You must log in or # to comment.
From a grid stability point, you can’t produce more than is used, else you get higher frequencies and/or voltages until the automatics shut down. It’s already a somewhat frequent occurence in germany for the grid operator to shut down big solar plants during peak hours because they produce way more power than they can dump (because of low demand or the infrastructure limiting transfer to somewhere else)
Negative prices are the grid operator encouraging more demand so it can balance out the increased production.
If only there were some way to take energy made from sunshine and store it in some form for later. Like in a battery. Or as heat. Or in a flywheel. Or just use the energy for something we’d really like to do as cheaply as possible. Like sequester CO2. Or desalinate water. Or run industries that would otherwise use natural gas.
What is this “Battery” you speak of? The only Battery I know of is the Powder Battery on a warship.
I think they’re taking about battery chickens; just don’t tell the vegans that’s how we store electricity!
Makes me wonder how many chicks per second (CPS) factory farms use.
deleted by creator
Seriously if it was free for me to run a hot tub I would be a more relaxed person…but somehow these negative power prices never seem to trickle down to the consumer 🤔.
It still costs real money to maintain the infrastructure; so even if the power was always free; you would still have to pay something to cover the maintenance costs.
I’m thinking in the next several years the electric companies will only be maintaining electric lines as generation decentralizes
Lines, network transformers, insulators, surge arresters, reactors, sectionalizers, etc.
But yes
Yep, PG&E charges me a connection fee, a maintenance fee, and delivery fee. However the dynamic rates for electricity never go below $0.40 (and go up to $.70 with more price hikes in the works) even at the cheapest times when the state electricity market is at negative rates. Funny how that works.
deleted by creator
In that case it would even fix their negative price cost “problem”
This is what gets me. Relative efficiency of stuff is pretty much nullified when the energy used is free. Total power use still matters because it will determine the total size of the array of solar panels to generate the power needed.
But this is near and dear to my heart. I like hydrogen as energy storage. If you burn it, you get water. Natural gas is just CH4, so the output of burning it is 1CO2 + 2H2O. But a lot of natural gas stuff can also use hydrogen with little modification, so we don’t have to upend entire industries to adapt. Machines can be updated to use the new fuel type with little expense and we’re not throwing out entire production lines to replace them with ones based on electricity.
Why hydrogen? Simple, hydrolysis. Using power generated for free from the sun, you can split water into its base components. Hydrogen and oxygen. With some fancy knowledge, you can capture pretty much all of the hydrogen and none of the oxygen, and store it for use.
It’s inefficient compared to some other technologies, in that it takes a lot of power compared to how much hydrogen/oxygen you get, but bluntly, if it’s coming from solar, who cares? Not like we’re paying for the power anyways.
I keep thinking about this in the form of industry. Say a factory uses natural gas in boilers to make something hot. Whatever the material, whatever the reason, that’s what they’re doing. With little modification, the system can be adapted to hydrogen, and the company can build a hydrogen hydrolysis reactor on site using either city water, rain water, lake or river water… Even an underground well. The reactor runs all day and generates hydrogen, stored in a large, high pressure tank, also on site, then pipelines run it to the machines, boilers, whatever, to run the production lines. It’s free to run, and only requires a single capital investment.
Hydrogen, also, can be stored indefinitely and not “lose charge” unlike other, battery-based storage systems (or heat, or flywheels). So hydrogen is ideal for long term energy storage. Fuel cells are still the most efficient way to convert hydrogen to electricity, and yeah, you lose a lot of potential energy in the electrolysis/fuel cell conversions, but the energy input is free in the first place, so who cares?
I’m not saying we should go all in on hydrogen. I’m just saying that it’s worth continuing to develop the technology for it. Batteries, capacitors, storage via heat or flywheels, they all have their place in the energy future. At least until fusion makes them all obsolete (once we find a way to make that self fueling or use materials that are not extremely limited. IMO, we’re making good progress but we’re decades, if not centuries away from something practical, given our currently known planetary resources).
And yes, battery EVs are a good thing. Hydrogen electric vehicles… Let’s just say “too soon”, and leave it at that. Batteries for daily charge/discharge for home use, absolutely. Larger scale heat/flywheel storage, absolutely. But longer term than days to months, hydrogen may be the better option. It’s certainly a good option for industry that currently relies almost exclusively on natural gas.
Hydrogen is troublesome as an energy storage. The roundtrip efficiency (electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity) is just… very not worthwhile compared to batteries. Then beyond efficiency there is still the question of “how do we store hydrogen safely?”
Storing energy indefinitely is not a problem for electricity storage, since we are pretty much guaranteed to use the stored energy up in a single day.
Yep. When you’re using the energy quickly, within days or weeks, then hydrogen is extremely impractical.
The merits of hydrogen are in long term storage and cycles. A well built storage tank can last a lifetime. To be fair, a poorly built one might not last a year… So it’s very dependent on the external factors involved.
Batteries have their flaws, which I think we all know by now. Weight (regardless of state of charge), volume (energy density), charging speed, cycle life, etc.
It’s all about the application. Is the energy storage method going to be efficient for the desired outcomes.
Regardless of what other outcomes are in play, one that should be constant is to preserve the environment. Lithium technologies have reached a high level of development in recycling, so, for the most part, the environmental impact of end-of-life batteries is effectively mitigated to a large extent. This is a great thing that we have developed.
We need to do the same with solar PV panels, and mitigate as much of the environmental impact as we can from that as well. I know that’s something that’s being worked on, but we’re not at the same level of efficiency as we are with batteries, probably due to the comparatively long life of PV panels, vs the comparatively short lifetime of lithium cells. We’ve simply had a lot more lithium to deal with and find ways to recycle, so far. I’m sure PV panels recycling will come along as more early adopters upgrade to something newer, and more panels get into the stage where they need to be recycled. I haven’t checked in on PV panel recycling in a while so I’m not sure how outdated my information is.
To be clear, I am not, have not, and would never suggest that we move all our efforts into any technology, including, but not limited to, lithium, solar, wind, hydrogen, or anything else that’s been discussed. IMO, we need to leverage several technologies to achieve our long-term goal of global net zero, while meeting the energy demands of everyone.
I just feel like hydrogen is treated like a dead end technology, and I can’t blame the public for thinking so. A lot of the information about it as an energy storage solution is either very old, or still in its infancy. From electrolysis, which is a very old idea, to hydrogen fuel cells, which are extremely new by comparison. IMO, there’s a lot of work that can be done here, and we need to keep looking into it. Maybe it goes nowhere, maybe it becomes so practical that other solutions seem like shit by comparison. I don’t think either of those is likely, we’ll probably land somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I don’t know, and I’m not a scientist, so I’m just hoping we, as a society of people, keep working on it.
One thing I’m particularly excited for in this field is solid state batteries. But that’s also in its infancy. I know a lot of work is being done on them, so we’ll see what happens.
My point, if I have any point at all, is that we need to keep researching varied technologies for it. While solid state might be the right answer for EVs, and cellphones and most consumer electronics, they might not be the best solution for other applications. We need answers to energy demands of all sorts and giving up on something like hydrogen when there’s still research to be done, isn’t a great idea. We don’t know what researching a technology could uncover. Maybe an air battery that’s hyper efficient and has a high energy density, better than solid state technologies could hope to achieve. Maybe a lot of things. We just don’t know.
Let’s try everything and figure out what works for what application.
I agree that H2 can have certain applications as a bridge technology in some industries, but there is a very important parameter missing in your premise.
Even if solar power seems “free” at first glance it really isn’t. It needs infrastructure, e.g. Photovoltaic Panels and lots of it. So just having H2 instead of a battery for an application means, it needs thrice the PV capacity or even more and with it the grid capacity. Now add to that, we aren’t just talking about replacing electricity from fossil fuel plants by PV, but about primary energy as a whole, which makes the endeavor even more massive. Also H2 will not magically become much more energetically efficient in its production, transport, storage and usage, because there are physical limits. (Maybe with bacteria for production) The tech could and should get better concerning longevity of the electrodes for example. Also as the smallest molecule out there, storage will never be completely without losses. And long term storage requires even more energy and/or material.
All this is to say, that efficiency is still paramount to future energy supply, since also the material is limited or just simply because of costs of infrastructure and its implications on the biosphere. Therefore such inefficient energy carriers as H2 or what people call “e-fuels” should be used only where the enormous power and/or energy density is critical. H2 cars should therefore never be a thing. H2 or e-fuel planes, construction machines or tractors on the other hand could be more appropriate uses.
There’s certainly costs involved with solar. Even the act of cleaning the panels is going to increase maintenance costs. More panels to clean, more cost. More space needed for the panels, more cost. It might not be much per panel, but it’s still a cost. The wear of the panels is more cost, they only last so long before they degrade, and replacements are not free, so if the panels degrade without doing a lot of “work” (aka the outcome of having them) vs the cost of installing and maintaining them, was it worth it? These are all economic questions that also need to be considered.
Yes, it’s not free, but it’s the closest thing to “free” power we have. Literally pennies for gigawatt hours of output. If that power isn’t consumed, then it wasn’t useful to produce. Whether that generated power goes into batteries, homes, or hydrogen production, that’s going to be something we have to solve for.
I see a hydrogen reactor + fuel cell “generator” as a secondary storage system to batteries. When production is unusually high, push the power into hydrogen. It’s not nearly as efficient, but it can be stored for much longer without losing any. It can be stored far more densely than what can be accomplished by batteries. If the batteries are full and your PV plant is still pouring out unused watts, rather then let that energy go to waste, pushing it into hydrogen storage is a better option. If you don’t need it for 6 months, a year, two years? No big deal. When production is low and your batteries are almost out, just fire up the fuel cell and recharge from the excess energy you couldn’t put in the batteries. It’s inefficient, yes, but bluntly, it’s better than letting any of the excess production go to waste.
There’s other competing technologies for the same purpose. I see hydrogen as the second stage of storage. It’s not as good as the first stage, but it’s better than turning to fossil fuels to generate power.
I don’t know if that’s the right answer to the problem. I don’t know if it’s even a good idea. All I know is that it is possible. IMO, it’s not a bad idea.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if I’m saying anything at all here, it’s that we need to keep researching everything. I don’t want anyone to drop research on another technology to dedicate to hydrogen, just as I wouldn’t want anyone to drop hydrogen to research something else. We need to keep looking into this stuff.
There’s no single solution to our energy needs, as of right now. I don’t see one emerging in our lifetimes. The only goal I want to see pursued, if not obtained, is net zero for climate change. Stop the destruction of the environment, especially, but not limited to, our energy needs. Whatever gets us there, whether hydrogen, nuclear, fusion, solid state, flywheel, heat storage, thermoelectric, geothermal, hydroelectric, or whatever… I’m game. I feel like hydrogen still has a lot of discoveries that can be made, and I really don’t want to see it abandoned because of a lack of popularity in the consumer space. It’s there, it’s green, it’s got potential, let’s keep trying to get it to a place where it can be beneficial, just like with everything else in that market segment.
It is not only economic cost though. As I’ve mentioned, materials are also limited (on the same level as: There isn’t enough copper to wire all motors needed to replace all cars today with EVs). And it needs alot of surface area compared to the concentrated power plants of the past, which means an even bigger impact on the biosphere (especially if not done on rooftops in cities but in mountain ranges or fields, etc.). Don’t get me wrong; solar energy, if done right, is the only source that doesn’t interfere with natural cycles and does not increase entropy of the planet (which makes it actually sustainable). Using it inefficiently though, means inefficient use of other resources which are limited. (Not only economic. But on that note: Public infrastructure is always built with costs in mind, because we shouldn’t waste tax money, so we can do a better and more comprehensive job with what we have.)
So if there is a more efficient way to store energy for long periods, then it should take precedence over a very inefficient one. This will get complex since it is very much dependent on the local conditions such as sunshine, water sources and precipitation, landscape, temperatures, grid infrastructure and much more. As an engineer, I would throw in though, that if you need this secondary storage, that is not much cheaper, doesn’t have some very essential advantage, or doesn’t mitigate some specific risk, but is much more inefficient over your primary storage, then the system’s design is… sub-optimal to put it mildly.
For the argument of exploring everything: We simply can’t. More precisely we could, but it would need much more time, money and resources to arrive at the goal. And since climate catastrophe is already upon us, we don’t have that time and need to prioritize. Therefore a technology that has a physical, not human-made, efficiency limit loses priority as a main solution. That doesn’t mean, that H2 should not be looked into (for specific purposes, where it is essential or the reuse of existing infrastructure is the better option), but that we have to prioritize different avenues, with which we can take faster strides towards true carbon neutrality.
P.S. it doesn’t help, that today’s H2 is almost exclusively derived from natural gas.
H2 from natural gas is more efficient, but obviously creates pollution. Because of the relative efficiency and the prevalence of natural gas in society, most companies have gone to natural gas conversion to hydrogen, as it’s easier to implement, not because it’s greener.
To touch on it, when I’m discussing economics, I’m talking about the discipline of economics, not specifically the economy. The money economy is only concerned with the dollars and cents of everything, economics as a discipline, considers all factors, both in and out, and the adverse effects of everything, both financial and sometimes not financial (since nonfinancial effects can affect the future financial viability of a system).
I’ll be clear, storage isn’t the debate on hydrogen being inefficient. Hydrogen storage is more efficient than most other storage systems. The materials are minimal, a pressure tank with the appropriate seals and safeguards, and the tank can output 100% of the hydrogen that goes into it. There’s no concern with cycle life, as the system can cycle infinitely as long as the structure of the container isn’t compromised. The waste produced when a storage vessel is no longer suitable, is essentially metals that can be fully recycled or otherwise reconstituted into other items without any degradation in the quality of those items, with few exceptions.
The discussion is entirely around how hydrogen is created, and how it is converted back to whatever energy format that is desirable, such as electricity. Coming from electricity, electrolysis is about 70-82% efficient, with 1kg of hydrogen, which has a specific energy density of 143 MJ/kg needing about 50-55 kWh of electricity to create. The most inefficient part of the system is conversation back from hydrogen to electricity, where internal combustion style generators are common (basically a slightly modified natural gas generator), but less efficient than fuel cells. Fuel cells generally have 40-60% efficiency.
Batteries on the other hand have much higher efficiency, but never 100%. Since they’re generally not self regulating, systems for battery management are required. Charge controllers and voltage conversion (or inverters) reduce efficiency further, but generally battery systems are considered to be better than 90% efficient. The downside with battery systems is the relatively short life of the battery and the large amount of waste produced, in comparison with something like hydrogen.
Hydrogen can achieve much higher energy density and the container weighs next to nothing when empty, while batteries weigh approximately the same whether charged or not.
My main argument for hydrogen surrounds the fact that we’re pretty close. 80% efficiency in hydrolysis and 60% on fuel cells, with storage being significantly cheaper on materials and significantly better with cycles, with much less to recycle when the system is replaced or otherwise decommissioned. You can pack a lot more energy in the same volume of space using hydrogen compared to batteries because it can be significantly pressurized to several atmospheres.
There are benefits here that batteries simply cannot match. If we can get the fuel cells and electrolysis to a level that’s comparable to batteries with efficiency, then hydrogen would really become the better option.
With over 8.2 billion people on the planet, we certainly can research all of these options at the same time. Only a very small fraction is even doing the work right now. That number can increase a lot, but we choose to pursue what is financially profitable rather than purely looking towards scientific discovery. Capitalism at work.
If companies can’t sell it, they don’t care. So it doesn’t get done. We should do it anyways because there’s potential here.
There’s two problems with your last post which have to do with physics.
- Fuel Cells and the process of hydrolysis have a limit on their efficiency. Just like with ICEs there isn’t much potential there.
- Between Hydrolysis and the Fuel Cell, there are other lossy processes. Usually the tanks contain pressurized H2 and depending on the usecase even liquid H2. Modern automobile cases use 700-800 bars of pressure. That process is again at around 85% efficiency in a good case. Cooling applications further deteriorate the efficiency and need more energy for storage and/or losses during storage. There are other technologies in research right now, like metal hydride storage, where we’ll have to see what exactly they can do (right now we’re at the stage where we are promised an all-purpose hype, but mostly through the media and not the ones doing the work)
I’m not disputing that capitalism has it’s thumb on the scale; as you’ve written, the synergy to use H2 derived from natural gas is one effect, but it doesn’t stop them from advertising it as green. The physical limits though, one cannot argue with. Their effects would mean a lot more infrastructure that is necessary, with it more materials, which are limited too. Even if possible, we have limited construction capacity, which means that it would take us longer to reach the goal, when time is of the essence. Which leads me to the same conclusion, that where the advantages like power density isn’t absolutely necessary or other solutions are not available, use a better solution.
When speaking to the overall system, there are always inefficiencies with all forms due to the conservation of energy laws.
Similar arguments can be made regarding batteries, as resistance in the wires that connect the cells in a pack together waste power as heat. While overall this may be minimal, the physics provide hard limits here. Unless a superconducting material is made commercially viable without needing to be super cooled, these limits will always be nontrivial.
My entire point is, battery tech has reached a high level of development and there is significantly more we’re trying to achieve with the technology (whether solid state or otherwise), meanwhile, I would argue that hydrogen hasn’t even reached the same level of development as battery technology, yet everyone seems to think it’s a dead end.
It’s hard to argue with the energy density per kg of hydrogen as a material. It’s possibly one of the highest specific potentials of existing technology. What we should be doing is trying to create power from that with as few losses as possible. Fuel cell technology was, in my mind, the first real push in that direction, when it didn’t immediately pay off, we gave up. Meanwhile, alkaline and cadmium based batteries were much worse, but we used them, and continued using them for decades before lithium based batteries became more commercially viable.
I see battery research as looking for the last, most efficient type of battery, while hydrogen isn’t even half way through the possible research we could do on it. Forgetting hydrogen, while it’s in the infancy of the research, for batteries that are very nearly as efficient as physics allows for, to me, is doing ourselves a disservice as a society.
I have no idea what further research into hydrogen will yield. Maybe you’re right and it’s going to go nowhere, maybe not. We don’t know unless we keep trying, same with batteries, same with kinetic storage (flywheel/gravity systems), same with thermal storage… There’s just a lot of material science we can experiment with that wasn’t really something that was possible before now.
I still think it’s worthwhile, clearly you disagree. I appreciate the discussion either way.
Have a good day.
Or as heat.
We already have too much of that.
Or use it to generate hydrogen for simpler, cheaper, more reliable, sustainable hydrogen powered cars.
We don’t even have enough lithium to replace the average country’s existing cars, let alone all of them, or literally anything else that requires lithium.
Not sure where our good buddy @Hypx@fedia.io went, but let me assure you. As of right now, 100% of available hydrogen stocks are fossil fuels derived.
Hydrogen vehicles being green is a fantasy pedaled by fossil fuel companies to not have to move away from natural gas. While it is possible to generate hydrogen through electrolysis, functionally, none actually is. It’s far far cheaper to do so from natural gas, and probably always will be.
Promoting hydrogen as a “solution” is basically promoting fossil fuels green washing.
And I’m not sure where you are getting you information on lithium, but it’s probably the best short and medium term option. Beyond that, gravity storage (pump water up hills, and maybe some kind of hydrogen system that doesn’t require transporting the stuff where it can be made and stored in place when solar or wind energy is abundant.
Most battery chemistries are moving away from rare earth metals like lithium. Solid state batteries are the next step, and they use things like sodium cloride, I.E salt, as their base.
What that article describes sounds like an awesome development. Too bulky for vehicles at the moment, but possibly excellent for grid storage.
Hydrogen is a pain to deal with. It requires excessively thick walled containers to store etc.
A better solution is to do what plants do. Pin it to a carbon atom. Synthetic hydrocarbons would also be a lot easier to integrate into existing supply chains.
Pin it to a carbon atom.
Where’s the carbon going to come from? If it’s anywhere but the CO2 in the atmosphere (or at least sequestered on its way to the atmosphere), your energy solution isn’t carbon neutral anymore. And if it is from the atmosphere, then there are efficiency challenges there at concentrating CO2 to be useful for synthetic processes.
Most syngas today comes from biological and fossil feedstocks, so it’s not really a solution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Isn’t one the issues with hydrogen motors that they are a bit explodey? Genuine question, haven’t looked into it in a long time.
Pure hydrogen doesn’t explode. It’s only if you mix it with oxygen. The Hindenberg glowed red not blue
Good thing there’s no oxygen around then. Petrol doesn’t burn without oxygen either, but it’s still dangerous. Additionally typical fuel cell hydrogen cars, store the hydrogen in tanks up to 10,000 psi, which is where the explosion part happens.
Agreed. Petrol cars are also explodey. As are EVs. In fact most energy dense objects are explodey.
The issue with the 10000 psi tanks are the size and weight. Not the explodeyness.
Another huge expensive problem is transporting it is not easy. At room at atmospheric pressure and temperature, it takes up like 2-3 grams per gallon of space, making it super inefficient to transport.
You could pressurize it, but that makes it insanely flammable and a risk of it leaks. You could also cryo-freeze it, but that is also very expensive to transport, it require a lot of energy to freeze it, maintain it during long transports, and to unfreeze it at it’s destination.
Building a hydrogen delivery infrastructure is probably the best way to overcome this, but that would also take years and billions.
I’m no expert on the field, but I’d imagine a lot of energy departments would rather do that cost and effort towards building new green energy plants that can deliver power to grids rather than only help cars. Car-wise, most things are transitioning to hybrid or electric anyways, so they also benefit from a green power plant.
The only way I’ve seen hydrogen make sense is where it’s made and stored on site for later grid level generation. Transporting it makes very little sense for all the reasons you mentioned. Salt concerns and ammonia have both been discussed as potential storage options. But you wouldn’t move it around. Store it in a fixed location and generate the electricity on site. If you don’t have to move it, hydrogen might make some sense.
There are a lot more ways to store energy other than lithium and hydrogen.
Pumped storage, vanadium redox battery, sodium battery, … I’d even say they are most suited for grid-level energy storage.
I have doubts that hydrogen will ever work in any industry, but it definitely won’t work for cars. The storage and distribution challenges are never going to make it cost competitive with just regular lithium batteries on a marginal per-joule basis. Even if the energy itself is free, the other stuff will still be more expensive than just charging car batteries off the existing grid.
Literal free goddamn energy from the sky and these greedy fucks are going to burn the world down because they can’t flip it for a buck
It sounds dumb, but because you can’t turn off solar power, if it produces more then you need, you have to use it somehow or it can damage equipment. Hence the driving prices into negative territory. It’s a technical problem more than it is a financial one.
It is a financial problem. Technically you can just cover the solar panels. But that’s not good financially.
Your “technically you can” is actually a huge logistical nightmare to implement.
Having electricity rates go really low is intended to incentivize people or companies to sink the excess energy to wherever they can. And also to discourage producers to produce more at that hour, if they are able to.
Logistical problems are still financial problems though. That’s my point. Hire enough people/develop the appropriate automation and the issue is no more.
We have the technology to solve this, the problem is the money.
In fact, you could just buy enough batteries and the problem will also go away. Still a financial problem, not a technology one.
EDIT: just to clarify, if at some point energy prices go negative, it means that it is cheaper to buy energy usage than a solution. Unless the energy company is dumb enough to just lose money for the lazyness of considering other options.
You could spend the money, but you also need to consider whether that money is well spent. Batteries do not last forever. Maybe that money is better spent on R&D to develop better batteries first. Also natural resources and environmental impact needs to be considered. Batteries take natural resources to build and also occupies a lot of space.
20 years ago, we also have the technology to run AI workloads. Except we probably had to deploy billions of CPUs to match the capability of today’s GPUs. We have the technology then, but it is not practical. And that money was much better spent in the R&D that lead to today’s GPUs. So similarly our batteries probably needs to be a few magnitude better than what we have today before it is practical to use.
Really? I’m seriously asking, because I thought solar farms already had automated ways of cleaning off the panels, surely an automated way to cover the panels wouldn’t be any more complex than that. It would add maintenance costs for sure, but calling it a logistical nightmare seems like an exaggeration.
Most use a horizontal single axis configuration and could just tilt the panels away from the sun.
The real question that we should be asking, is why nobody can think of what to do with free energy?
Desalination? Mine Bitcoin? Giant space laser?
It’s not a question of ideas, it’s a question of money. Building things to use excess power costs a lot of money.
In some markets, the power price actually goes negative and consumers can be paid to use energy.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/20/energy/three-mile-island-microsoft-ai/index.html
I think there’s plenty of money out there to use excess power, someone just has to connect the dots…
Or in a pinch: just run big-ass space heaters. Seriously. It’s a stupid way to burn off excess power, but it’s dirt simple and cheap. Just have a big array of resistive heaters out in an empty field somewhere with a high fence around it. Need to burn off an extra GW? Run it through massive heating elements and burn burn it off. It’s a stupid waste of good energy, but as an emergency backup, it’s not a bad option. It’s trivially easy to dispose of huge amounts of excess electricity if you just run the mother-of-all space heaters. Run your stupid giant resistive heater at the bottom of a lake for even better effect.
You need to consider more than just solar farms. There are many roof top solar systems on people’s houses. That’s what I’m referring to regarding logistical nightmare.
Second, if we are just going to cover up solar panels, then it really defeats the purpose of having it. A better way is to come up with ways to store this excess energy to use when there is low production and not have to depend on fossil fuels at night.
Yeah I understand storing and using the energy is obviously a better solution than to stop producing the energy. But in the short term, in the context of large solar arrays, until we have storage solutions or ways to use* the excess, covering the panels up or turning them to face the ground for a bit doesn’t seem like a very big logisticical hurdle.
There are many roof top solar systems on people’s houses. That’s what I’m referring to regarding logistical nightmare.
Are there really enough residential rooftop panels for this to even be a problem? And couldn’t it be solved just by installing a battery for your home to store the excess? Again, if you could explain how this would be a logistical nightmare for my ignorant self, I’d appreciate it.
Afaik photovoltaics are fine running open circuit, i.e., disconnecting them. Thermal solar, and wind, are (I think) much trickier (but covering things for solar thermal, like you suggest, is perhaps feasible).
“Damaging equipment” is just nonsense. I’ve got an off-grid solar system. When the battery is fully charged the solar panels simply stops producing. It has potential (voltage) but no current until you draw power. Just like a battery is full of energy but it just sits there until you draw power from it.
All solar systems could have smart switches to intelligently disconnect from the grid as needed, some inverter already do this automatically. So it’s not a technical problem. It’s a political problem.
This can cause degradation of the PN junction on the panel shortening life. The plans I’ve seen all have a resistive heater some place to dump the excess when full. Smart equipment does help mitigate most issues like moving the resistance point on the panel for lower efficiency when signaled to do so but less is not the same as none.
How does it damage the PN junction of the panel is open circuit or barely loaded? It doesn’t seem logical that this would damage the panel, but I’m open to being proven wrong.
There are all kinds of follow up questions to ask as well, but I think the main one is how big an effect are we talking?
Not a huge effect now with smart systems but if you leave solar panel disconnected from everything and out in the sun for weeks at a time you will damage the panel. Open circuit voltage is higher than operating voltage and higher voltage will break down insulation. PN depends on the insulating properties of a doped layer. If I remember correctly electron tunneling causes damage by making the band gap smaller
Concentrated solar and wind are a bit different though?
It is a technical problem of how can you convince electrical companies to overcome a problem they have no financial incentive to solve.
that’s not a technical problem. that’s a weakness of the people’s resolve problem. we can, at any time, force them to do the right thing.
I’m aware its not a technical problem, I was using the word ironically to point out the person I was responding to was wrong to say it…
Also saying we can at any time fix a problem is just being ignorant of the many near impossible steps needed to fix the problem. In this case the problem is capitalism. We could come up with ways to end capitalism or make capitalism work in the interest of humanity, but will it realistically ever happen? No it wont, private money won, look at the topics discussed for presidential debate, never a mention of doing something about private capital owning Washington. Just super effective wedge issues.
You’re being too broad. We don’t need to undo all of capitalism here. Nationalising the electric grid is a reasonable solution to this particular problem.
What incentive does a politician have to support nationalizing the power grid? It wont be a super splashy issue to tackle so it isnt worth doing it for the credit, and the different power companies of the world will just put their money into buying opposition to your effort anyways.
That’s the problem with capitalism is that any single thing you would want to do that would impact some cocksuckers capital, and the threat alone makes it a necessity to pay to win in congress. Usually the only way stuff like this happens is because there is new capital entering the market that can afford to donate against the old capital to overtake them. Its just rich assholes all the way down.
If the government seizes control of a major industry, that’s a lot of power and opportunity for politicians. It’s already been done in some local areas, and it had the broad support of the people because “the electric company is gouging us, the gov should take it over” is an easy sell.
Factorio players: hold my beer
Sounds like energy companies or independent entities should invest in energy storage so they can get paid to draw from the grid.
But then you’ve got cities like Morro Bay, CA that are trying to stop a plan to replace a coal plant with a battery storage facility because batteries are supposedly dangerous.
Gotta love any time anybody argues against replacing coal with something else, and the tactic is to spread FUD about the thing that is NOT coal!
Can they not route excess electricity into the ground?
No, unfortunately, you can’t.
Ground doesn’t typically dissipate power, rather, power is dissipated in the circuit/load — so if you just hook a wire to ground, you’re dumping gobs of power into the wire. If you do this in your home (DON’T), best case it will trip the breaker, worst case it will melt and catch something on fire.
It’s easy enough to burn a kilowatt — just boil some water. But it’s entirely something else to burn megawatt, or yikes, gigawatt scale power.
It seems braindead simple to me to work some controls into an industrial scale solar array to manage its output by regulating its input. Like, rotating the panels to put them out of their optimal alignment with the sun or mechanically partially covering them with shutters.
Simple but extremely expensive.
Didnt Nikola Tesla try to sell Westinghouse on providing free unmetered electricity to everyone on earth and got laughed out of the room?
Yes, because Westinghouse was running a business.
you know we could just put our collective foot down and take the power away from them.
In this thread: a bunch of armchair energy scientists who think they’ve solved the energy storage problem all on their own.
Theres tons of ways that people with even a little brains could figure out, the problem is often cost or feasability.
A big burried water tank in my yard could be heated during the day and used to warm the house via underfloor heating at night, could do the reverse with chilled water in the middle of summer plumbed to an air recirculator with a heat exchanger. Its really simple engineering but expensive to implement.
I think an awful lot of people just dont understand the sheer scale of a lot of these problems, not the fundamentals.
an awful lot of people just dont understand the sheer scale of a lot of these problems
Sheer scale is why we’re in this mess to begin with. Coal power for a population of 50M people living on either side of the Atlantic isn’t what caused climate change. It’s the scale up to provide power for 8B people that’s broiling the planet.
“Ah, but you don’t understand! There will be engineering obstacles to upgrading the grid!” is shit you can say when you aren’t spending billions to maintain the existing fossil fuel infrastructure that’s currently in place.
We have the capacity to reorient our economy around a predictable daily regionally glut of solar electricity. We already exploit time variable ecological events to optimize consumption. And we built out a global grid 40 years ago to handle logistics at this scale. You can move electricity from coast to coast and we routinely do. This isn’t an impossible problem, it’s just one that Western financial centers in particular don’t want to invest in solving.
It’s always economics.
There’s a joke I’ve heard that says something like anybody can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build one that just barely stands (i.e., one where the materials and labor actually cost money).
That also reminds me of my first router - it was my PC. 10x the cost and 1/10 the features of a purpose built router, but I already had the computer and just needed to provide internet to 1 or 2 more via Ethernet.
Likewise, it’s easy to design energy storage concepts of all kinds. It’s a lot more tricky if you want it to be economically viable and see mass adoption.
A lot of energy storage solutions do exactly that - use heat as energy. i.e. solar heads rock, sand, salt etc. and then later on that heat is turned back into useful energy - either pumping water around households to heat them, or to drive a steam turbine. The bigger the volume of rock / sand / salt, the more efficient the process is.
I think salt would be easier than water, mostly due to water expansion characteristics, but that’s just my opinion.
Oh yeah,I’m no expert. I can see salt being problematic if the system sprung leaks and contaminated the soil which wouldnt be uncommon once you have tens of thousands of houses rigged up. Im pretty sure most water based systems just use water and antifreeze.
Point is that the fundamentals are simple, when theres excess electricity and nobody is home convert it into stored thermal energy that can be used later when people are home, the devils will be in the details.
Viable solutions with sand or rock have been developed and I expect over the next few decades a large number of such projects will be produced.
The sand silo heating projects that I’ve read about are used to feed the excess energy from electricity to central heating. The heat can be stored for months, but converting it back to electricity wouldn’t be very efficient. It’s “only” viable in places with district heating.
There are other power-to-x technologies out there, like splitting water to hydrogen and oxygen, and these are all good ways to use excess energy, but they won’t help on stabilizing the electricity production. Hopefully these technologies can create enough demand for electricity that the prices will always be worth it for the producers, so they can begin (over)producing enough renewable energy to cover the baseload at all times.
The gas production in early 1900s sort of did the same. The gas was produced for heating and light, but the byproducts of gas production lead to all kinds of other very cheap chemicals and products. Similarly we need to think of excess electricity as a very cheap byproduct and invent uses for it, instead of attempting to “balance” it.
In my opinion, this shows why privatization of electricity production is an obstruction. It would have been easier to transition completely to renewable energy if it was a state monopoly setting a fixed price to enable overproduction without regard to price fluctuations.
Solution: Don’t be fucking greedy. Take what’s you need. Stop taking when you’ve got enough.
Do you think energy company scientists are gonna tell you what’s real, or will they tell you what their boss pays them to say? I’ll take the armchair scientist. YouTuber scientist preferably.
Managing an energy grid is an incredible feat of engineering and the fact that some countries have basically 24/7 constant voltage electricity is nothing short of a miracle.
And yes I will trust the academics and engineers who have spent ages documenting these processes and building the solutions. I studied this for a while at university. Every professor in that field is an environmentalist and guess what they still taught us about the issues with solar and wind instability and energy storage.
most armchair ass comment I read all day lmao
Oohhh, you’re one of them. You’re gonna preach to people that they shouldn’t just get batteries eh? Your economy of scale means nothing while your bosses are charging more than that efficiency does for me. It’s cool to engineer big awesome stuff that’s so capable, but not when it’s a leash. I don’t think you’re incapable. I think your industry is greedy and has leverage that nobody should have and pretty much won’t work anymore.
There’s nothing wrong with getting a battery, especially if you have solar panels. What I’m saying is we can’t cover everybodys needs with them right now, both economically and materially.
What industry are you talking about?
Why not?
the amount of batteries we’d need would require an insane amoint of lithium, plus lithium ion batteries don’t last that long and need to be replaced after a few years of heavy use
No it wouldn’t. They don’t have to be lithium for houses. Houses don’t move.
This is idiotic. The fact is your electricity transmission system operator has to pay a lot of money to keep the grid stable at 50 or 60Hz or your electronics would fry. With wind and especially with solar power, the variable output is always pushing the frequency one way or the other, and that creates a great need for costly balancing services. Negative pricing is an example of such a balancing service. Sounds good, but for how long do you think your electricity company can keep on paying you to consume power?
People also don’t realize that too much power is just as bad as too little, worse in fact. There’s always useful power sinks: pumped hydro, batteries, thermal storage, but these are not infinite.
Stupid question but can we not like, make toggleable solar panels? Like if I Just pull the plug extracting power from a solar panel does it explode or break or something?
Not really. You can discharge into the ground, but for large installations even the ground has a limited (local) capacity.
Edit: explain yourselves, downvoting cowards
Could they not just break the circuit for the panel, and stop it feeding back into the mains?
Yeah. My understanding is that most large solar complexes don’t have this capability, at least not in any efficient automatic way, but most home solar systems do.
- Unplug solar panel array
- Less electricity being generated
- …
- Profit (for the power company)
My understanding is that most large solar arrays don’t have this capability in any sort of automatic way, and at these levels of power it’s a bit more complicated than “just unplug it”.
This seems like a massive oversight on behalf of the park designers.
One of many issues caused by the assumption that solar would only ever be a minor part of the grid.
most large solar arrays don’t have this capability in any sort of automatic way
Look at this “manual” unplugger:
and at these levels of power it’s a bit more complicated than “just unplug it”.
Unplug many.
“Everything is so fucking simple that I can easily figure out the solutions to giant societal problems with 15 minutes of googling” is the dumbest take I’ve heard all day. Granted it’s only 6am but still.
Maybe you’re not fucking Sun Tzu, Einstein and Jesus rolled in to one and there might be the occasional issue that’s slightly more complicated than your armchair quarterback solutions.
Christ you people piss me off.
