In general though, BESS & overbuild seems to be working out cheaper than very long interconnectors.
Of course, the author didn't model this at all.
This is the problem with 99% of "actually we could totally rip out our entire infrastructure right now" posts - it's usually justified with crappy modeling that falls apart under slightly more scrutinizing consideration.
Solar-only with low storage overhead might become more viable if we get room-temperature superconductors or something.
I don’t think it’s a one-sized fits all solution. There will be places where storage will make sense, and other where longer distance transmission makes sense. I think the reality is it will be a mix of both, along with a nice diverse mix of generation methods.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...
(See page 11)
4000 KMs east to west is about 2.4 hours offset geographically. Would it be cheaper to have 2.4 hours of storage closer to the east coast of Australia, with solar farms close to the consumption? Or would building a 4000km HVAC transmission line from the west coast of Australia to the east coast be cheaper? I'd imagine there would be a tipping point where one option is more economical than the other.
Personally, I'd like to see WA's electricity network connected through to SA, and connect SA's through to NSW, but I also like the idea of many independent microgrids for the resilancy they'd offer.
Distributed independent microgrids with interconnects fed by a range of power generation methods and size the generation at >1.5x power needs. Refurbish and maintain fossil fuel to fill when needed, and ideally make them as modular as possible with turbine halls being convertable between different fuel types.
Uh-oh. We're going to have to rewrite the history books on the current war between Edison and Tesla, this time with Edison as the victor!
Renewables enthusiasts love to talk about counterfactual or hypothetical scenarios, but ignore the fact that we can't spontaneously leap to one of those scenarios.
Big “citation needed” on that assertion.
HVDC is a widely proposed option and it’s an oversimplification to dismiss it with a single sentence.
For example the old DeserTec made a feasibility analysis for HVDC interconnects across EU and into Africa; the problem with that one seemed to be more about geopolitical issues and upfront investment costs, rather than long-term feasibility of transmission losses.
A newer analysis at the top of Google does not say “this doesn’t work because of transmission losses”. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmi....
My knowledge of power markets.
> HVDC is a widely proposed option
I'm sure it's widely proposed by fictional utopian scenario enthusiasts. I will consider it seriously when there's an actual HVDC grid we can use, or even just a successful HVDC interconnect.
As others have pointed out, there are now HVDC lines that can go over thousands of kilometers (transcontinental scale!) with reasonable losses. There's no reason to believe that we've hit the peak of HVDC technology either. The need for this technology to exist will drive further innovation.
Even if the OP's estimate is off. Even if we "only" get to 90% renewables by 2045, that's still pretty damn great compared to what we have now, isn't it? Is your cynical opinion that we should just keep going with the status quo because we can't get 100% ?
Even if we need 15% more wind and 15% more storage to than the OP's estimate reach 99%, that's not impossible either. It will create a lot of jobs. Why not just roll up our sleeves and do the best that we can? Thankfully, the world is not only made up of cynics, and a lot of people already are.
We aren't done innovating on the renewable front either. There's LOTS of research into cheaper, safer, more scaleable grid-scale batteries. The current state of the art is cobalt-free and nickel-free lithium iron phosphate, but people sodium-ion batteries look like they're going to be viable soon.
I also feel pretty confident that we'll eventually manage relatively efficient ways to store energy over the long term. If we could turn electricity into methane or ethanol with even 25% efficiency, that would allow us to store energy from the summer to use in the winter, or to power transatlantic airplanes with renewables. That seems pretty exciting to me.
On contrary a global-scale electricity grid means a global scale blackouts with global scale cascading effects. Something we have already seen at far smaller scales and already devastating effects.
Anything can fail, but if the fail impact few it's far less big than something who impact all. Also if you have buffers you can have a bit of time, even short, to act, to reduce the impact. If you have nothing because you are actually powered by some farms in Uzbekistan thousand of miles away than you are completely TFU.
Just as a sidenote: I've invested in a new (witch means well insulated) home, with p.v., a little lithium storage to survive a single night etc just to ensure I still have energy in case of disruption. So far it already worked few times, and curiously such times are more and more frequent, partially due to explicit political choices partially due to natural events, partially because we push renewables up and still have nothing to compensate energy (frequency) fluctuation they provoke in the national grid. Now instead of try solving this issue witch is VERY BIG especially if you live a bit at north (winter) or at south (aircon needs) some propose some megaprojects fully know that ALL recent megaprojects fails all over the world, and in general ANY big-enough project fail at a rate proportional of it's size and complexity. What's the outcome? