←back to thread

173 points rbanffy | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.621s | 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. cyberax ◴[] No.42129586[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?

Yes. If you round-trip energy through hydrocarbons, then you have to pay the "Carnot tax". Your heat engine will be at best around 50% efficient at transforming hydrocarbons into energy. This is then compounded with the inefficiency of reducing carbon dioxide to get maaaaybe 20% round-trip efficiency.

And all of this with a huge capital cost.

replies(1): >>42129880 #
2. outworlder ◴[] No.42129880[source]
The tax is fine _as long as_ it doesn't have to be transported, assuming the energy would otherwise be wasted.

Which is why hydrogen solutions for stationary storage could be interesting, but the moment you start transporting them around they become less useful.

replies(1): >>42130217 #
3. cyberax ◴[] No.42130217[source]
I'm not seeing that. Hydrogen requires a ton of very expensive infrastructure for storage. Its density is impractically low for storage in tanks, it can't be liquified under reasonable conditions, and reversible hydrogen-binding materials so far have all been duds.

If you happen to have an underground geological storage available, then it might be reasonable. Right now, there's a demonstrator project for that ongoing in Germany. I guess this qualifies as "local"?

So yeah, if you need storage for 3-12 hours of runtime, then batteries are fine. Sodium batteries are probably going to fit this niche once they become cheaper. Anything more than that is a big gaping hole in the renewable story with no good solutions.