I have no idea what i am talking about… But what would happen if you pulled a black tarp over the panel? Could even be automatic like the blends on a building. And even partial.
That’s extremely expensive and not really scaleable.
You’re telling me a toggleable panel that flips when it needs to is too expensive? You’re already installing the panels. You’re already doing all that. The only difference is the material on the back side of the panel and of course some sort of crank and shaft to rotate it.
Or if only there was some sort of powered component that could rotate it when it reached the capacity you know since the name of the game is power
Solar panels are very cheap, and any modification, even just a moving cover, greatly ramps up prices. No, really.
We just need a lot of panels to generate significant amounts of electricity, which would necessitate a large cover or a lot of mechanisms - which would get expensive on that scale.
In addition to what allero said, you seem to only be considering future installations rather than existing ones. Retrofitting existing equipment is massively more expensive than changing a design prior to building it.
Solar panels are easily disconnectable. Unlike conventional power plants it does not have spinning rust, that can walk away entire building.
Sure, but for all the times my electricity goes negative for half an hour, the monthly bill indicates that is vastly outweighed by all the times that it isn’t.
Why isn’t this as easy as storing some of that excess energy in a home battery and letting the rest down in a wire into the ground? Then if it’s smart enough it could only give back energy when needed.
The easiest solution is to send the power somewhere else where it can offset the use of fossil fuels. This solution is fraught with political hurdles, subject to market forces (due to privatization) and often grid compatability issues(looking at you Texas). It is, however, a time tested and common method for mitigating excess production.
While water in pipes is often a metaphor for electricity, it’s not particularly useful here. You can’t ground out part of a charge. Energy storage is the solution though. Batteries are good, pumping water up back up into dams to be regained from a hydro plant when needed is ideal, as I understand it.
Well, that’s what they’re doing some places. The batteries assets are not in private homes usually though, they’re by themself or run by power-consuming industries. Batteries are expensive though, and they degrade quickly if you use them wrong. In the EU, ENTSO-E defines the market rules, trade systems and messaging systems that energy companies and asset owners play by. Sometimes the revenue-generating asset is a battery, sometimes it’s a hot water boiler, wind park, factory, hydro plant etc.
Just have few percent of spare capacity. If suddenly it will become too sunny, you can just disconnect solar cells. If not sunny enough, then connect them back.
Obviously I’m talking only about day - the only time when solar panel output can fluctuate.
This whole thread has way too many people who see the price as some kind of made up number that dictates how people behave, rather than recognizing that the price is a signal about the availability of useful real-world resources.
Even if the prices were strictly mandated by a centrally planned tariff that kept the same price throughout the day, every day, we’d still have the engineering challenge of how to match the energy fed into the grid versus taken out of the grid.
The prices are just a reflection of that technical issue, so solving it still needs to be done.
pay a lot of money to keep the grid stable at 50 or 60Hz or your electronics would fry
Absolutely not. Please don’t make things up.
You’re answering the wrong questions. I don’t think people are assuming that it’s simple to manage the power grid (if so, they shouldn’t be…) but rather why are we locked into a system that lets business profit motive be responsible for the continued existence of the ecosystem.
With wind and especially with solar power, the variable output is always pushing the frequency one way or the other, and that creates a great need for costly balancing services.
Speaking as a flashlight enthusiast…there’s many different ways to get a constant and consistent current. Sure we’d need to scale it up from a pocket-sized device to a whole fucking power grid, but with a big enough driver with the right arrangement of capacitors and all that, you’d easily be able to get a totally consistent current out of wind or solar
Having knowledge in power electronics i can confidently say the DC output of solar is easily and regularly inverted in phase with grid. In fact, DC is often used for undersea cables switching AC to dc then back to AC, All at extremely high voltage and varying demand(up yo 600kV/600MW but varying by installation).
Wind turbines go online after the blades start spinning and connect to the grid in the same way as any other generator, controlled by internal electronics. Power is regulated through blade feathering and can be turned off as supply exceeds demand. This, other than for maintenance reasons, is why you might see one turbine spinning while the next is standing still. This capability actually means the grid is MORE stable with wind power.
Any further fluctuation is managed in the same way as conventional power generation.
sounds more like we should just change away from a shitty system that needs to be a specific frequency. If only there was an alternative…
What alternative are you suggesting?
Higher frequency and voltage tolerance
high voltage DC, it was a bad idea in the past due to the difficulty of changing voltage, but Buck boost converters exist now, as due inverters.
Tell this idea to an electrical engineer, and bring a stopwatch to time how many minutes they laugh for
Now imagine replacing all transformers with buck-boost converters…
Nah. We’ll go more primitive. We’ll do all our voltage and AC/DC conversions…mechanically! Do what they did to power DC subway systems back at the start of the 20th century. Just have a big AC motor directly coupled to a big DC generator! And we can use gearing to convert voltages! Let’s bring a needlessly complex and steampunk aesthetic to our electric grid!
Amazing! Every word of what you just said is wrong.
You’ll need to be more specific.
To start the frequency of the electricity isn’t the issue. Second all modern electronics use switching power supplies which don’t care about frequency. That’s two incorrect things just in the second sentence that they literally said was fact.
I’m pretty sure that “your electronics” in this context is most likely referring to the grid operator’s electronics, not individual personal devices. In that case, frequency is extremely important- if you like grid stability and dislike blackouts, that is. 😅
That’s a ridiculous way to define “your electronics”. The original commenter was trying to fear monger with incorrect information, and you are jumping to protect them. I didn’t realise the grid owners had astroturfers in the fediverse.
I read it more as “your personal electronics won’t enjoy the brownouts and blackouts from having shitty frequency stability on the grid” more so than “your personal electronics will directly suffer from frequency instability,” but maybe I read it with subtext because I’m literally studying power systems right now.
So are you studying to protect the ghouls or fix them?
We have a union. Watch out.
I’m not remotely worried. I know the IBEW will protect me.
…are you okay? You seem primed and ready to correct and attack people. Chill out, man.
I’m primed to correct FUD. If that means I’m not OK so be it. Love the textbook ad hominem by the way. That’s a classic that never goes out of style.
This reminds me of a quote (that probably isn’t real) from Westinghouse to Tesla in regard to wireless energy transmission he was trying to create.
“This is wonderful, but where would we put the meter!?”
This is a real problem for renewables.
You don’t get paid when the sun shines, and you don’t get paid for when it does not.
You had to pay for building the solar panels and maintaining them. Corporate greed aside none sane would like their tax money either to be spent on producing electricity when it’s not needed.
Next step for renewables must be storage that is cheap enough for it to beat having fossil fuel on standby.
The “problem” of negative energy costs is easy to solve, but quite costly.
Build water desalination/carbon capture and storage/hydrogen generation plants that only run when the price goes below 0; even though these are very energy intensive, they would help stabilize the grid.
Then build more solar; you want to try to have the daytime price stay in the negative as often as possible.
The solution we’re using instead of course, instead of all that environment crap you suggested, is running huge crypto farms only during the hours when the energy is in surplus.
To be fair; this is a valid use case.
If you are a solar power producer; rather than offering your energy at -ve rates; run a crypto farm when the output is too high. This is far better than running the same farm on coal.
But it would be better going into something useful.
I want to pre-empt the argument from the Bitcoin people that while this is a logically sound argument for how Bitcoin mining could potentially help the environment by making renewables more economically feasible, using this argument to describe Bitcoin mining electricity usage is completely invalid—Bitcoin mining as it exists today does not merely use excess renewable energy; it consumes energy even in times of demand when it could be given to residential, commercial, or industrial customers. Without the excess demand from today’s Bitcoin mines, the capacity that is freed up can be used to close fossil fuel power plants.
