Another very important point is that batteries are only good for about 10 years with daily cycling. A nuclear plant's useful life can be extended to 80 years.
And the shorter operating lifetimes of solar and wind can be made even shorter by hails storms, tornados, and hurricanes which have virtually no effect on nuclear plants. These weather driven outages of solar and wind take a long time to repair and happen when the power is needed the most.
I generally agree, but let's comment on one thing here:
>This means that it cannot even store enough electricity to replace one typical power plant through a summer night (realistically, the shortest duration that is useful for a fully renewable electrical grid).
As I understand it, the way utilities are using storage right now is to bridge the gap between peak solar irradiance and peak load. Which is only around ~3-4 hours on a typical day. I suspect this decision is probably economically rational, given the (mostly IRRATIONAL) political constraints that utilities are operating under to increase their share of renewable generation. If renewables can do something, ANYTHING to contribute to peak load, that's valuable to utilities operating under these constraints. But batteries need to become a LOT cheaper to begin to be useful for any other purpose.
Yes, currently electricity storage is very limited in duration, as my example in the article illustrates. Advocates for solar and wind, however, want to push way beyond just short-term load-balancing within a summer day.
If that were the extent of what is being done and the practice is restricted to regions with high solar radiance, then I would not object too much.
I would argue that a better strategy is to get rid of all the Green energy subsidies and mandates and let utilities get back to focusing on cheap electricity and stable service.
I disagree that anything that contributes to peak-load is equally good. Natural gas plants can very easily deal with the problem. If they can do so at a cheaper cost to utility-scale batteries, then that is the best strategy.
The problem is that with our current Green energy subsidies and mandates, these utility decisions do not factor in the future cost of electricity.
Public utilities are heavily regulated, and they make a fixed profit with every hardware investment. So they have a strong profit motive to spend more money, particularly if that type of energy is heavily subsidized by the federal and state government.
I can agree with all that. I suppose I really just want to emphasize that the relationship isn't linear because the first MWh of storage capacity has a lot more marginal value than the last MWh due to this load-balancing benefit. Meeting 100% of the hypothetical 24/7/365 all-renewable storage need would cost a lot more than 100x as much as meeting 1% of that storage need, when viewed from the standpoint of the total energy system.
Right. This is the elephant in the solar plant. 4 hours of backup isn't much good during a prolonged dark, overcast sky during the days the grid is down.
Michael, there appears to be a minor issue with adding replies to or at the bottom of the web page, such that the "Post" orange button is mostly hidden by a banner across the bottom of the screen. Not sure that you can do anything about it, as it appears to be a Substack issue, but ????
It still works, barely, but adds uncertainty while making replies in that part of the display.
Yes, I have noticed that the overlays on the Comments page are interfering with clicking buttons. This may be the same issue. It appears to be a Substack-wide issue. I have reported it to Substack.
You might report it along with a screen capture so Substack will be able to fix the problems.
It may only be a problem when there are enough comments to fully fill the screen?
Or a few longish ones?
Yes, I think I confirmed it is only a problem when the comments (already posted or being written) extend beyond the full screen display. The orange button drops below or behind the banner or overlay, while the space available for commenting continues to move upward to allow adding more text.
It does not seem to matter if the Button reads "Post", "Reply", or "Save".
The analysis says we shouldn't prefer batteries over nuclear if we could build both in 2024. But, of course, building a nuclear plant in China takes 5 years (they have about 20 under construction, and we will soon know much more about nuclear costs) and here, more like 10 years.
So you have to compete, not just with the lithium-ion batteries of 2024, your investors in nuclear must be courageous about the batteries of 2034. Price declines in lithium-ion may be running out, but the article doesn't touch on the prospects for other battery chemistries, such as sodium, and the iron-air batteries now being manufactured by Form Energy in Virginia. They are being specifically designed to provide grid storage at a fraction of the price (and up to 120 hours duration) of lithium ion.
It's not a bunch of substackers you have to convince, it's bankers with ten billion dollars to invest. They have got to be wary of renewable prices expected in the 2030s.
Thanks for the comment, but I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say.
Yes, batteries could get significantly cheaper in the future, but I am not trying to predict the future. It is today's prices that matter for today's energy investments. The "next big thing" often turns out to not be as great as predicted, so I will wait and see.
Utility-scale batteries are being produced largely because of government subsidies and mandates, such as the IRA. Without them, the scale of production would be much less.
In North America natural gas is far more cost-effective than either nuclear or batteries.
Sorry, the point was that the nuclear plant would have to compete with the alternatives of "2034", not today. If the nuke plant of 2034 is selling 7x24 power at night for $100/MWh, and the battery installs of 2030 are running against them at $90/MWh, the nuclear plant may have poor returns.
An investment is only concerned with the costs of today, but must be concerned with the revenues of tomorrow. Coming years will bring greater challenge to nuclear plants unless they can also display a cost-reduction curve. (As they may, in coming Chinese R&D).
Investors need to make back their investment, so they must be concerned about competing prices when the power plant goes into full operation and beyond.
That is, by the way, one of the big advantages of natural gas. The plants are the most inexpensive of any type, the fuel is cheap (at least in North America), and new plants can be deployed in less than one year. So new natural gas can make up their investment in about the same time span as it takes to construct a nuclear plant.
Great article, Michael. It made a subscriber out of me. This is your first post I've been exposed to and it is good to see someone further away from me on this issue using solid data to back up claims. I want to push back against a few things in the article, however.
I don't think it is appropriate to use the term "over-building" when referring to batteries as in your point #2. If solar/wind generate 10% additional power than is needed during a time window and we use batteries to shift that 10% to a time window where the power is needed, this is not "over-building". The battery was required to time-match generation and load but this is not "over-building" as in your point #1 where we would have to physically build more panels to supply renewables during most* times. In the battery case power output would match closely to installed capacity. In the latter case power output during most of the day would be drastically less than installed capacity.
Regarding your point #3- I am struggling to see how this is a delta from any other source. Whether you build solar, wind, nuclear, gas, coal, or other you will need transportation lines. The only generation technology that is an outlier here is off-shore wind. If I put a solar farm in a location or a coal plant in a location the grid connected transmission distance is little different.
Don't be so quick to handwave pumped hydroelectric storage. "...that have largely already been harnessed by traditional hydroelectric dams." is not accurate. Pumped storage can't be as liberally placed as a shipping container of batteries but we are far from "using up" all the hydro storage options. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/pumped_hydro_atlas/
Finally, several times throughout the article you mentioned that renewables are "unpredictable" and I don't think this is the most accurate wording. Solar/wind output is predictable. What it isn't is "stable". Intraday generation varies but we typically know well ahead of time what it will be so that adjustments can be made at other generation sources. There are public sources typically provided by governments as well as private corporation that provide these services.
I did not go into detail on the 5 options, because they were not the point of the article. I was trying to point out the various options that impose system costs, so I could focus on one: utility-scale batteries.
I don’t think that I referred to option #2 as “over-building.”
It is about purchasing enough utility-scale batteries so and electrical grid based exclusively on wind or solar can provide enough electricity 24/7/365 to meet customer demand.
Option #1 is building far more solar or wind plants than is necessary so that can provide enough electricity 24/7/365 to meet customer demand. And then curtailing (not letting it enter the grid) excess electricity when it is not needed.
You are correct in your point on Option #3 to a point, but the costs are much greater for a grid largely based on solar and wind. The powerline is a method of getting around the dispersed nature of solar and wind (and hydro). Nuclear and fossil fuel plants are both concentrated in one small location and in close proximity to metro areas. So increased solar and wind require more.
And I think that you will find that my beliefs are very heterodox, which some people like and others hate.
There is a lot that you say in your comment that I agree with. I am unsure what you mean by point #1, point #2 and point #3. Are you talking about strategies to deal with intermittency? I will follow up once I am clear.
I am not hand-waving away pumped storage. I think that it is a great solution. At present, it is very constrained by geography and existing hydroelectric dams.
I am very aware that there are proposed solutions including one you mentioned, but I will wait to see if they can become a solution at scale before considering it a solution. I am not so interested in speculating on the future.
I am a Techno-Realists who believes most exciting "solutions" fail in practice:
I agree with you that renewables are unstable over time. But they are also unpredictable at the scale (minutes) needed to maintain a modern electrical grid. Solar/wind requires a certain amount of load-balancing on the minute, hour, day, season, and annual scale. This imposes very expensive system costs.
And those "other generation sources" that you mention are largely strongly opposed by Greens.
I'm sure I will dig into your other articles and comment in the future.
Apologies for not being clearer- my referencing points #1-3 are referring to your section "So what are these system cost" numbered points.
I am not familiar with renewables being unpredictable on the minute level. Maybe an individual turbine or panel but when you have thousands of them the aggregated movements are dulled. Can you share some data on why you believe this?
Yes, it is individual wind turbines in particular that are variable and unpredictable. Remember that they are individually connected to the grid, so minute-by-minute changes in wind speeds affect the grid. An electrical grid needs to be balanced in even shorter time frames.
And clouds passing by vary minute to minute as well, so this affects the electricity flowing from solar panels into the grid.
Thanks for the comment, but I would argue that natural gas is already the clear cost winner in North America. I seriously doubt that will change for the next decade and likely even further.
The race is over before it even started. It is only government subsidies and mandates that keeps this from being obvious and the "electricity market" responding accordingly.
OT: I gather you have retired from teaching but still desire selected speaking engagements. I had the thought that I have a contact at Hillsdale College where I could recommend they consider inviting you to one of their (MI or DC) forums. Discussions of promoting progress, or energy related and similar subset topics, appears to me to be something they would welcome exposing their students and post graduate supporters to.
Great post, widening the coverage area for analyzing and examining "progress" issues.
You probably already know about Watts Up with That, but I just learned there is a recent report (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/02/for-the-second-time-in-a-week-climate-scientists-surprised-with-an-increased-co2-absorption-mechanism/ ) suggesting the biosphere and the oceans absorb more CO2 than originally believed. This puts the urgency of removing fossil fuels from our energy quiver into even sharper question than before. And the tide was already starting to turn against the flawed computer modeling not supported by real world temp measurement observations. So now presumably also making solar and wind options even less attractive economically than they were before.
Trump's nomination of Chris Wright for Sec'y of DOE suggests our energy policy will revert back to emphasizing fossil fuels, possibly along with nuclear as part of a National Energy Council program? https://www.npr.org/2024/11/16/nx-s1-5191868/trump-energy-secretary-chris-wright I welcome someone who can strongly and knowledgeably promote a responsible "all energy" program and promote the truth about global warming and the hoax/ grift it has become. Of course he has to be confirmed by the Senate first.
I also liked the mode of graphical display used for your "China dominates the critical raw materials market" chart. I believe such a partitioned square/rectangle view is more intuitive in understanding the relative contribution of each element. Certainly it gives a better "feel" than the more usual pie charts, although I am ambivalent if 3D versions showing relative cubic chunks of a bigger block add any value over 2D displays. I think the info intuition declines when moved to 3D.
Thanks for the comment, but there is no evidence that the above overcomes the basic issues identified in this article.
The problem with utility-scale batteries is cost, not density. Density is a bigger issue with electrified transportation, but extra weight for utility-scale batteries is not a big issue. Cost and density are two different dimensions.
I have another article on the significant disadvantages of solar:
The reason electrical grids focus their investments on batteries is because they are the best available energy storage technology (with the exception of pumped hydro which is heavily constrained by geography).
