300 GWh worth of lithium ion battery annually. That leaves geographically limited options like pumped hydroelectricity, and solutions not yet deployed at any significant scale like hydrogen fuel cells, synthetic methane, thermal batteries, flywheels, etc.

Realistically we should saturate daytime energy demand with solar, and if there aren't any scalable storage options by then switch gears and proceed with hydroelectric where it's viable and nuclear where it's not.

replies(7): >>26598287 #>>26598427 #>>26598481 #>>26598549 #>>26598594 #>>26598763 #>>26599062 #
nicoburns ◴[] No.26598287[source]
> Even achieving just one hour of storage globally amounts to 2.5 TWh of storage. By comparison the entire world produces ~300 GWh worth of lithium ion battery annually

... so if we could increase battery production by just 10x, then we could create an hours worth of storage every year. That seems... very doable.

replies(2): >>26598326 #>>26598345 #
1. thiht ◴[] No.26598326[source]
That sounds extremely expensive and not very green.