CCS would be much better than bitcoin; even though CCS is very inefficient; if the power price is effectively -ve; that means that you are only paying maintenance costs to run your CCS
To be clear, Bitcoin mining will never help the environment. There are ways to reduce it’s negative effects though
So if a large region (say europe, or USA + canada) is cloudy and without wind, then all transactions must stop and the remaining countries are susceptible to represent over 50% of the hashing capacity. A perfectly sound system I’m eager to see.
Build water desalination/carbon capture and storage/hydrogen generation plants that only run when the price goes below 0; even though these are very energy intensive, they would help stabilize the grid.
Basically opportunistic energy consumption.
you want to try to have the daytime price stay in the negative as often as possible.
That’s not exactly conducive towards people building more solar.
The solar isn’t the goal; the energy is enabling the value in other parts of the economy.
In fact; energy supply is so important to the reasonable functioning of the economy. It should be taken out of the profit driven cycle of business.
Look at what happened with WPI in Ohakune and PanPack when energy prices sky rocketed a few months back.
Even if our energy market wasn’t profit driven, we would still have a shortage of energy, and either we would be burning up fossil fuels at an astonishing rate and a huge loss, or a number of heavy power users would be shutting down.
Price is one way we have to control demand, but if we didn’t use it, we would need another system instead.
Didn’t China have a community use lots of solar and they ended up with such a glut of excess power that they didn’t know what to do with it?
All communities should have that. Electricity should be free and it would be plausible to make it free. Except for maintenance costs, but that would be peanuts compared to what we pay now.
Would it really be peanuts? Solar panel manufacture isn’t exactly cheap, nor entirely sustainable (see, for instance, the black market for sand; and economics/politics over lithium mining). Solar panels also degrade; new technology replaces old and has to be paid for and made and installed; the infrastructure tying it all together isn’t free either…
I feel like solar power, for all its excellence, is not as simple as upgrade as my rts-/tycoon-/sim-gamer’s mind thinks it should be.
Upgrading is never simple or straightforward. But it is something we need to do otherwise we won’t have a planet to live on.
Agreed, but there’s a real cost involved and a real cost analysis to do. Like with the question of people upgrading to more efficient cars (and scrapping the old) or running the old for longer to minimise car manufacture.
So what they are saying is that our current financial system is too focused on short term gains to cope with short term losses?
Sigh, when I grew up, I was allways taught to save money so that I have a buffer to fall back on. This concept seems to have completely gone out the window for busniesses lately.
I dislike the talk about how capitalism is bad as a general concept, but when seeing stuff like this I do agree with it in parts.
Ok, so let’s solve the issue.
There is too much electricity, so generating power to transmit to the network will cost us money.
This has an easy solution, just don’t transmit it to the network.
Build a battery facility where you store the power instead, infact if the price of electricity is negative, use the power on the grid and charge your batteries as well, I mean, when the electricity cost is negative, you are being paid to consume power.
Then when the sun goes down, and the electricity price goes up, you sell the charge you have in the batteries.
Depending on your location you could even set up a pumped storage system, where instead of batteries getting charged, you use the cheap excess energy to pump a resarvoir full of water, and release it when you need the power.
it’s long past time we took businessman out of control and replaced them with scientists.
In which case they would choose Nuclear over Solar 9/10 times. I’m onboard
They would probably use nuclear for base load, until something better is found. But it won’t “replace” solar.
With AI we will need loads of base load
Nuclear has few advantages over solar.
Solar + batteries.
~$1000/kW vs $6 - 10,000/kW in 2018, it is cheaper today; projected costs to drop to as low as $560/kW in 2050.
Add in the ~$150/kWh of grid scale storage with the associated switchgear to connect it to the grid.
For a 10MW + 20MWh solar system; you are looking at approx $13,000,000 + install costs of probably $2-3,000,000.
I’m on board with whatever the scientists conclude. I’m not a scientist, so if they say nuclear, I’m behind nuclear. If they say solar, I’m behind solar. If they say wind, I’m behind wind. Trust scientists. If you’re trained in science, definitely verify - there’s some bad science out there for sure. But if you have no expertise in the area, just trust the scientific community.
This might not be the case anymore, now that solar is dirt cheap.
But, as another commenter said, I’m onboard with any decision that scientists (including both energy and climate sciences) and engineers come up with working together.
I don’t know a single who would, including myself.
Do you like… have an allergy to good ideas?
The down voters and you should maybe reread my comment and the one I replied to… Sorry to burst your bubble.
I did, it looks like an illogical dislike of nuclear. Not sure if it’s ignorance or just an emotional response but you might want to do some research. A lot of people don’t like things they don’t understand.
No they wouldnt
Source: my ass
Source: worked with scientists for years. Theres a certain irony here when you made your claim without sources. Also you are very rude
deleted by creator
Sounds like Communism to me. That system killed 100 gorillion people.
Dr Seuss made that??
Here’s 390 of his political cartoons:
https://calisphere.org/collections/26157/Edit: the one that was posted is from 2024-07-10
Or put the batteries in your home, charge it during the day on solar or whenever electricity is cheap, and use it whenever.
It can even be less dense batteries that you don’t need to put in cars.
deleted by creator
I was tempted by the outrageous electricity prices a year or two ago.
But then I swapped to Agile Octopus which pretty much halved my bills and made it not really worth doing. I work from home most of the time anyway, so my usage is spread over the day.
Yup that’s the free market , if someone can see a business case in operating a big battery by taking money to use the excess power and then again taking money to sell it back when needed everyone will be happy. Of course doing that will reduce the price difference
The real issue isn’t the overproduction per se, but that we (globally speaking) don’t have enough cheap scalable responsive distributed storage. I’m writing this from a privileged position since Switzerland has loads of dams and can pump water during such peaks. But it’s clear that’s not the solution everywhere. I hope a good cheap mass producible battery tech with less rare earth metal requirements comes along soon.
I applied to a company called Form Energy with a really interesting solution. They use the cheap simple ingredients of iron and water to rust and de-rust iron to store and release energy. It’s less efficient than lithium-ion batteries but the cost is low and scalability is enormous. If it can make it past all of the hurdles and regulations it could be the solution to the energy storage problem for wind and solar.
Looks like the US has one in Tennessee, place called Raccoon Mountain, in the 1970s. At the time, the power source was to be nuclear. Another large scale project is being built near Seattle, with enough stored energy for 12 hours of electricity for every residence in Seattle. Pretty cool that such a conceptually simple technology can solve these problems.
That’s not what they were saying, they were saying that it’s not economical to have an abundance of electricity when people need it the least, and little or no electricity when people need it the most. It would be one thing if utilities could sell solar electricity at peak demand hours for a higher price, to make up the difference, but that’s just when solar generation is slowly down significantly or stopped entirely.
And, yes, I know that battery storage could theoretically solve this, but battery technology is not currently capable of providing electricity for the entirety of the time we need it. New technologies are being developed right now with the goal of achieving long term grid storage, but they are still in the R&D phase. I’m confident a suitable storage technology, or multiple technologies, will eventually come to market, but it’s going to take a while.
Regardless, it is likely we will always need some kind of on-demand power generation to supplement renewables and maintain grid stability, and I think nuclear is the best option.
But we shouldn’t act like the problem is that utilities are just greedy. Many utilities aren’t even for-profit companies, as many are either not-for-profit cooperatives or public entities. Sure, there are also many for-profit power utilities as well, maybe even some with connections to the fossil fuel industry, but generally power utilities are not some great villain.