They are said to be 10x cheaper too. From the Popular Mechanics article: "Secondly, and most importantly, iron-air batteries would be 10 times cheaper, perform better, and last 17 times longer." For a technology to be worth investing in, it has to be not only 10x denser, but 10x cheaper. While the technology is not ready (it's been researched since the 1960s https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19690000955), it suggests that many homes will be able to have a washing machine sized battery storage, so I think utility scale storage won't be designed centrally, but it might be distributed where the houses are (maybe even leased by some homeowners if they can't afford it initially). That extra storage can smooth out the grids whenever there is a neighboring outage (using grid forming inverters https://www.sciencenews.org/article/one-device-transform-power-electical-grid-inverter), but it's likely that some will be reserved for the home. I think houses having even 20-30% load balancing helps limit the need to turn on more expensive utility generators during peak hours.
If they were actually 10X cheaper, they would likely already be deployed.
The media is always publishing reports of new technological innovations that seem exciting but never make it to deployment at scale. Popular Mechanics does this all the time.
Interesting to think about a home based energy storage mechanism besides a fossil fuel storage tank.
But during the recent Hurricane Milton in FL, my neighbor used his Ford EV truck to power (most of ) his house [once the vendor got the specialized connections working again!!] for a 4 day outage period [some years ago it was 6 or 7 days]. I used my 5KW gas powered generator to do the same.
[And I had to recharge the generator's (pretty small) starter battery before the hurricane arrived !! :-( ]
I read a few years ago that some home energy storage systems could one day use discarded EV batteries. The reason is because EVs need much more torque to accelerate (especially large vehicles) in the 10s of kWs, and that even with 80% capacity after 5 years, they would still work fine as home energy banks. A small home might only discharge 2-5kWs max. But the issue is whether this design is factored in when the car is developed, or whether it is in an afterthought. I think it would be far better to standardize the car batteries in a way that doesn't require complicated battery management systems that make adding to a home system impossible or inefficient (e.g. hard to access battery cells, proprietary wiring).
Yes, old batteries that are too depleted for EVs work fine for home backup. I am skeptical whether EVs can get rid of battery management software and totally standardize. Battery chemistries are constantly changing (as your first comment notes) and the risk of running out of electricity is far more dangerous for cars than for homes.
I don't know the specifics of my neighbor's issues, but in general the "complicated" part is sensing the need for, and then automatically switching between grid AC power and battery supplied (inverted DC to AC) power; and back again.
Same technology as needed for whole house generators in somewhat common use, but with the inverter aspects added in.
Getting the auto mfr's to consider repairability/maintenace in their designs is hard enough, let alone hoping they might consider long term use and disposal issues - at least not without some legal incentives to do so. :-)
Clearly a balancing act between the benefits of standardizing vs. hobbling future innovation. The construction industry seems to manage implementing new products and processes vs. evolving bldg codes, but who knows what new wizbang gizmo we don't have in our homes (or their construction) because of regulatory limitations on cost or time or ???
Another very important point is that batteries are only good for about 10 years with daily cycling. A nuclear plant's useful life can be extended to 80 years.
Good point. This may not be a major concern with newer LFP batteries, which I believe are becoming standard chemistry for utility-scale batteries.
Significantly shorter operating lifetimes are also a big concern with solar and wind.
And the shorter operating lifetimes of solar and wind can be made even shorter by hails storms, tornados, and hurricanes which have virtually no effect on nuclear plants. These weather driven outages of solar and wind take a long time to repair and happen when the power is needed the most.
I have two articles on the disadvantages of both those energy technologies:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-solar-cannot-displace-fossil
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-wind-cannot-displace-global-fossil
Another great point, Bill. Nuclear power plants laugh at hailstorms and hurricanes.
Absolutely. Maybe even 100 years.
I generally agree, but let's comment on one thing here:
>This means that it cannot even store enough electricity to replace one typical power plant through a summer night (realistically, the shortest duration that is useful for a fully renewable electrical grid).
As I understand it, the way utilities are using storage right now is to bridge the gap between peak solar irradiance and peak load. Which is only around ~3-4 hours on a typical day. I suspect this decision is probably economically rational, given the (mostly IRRATIONAL) political constraints that utilities are operating under to increase their share of renewable generation. If renewables can do something, ANYTHING to contribute to peak load, that's valuable to utilities operating under these constraints. But batteries need to become a LOT cheaper to begin to be useful for any other purpose.
Thanks for the comment.
I don't disagree with you as a general principle.
Yes, currently electricity storage is very limited in duration, as my example in the article illustrates. Advocates for solar and wind, however, want to push way beyond just short-term load-balancing within a summer day.
If that were the extent of what is being done and the practice is restricted to regions with high solar radiance, then I would not object too much.
I would argue that a better strategy is to get rid of all the Green energy subsidies and mandates and let utilities get back to focusing on cheap electricity and stable service.
I disagree that anything that contributes to peak-load is equally good. Natural gas plants can very easily deal with the problem. If they can do so at a cheaper cost to utility-scale batteries, then that is the best strategy.
The problem is that with our current Green energy subsidies and mandates, these utility decisions do not factor in the future cost of electricity.
Public utilities are heavily regulated, and they make a fixed profit with every hardware investment. So they have a strong profit motive to spend more money, particularly if that type of energy is heavily subsidized by the federal and state government.
I can agree with all that. I suppose I really just want to emphasize that the relationship isn't linear because the first MWh of storage capacity has a lot more marginal value than the last MWh due to this load-balancing benefit. Meeting 100% of the hypothetical 24/7/365 all-renewable storage need would cost a lot more than 100x as much as meeting 1% of that storage need, when viewed from the standpoint of the total energy system.
Another example of the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Excellent point. I should have mentioned diminishing returns in the article. It is an important phenomenon a that affects many domains.
"I disagree that anything that contributes to peak-load is equally good."
Well said, and rarely said. Too often I hear virtue seekers and even pro gas and nuclear advocates say "We need all forms of energy power."
No, we don't need the ones that are far inferior. We're better off without them.
Right. This is the elephant in the solar plant. 4 hours of backup isn't much good during a prolonged dark, overcast sky during the days the grid is down.
Michael, there appears to be a minor issue with adding replies to or at the bottom of the web page, such that the "Post" orange button is mostly hidden by a banner across the bottom of the screen. Not sure that you can do anything about it, as it appears to be a Substack issue, but ????
It still works, barely, but adds uncertainty while making replies in that part of the display.
[delete this comment after viewing?]
A work around is to post a short comment and then edit it after refreshing.
Does that work for you?
Yes, I have noticed that the overlays on the Comments page are interfering with clicking buttons. This may be the same issue. It appears to be a Substack-wide issue. I have reported it to Substack.
You might report it along with a screen capture so Substack will be able to fix the problems.
It may only be a problem when there are enough comments to fully fill the screen?
Or a few longish ones?
Yes, I think I confirmed it is only a problem when the comments (already posted or being written) extend beyond the full screen display. The orange button drops below or behind the banner or overlay, while the space available for commenting continues to move upward to allow adding more text.
It does not seem to matter if the Button reads "Post", "Reply", or "Save".
Your subtitle is right on.
"Storing one barrel of oil costs around $1. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil in Tesla batteries, however, costs a whopping $200."
The analysis says we shouldn't prefer batteries over nuclear if we could build both in 2024. But, of course, building a nuclear plant in China takes 5 years (they have about 20 under construction, and we will soon know much more about nuclear costs) and here, more like 10 years.
So you have to compete, not just with the lithium-ion batteries of 2024, your investors in nuclear must be courageous about the batteries of 2034. Price declines in lithium-ion may be running out, but the article doesn't touch on the prospects for other battery chemistries, such as sodium, and the iron-air batteries now being manufactured by Form Energy in Virginia. They are being specifically designed to provide grid storage at a fraction of the price (and up to 120 hours duration) of lithium ion.
It's not a bunch of substackers you have to convince, it's bankers with ten billion dollars to invest. They have got to be wary of renewable prices expected in the 2030s.
Thanks for the comment, but I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say.
Yes, batteries could get significantly cheaper in the future, but I am not trying to predict the future. It is today's prices that matter for today's energy investments. The "next big thing" often turns out to not be as great as predicted, so I will wait and see.
Utility-scale batteries are being produced largely because of government subsidies and mandates, such as the IRA. Without them, the scale of production would be much less.
In North America natural gas is far more cost-effective than either nuclear or batteries.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-supporters-should-embrace
Sorry, the point was that the nuclear plant would have to compete with the alternatives of "2034", not today. If the nuke plant of 2034 is selling 7x24 power at night for $100/MWh, and the battery installs of 2030 are running against them at $90/MWh, the nuclear plant may have poor returns.
An investment is only concerned with the costs of today, but must be concerned with the revenues of tomorrow. Coming years will bring greater challenge to nuclear plants unless they can also display a cost-reduction curve. (As they may, in coming Chinese R&D).
Got it.
Good point.
Investors need to make back their investment, so they must be concerned about competing prices when the power plant goes into full operation and beyond.
That is, by the way, one of the big advantages of natural gas. The plants are the most inexpensive of any type, the fuel is cheap (at least in North America), and new plants can be deployed in less than one year. So new natural gas can make up their investment in about the same time span as it takes to construct a nuclear plant.
Great article, Michael. It made a subscriber out of me. This is your first post I've been exposed to and it is good to see someone further away from me on this issue using solid data to back up claims. I want to push back against a few things in the article, however.
I don't think it is appropriate to use the term "over-building" when referring to batteries as in your point #2. If solar/wind generate 10% additional power than is needed during a time window and we use batteries to shift that 10% to a time window where the power is needed, this is not "over-building". The battery was required to time-match generation and load but this is not "over-building" as in your point #1 where we would have to physically build more panels to supply renewables during most* times. In the battery case power output would match closely to installed capacity. In the latter case power output during most of the day would be drastically less than installed capacity.
Regarding your point #3- I am struggling to see how this is a delta from any other source. Whether you build solar, wind, nuclear, gas, coal, or other you will need transportation lines. The only generation technology that is an outlier here is off-shore wind. If I put a solar farm in a location or a coal plant in a location the grid connected transmission distance is little different.
Don't be so quick to handwave pumped hydroelectric storage. "...that have largely already been harnessed by traditional hydroelectric dams." is not accurate. Pumped storage can't be as liberally placed as a shipping container of batteries but we are far from "using up" all the hydro storage options. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/pumped_hydro_atlas/
Finally, several times throughout the article you mentioned that renewables are "unpredictable" and I don't think this is the most accurate wording. Solar/wind output is predictable. What it isn't is "stable". Intraday generation varies but we typically know well ahead of time what it will be so that adjustments can be made at other generation sources. There are public sources typically provided by governments as well as private corporation that provide these services.
Examples-
https://ned.nl/
https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/operations/-/tree/seven-day-wind-power-forecast
https://www.xweather.com/renewable-energy/forecasting
I did not go into detail on the 5 options, because they were not the point of the article. I was trying to point out the various options that impose system costs, so I could focus on one: utility-scale batteries.
I don’t think that I referred to option #2 as “over-building.”
It is about purchasing enough utility-scale batteries so and electrical grid based exclusively on wind or solar can provide enough electricity 24/7/365 to meet customer demand.
Option #1 is building far more solar or wind plants than is necessary so that can provide enough electricity 24/7/365 to meet customer demand. And then curtailing (not letting it enter the grid) excess electricity when it is not needed.
You are correct in your point on Option #3 to a point, but the costs are much greater for a grid largely based on solar and wind. The powerline is a method of getting around the dispersed nature of solar and wind (and hydro). Nuclear and fossil fuel plants are both concentrated in one small location and in close proximity to metro areas. So increased solar and wind require more.
Thanks for the comment. And thanks for the sub!
If you are interested in energy issues, I have dozens of articles on the topic:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/energy
And I think that you will find that my beliefs are very heterodox, which some people like and others hate.
There is a lot that you say in your comment that I agree with. I am unsure what you mean by point #1, point #2 and point #3. Are you talking about strategies to deal with intermittency? I will follow up once I am clear.
I am not hand-waving away pumped storage. I think that it is a great solution. At present, it is very constrained by geography and existing hydroelectric dams.
I am very aware that there are proposed solutions including one you mentioned, but I will wait to see if they can become a solution at scale before considering it a solution. I am not so interested in speculating on the future.
I am a Techno-Realists who believes most exciting "solutions" fail in practice:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-i-am-a-techno-realist
I agree with you that renewables are unstable over time. But they are also unpredictable at the scale (minutes) needed to maintain a modern electrical grid. Solar/wind requires a certain amount of load-balancing on the minute, hour, day, season, and annual scale. This imposes very expensive system costs.
And those "other generation sources" that you mention are largely strongly opposed by Greens.
I'm sure I will dig into your other articles and comment in the future.
Apologies for not being clearer- my referencing points #1-3 are referring to your section "So what are these system cost" numbered points.
I am not familiar with renewables being unpredictable on the minute level. Maybe an individual turbine or panel but when you have thousands of them the aggregated movements are dulled. Can you share some data on why you believe this?
Yes, it is individual wind turbines in particular that are variable and unpredictable. Remember that they are individually connected to the grid, so minute-by-minute changes in wind speeds affect the grid. An electrical grid needs to be balanced in even shorter time frames.
And clouds passing by vary minute to minute as well, so this affects the electricity flowing from solar panels into the grid.
It’s a race to see which costs fall fastest.
Thanks for the comment, but I would argue that natural gas is already the clear cost winner in North America. I seriously doubt that will change for the next decade and likely even further.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-supporters-should-embrace
The race is over before it even started. It is only government subsidies and mandates that keeps this from being obvious and the "electricity market" responding accordingly.
OT: I gather you have retired from teaching but still desire selected speaking engagements. I had the thought that I have a contact at Hillsdale College where I could recommend they consider inviting you to one of their (MI or DC) forums. Discussions of promoting progress, or energy related and similar subset topics, appears to me to be something they would welcome exposing their students and post graduate supporters to.
I found this with just a short search as an example: https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/cca-ii-economic-issues-and-controversies/the-economics-and-future-of-electric-vehicles
Have you already been to one of their events?
Would you object to my making that recommendation?
No, I do not object.
I don't really do speaking engagements, as I believe that writing is a more time-effective means to getting out the message.
If Hillsdale invited me, I would consider accepting.
Great post, widening the coverage area for analyzing and examining "progress" issues.
You probably already know about Watts Up with That, but I just learned there is a recent report (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/02/for-the-second-time-in-a-week-climate-scientists-surprised-with-an-increased-co2-absorption-mechanism/ ) suggesting the biosphere and the oceans absorb more CO2 than originally believed. This puts the urgency of removing fossil fuels from our energy quiver into even sharper question than before. And the tide was already starting to turn against the flawed computer modeling not supported by real world temp measurement observations. So now presumably also making solar and wind options even less attractive economically than they were before.
Trump's nomination of Chris Wright for Sec'y of DOE suggests our energy policy will revert back to emphasizing fossil fuels, possibly along with nuclear as part of a National Energy Council program? https://www.npr.org/2024/11/16/nx-s1-5191868/trump-energy-secretary-chris-wright I welcome someone who can strongly and knowledgeably promote a responsible "all energy" program and promote the truth about global warming and the hoax/ grift it has become. Of course he has to be confirmed by the Senate first.
I also liked the mode of graphical display used for your "China dominates the critical raw materials market" chart. I believe such a partitioned square/rectangle view is more intuitive in understanding the relative contribution of each element. Certainly it gives a better "feel" than the more usual pie charts, although I am ambivalent if 3D versions showing relative cubic chunks of a bigger block add any value over 2D displays. I think the info intuition declines when moved to 3D.
Glad that you enjoyed the article. Yes, I have read Watts Up with That on occasion.
