←back to thread

173 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.267s | source
Show context
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.42128314[source]
Perhaps someone with more knowledge can comment on why solutions like these can't be used to solve the energy storage problem. Is it just economics?

That is, renewables are now the cheapest form of energy by a significant margin, but they are unreliable with respect to timing, so a storage solution is necessary in order to provide electricity on cloudy days when the wind isn't blowing, at night, etc. Most of the research I've seen into solving the storage issue involves batteries or things like pumped hydro. If things like solar and wind were "overbuilt", could a solution like this be used to create hydrocarbons when there is excess electricity? Power prices already go negative in some places when it's particularly sunny/windy. If the excess energy at that time could be used to make gas that could then be utilized by gas plants, well then there is your net 0 storage solution.

I'm assuming solutions like this are uneconomic (and similarly with hydrogen plants, e.g. by using the excess renewable energy to generate green hydrogen by electrolysis for storage and later use), but I'd like to understand better why.

replies(8): >>42128347 #>>42128399 #>>42128417 #>>42128419 #>>42128435 #>>42128482 #>>42129586 #>>42129764 #
1. foota ◴[] No.42128419[source]
It's essentially just another form of energy storage. I don't think there's any deep reason why it is worse than the other methods currently available, it's just not cost competitive.

My understanding is that creating hydrocarbons is quite difficult and that you lose a lot of energy in the process. Otherwise, it would be a very compelling way of storing energy.

I guess for one, you have to get the carbon from somewhere, which means either taking sequestered carbon (which is counter productive) or capturing it from the air (expensive).