A thing you can use which gets forgotten often in the conversation is “natural” / physical batteries, or better put stores of latent energy. Essentially, “push heavy thing up hill, make it come down later”.
I know little about it, but you can release the kinetic energy stored in heavy objects at higher altitudes basically whenever, using say a dynamo on the wheels of a wagon of heavy rocks you previously pushed uphill.
There have been proposals for technology like this. Putting a motor above an abandoned mineshaft and suspending a weight. Charged by raising the weight, discharges by lowering against a load.
The issues is the capacity ends up being pretty tiny, not really at a grid level.
You’d need a TON of motors to get to something a grid could actually use to stabilize, and by then the economics don’t work out. Let alone the actual space requirements of that many motors
Additionally, a lot of the advantages of batteries come from local storage, where you don’t need to transmit the energy long distances anymore, and these “natural” batteries tend to take up a lot of space.
A better and more accessible form of “natural” energy storage are already in most homes. Heat pump water heaters in homes could do things like make the water extra hot during solar hours, when power is cheap, so they can make it until the next morning without turning back on.
Or with better building envelopes (insulation) we could run more cooling during solar, maybe even make a ton of ice. Then later in the day, when solar drops and the grid load peaks, you can still cool the building with ice.
The physical battery idea has been a thing for decades in the form of a pump storage plant where during times of excess electricity, they pump water up a hill, and when power is needed it works like a hydroelectric power plant. The problems with these however is that in order to get a meaningful amount of power and longevity, you need a lot of water and space to build one of these which makes them massive and expensive up front. I have one near me, but I also live near one of the biggest lakes in the world, which helps.
Yes, pumped storage is definitely an existing technology that serves this need. I live near a massive one as well. However, large-hydro recently has not been considered as renewable form of generation due to the disruptive impact it has to local ecosystems.
I know in the US, new projects do not get approved due to permitting and water board issues. So I don’t think we’re going to see any new construction.
For the longest time I thought people who had solar panels had a battery on their property somewhere, they’re panels would charge battery and they would only switch to the grid if their battery ran out.
I don’t know much about it, but this seems like a pretty viable solution and I still can’t believe this isn’t how it works.
Yeah you can do that. Not everyone does
that requires specialized equipment other than the battery. you need to generate AC from the DC of the panels and battery, and the easiest way to do that at the right frequency and phase is to follow the grid. that’s why most solar installations stop providing power without a grid connection; you need a wave to sync with.
if you want to be truly independent you need your own wave forming equipment. and not the cheap stuff either, like the 12V inverters for cars that give out square waves. that’s fine for like a drill, but plug a computer into that and there’s a chance it fries. it won’t charge, at least not for long.
also you need extra safeguards to not fry electrical workers when they disable the grid and your power comes flowing the other way.
abundance of electricity when people need it the least
Isn’t peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?
it’s not economical
Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical
No, peak generation in most countries is in the late afternoon when people come home from work, the ac kicks on, people start to cook + do other things around the house. You typically see a double- peak, one in the morning and one in the evening, although it varies based on the seasons. I’m an engineer who works in renewable energy and the stated problem is real- solar generation doesn’t line up very well with grid demand. You can work around this with energy storage but that is an expensive solution
Isn’t peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?
I can’t speak to other countries, but in the US peak electricity demand generally occurs in the early evening.
Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical
Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, “well, screw producers,” but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can’t do that if the amount of electricity you’re generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that’s good for consumers, but I’m sure you can see how that’s not a sustainable business model. And, like I mentioned before, it would be one thing if utilities could make up for this by selling for a higher price during peak, but by that point the sun is either setting or already set, depending on the time of year, so there’s just no solar electricity to sell, at any price.
Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, “well, screw producers,” but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can’t do that if the amount of electricity you’re generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that’s good for consumers, but I’m sure you can see how that’s not a sustainable business model.
Fully agreed: let’s eliminate business from the issue, and create national, for-service electric grids, that produce the cheapest renewables at all possible times in the most efficient way possible, disregarding hourly profit and taking into account exclusively the cost in €/kWh produced over the lifetime of each energy source.
Suddenly it’s obvious that the problem isn’t with renewables, but with organising the electric grid as a market
Public utilities still need to cover their expenses, and they’re not going to be able to do that if they’re charging negative rates in the middle of the day and have no electricity to sell once the sun goes down.
Do I really need to explain the concepts of taxes, subsidies, or fixed prices regardless of demand, to an adult?
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that public utilities should be funded from taxes instead of charging for service? I don’t think having tax payers pay public utilities to overproduce electricity is going to fix the problem, especially since no amount of tax dollar funding can allow utilities to produce solar electricity when the sun isn’t shining.
The solution is obviously not exclusively from pricing models, we need other energy sources than renewables for the time being, that doesn’t mean we need to have market-based electricity pricing.
Imagine the state installing as many solar panels as society, guided by experts, democratically decides it wants, basically deciding as a society the energy mix instead of hoping that companies will install enough if we bribe them enough with taxes to do so, and if it’s profitable. Then, it decides a pricing model based on a mixture of subsidy and incentivising consumption during production hours.
Problem solved, innit?
I mean, “economy” fundamentally is the allocation of limited resources, if something is limited at a point when it’s needed, then economical doesn’t sound like the wrong word to use? (I’m aware economical means cheap, BTW)
I really like your response. Right behind you about energy storage.
Whoever cracks that nut is an instant billionaire in my opinion. The first cheap, effective, and practical storage technology is going to change the world. But we’re not there just yet.
I’m curious on your statement about nuclear. While I do think nuclear is a great energy source, I’m not sure I agree on the on-demand part.
Our current nuclear plants take hours or even days to start up and wouldn’t provide enough reactivity for a highly renewable grid. Are you referring to a future Small Modular Reactor technology? One with a significantly faster startup and ramp rate?
The real special bit is that this crap isn’t coming from, say Harvard, who one expects is all about business, but MIT which is supposed to be about Science and Engineering.
The media arm of MIT has been steaming garbage for years and constantly misrepresents the studies from their own researchers for clickbait.
But that aside, even though the engineering work out of MIT is solid, their economic opinions heavily reflect the fact that it’s an institution full of trust fund nepotism.
Well then there is another way of seeing this: there is an engineering/difficulty with such large power fluctuations that “drive electricity prices negative” because it implies a much more variable demand on existing power infrastructure.
You’re way better at this than the clowns in the MIT press department and you only tried for a few seconds. Which means the people who wrote the headline are either so stupid they can’t tie their own shoes, or they have a malicious agenda. I lean towards the latter.
The grid needs to balance input and output. You can’t just “throw away” power.
It’s a real problem — not the “electric companies are losing money” part, but the “we need to keep the grid balanced” part.
That can indeed be a problem.
It is however not what the MIT guys wrote as being the problem: they quite literally said the problem with too much solar generation at peak times is that it drives prices down.
Also, curiously, the prices being driven down actually helps with the real technical problem that you point out: those consumers who can move their consumption times will tend to move them to those hours when the prices are lowest thus helping solve it. Same thing goes for investors: the more the price is pushed down at peak solar production times, the more appealing it is to invest in things like storage or even solutions with lower efficiency (such as green hydrogen or electricity transportation cables to markets less well served by solar).
The low prices aren’t the problem from a technical point of view, quite the contrary: they’re an incentive to invest in solutions (which is going to employ a lot of techies, so supposedly MIT would be all in favor of it)