Companies like Amazon, GE and I think Microsoft are investing heavily in iron-air batteries, which are said to be 10x dense as LiFePO4: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/iron-air-battery-developer-long-duration-storage-form-energy-collaboration-ge-vernova/730633/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/iron-air-battery-energy-storage/
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/01/iron-air-energy-storage-finishes-what-natural-gas-started/
I don't think electrical storage is needed for everything- Thermal storage via solar collectors could also be useful for heating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
Thanks for the comment, but there is no evidence that the above overcomes the basic issues identified in this article.
The problem with utility-scale batteries is cost, not density. Density is a bigger issue with electrified transportation, but extra weight for utility-scale batteries is not a big issue. Cost and density are two different dimensions.
I have another article on the significant disadvantages of solar:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-solar-cannot-displace-fossil
The reason electrical grids focus their investments on batteries is because they are the best available energy storage technology (with the exception of pumped hydro which is heavily constrained by geography).
They are said to be 10x cheaper too. From the Popular Mechanics article: "Secondly, and most importantly, iron-air batteries would be 10 times cheaper, perform better, and last 17 times longer." For a technology to be worth investing in, it has to be not only 10x denser, but 10x cheaper. While the technology is not ready (it's been researched since the 1960s https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19690000955), it suggests that many homes will be able to have a washing machine sized battery storage, so I think utility scale storage won't be designed centrally, but it might be distributed where the houses are (maybe even leased by some homeowners if they can't afford it initially). That extra storage can smooth out the grids whenever there is a neighboring outage (using grid forming inverters https://www.sciencenews.org/article/one-device-transform-power-electical-grid-inverter), but it's likely that some will be reserved for the home. I think houses having even 20-30% load balancing helps limit the need to turn on more expensive utility generators during peak hours.
If they were actually 10X cheaper, they would likely already be deployed.
The media is always publishing reports of new technological innovations that seem exciting but never make it to deployment at scale. Popular Mechanics does this all the time.
I will wait until that actually happens.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-i-am-a-techno-realist
My writing is not meant to be a prediction of the future, only an accurate description of the present and past.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/utility-scale-batteries-are-as-expensive
Interesting to think about a home based energy storage mechanism besides a fossil fuel storage tank.
But during the recent Hurricane Milton in FL, my neighbor used his Ford EV truck to power (most of ) his house [once the vendor got the specialized connections working again!!] for a 4 day outage period [some years ago it was 6 or 7 days]. I used my 5KW gas powered generator to do the same.
[And I had to recharge the generator's (pretty small) starter battery before the hurricane arrived !! :-( ]
I read a few years ago that some home energy storage systems could one day use discarded EV batteries. The reason is because EVs need much more torque to accelerate (especially large vehicles) in the 10s of kWs, and that even with 80% capacity after 5 years, they would still work fine as home energy banks. A small home might only discharge 2-5kWs max. But the issue is whether this design is factored in when the car is developed, or whether it is in an afterthought. I think it would be far better to standardize the car batteries in a way that doesn't require complicated battery management systems that make adding to a home system impossible or inefficient (e.g. hard to access battery cells, proprietary wiring).
Yes, old batteries that are too depleted for EVs work fine for home backup. I am skeptical whether EVs can get rid of battery management software and totally standardize. Battery chemistries are constantly changing (as your first comment notes) and the risk of running out of electricity is far more dangerous for cars than for homes.
I don't know the specifics of my neighbor's issues, but in general the "complicated" part is sensing the need for, and then automatically switching between grid AC power and battery supplied (inverted DC to AC) power; and back again.
Same technology as needed for whole house generators in somewhat common use, but with the inverter aspects added in.
Getting the auto mfr's to consider repairability/maintenace in their designs is hard enough, let alone hoping they might consider long term use and disposal issues - at least not without some legal incentives to do so. :-)
Clearly a balancing act between the benefits of standardizing vs. hobbling future innovation. The construction industry seems to manage implementing new products and processes vs. evolving bldg codes, but who knows what new wizbang gizmo we don't have in our homes (or their construction) because of regulatory limitations on cost or time or ???
hhh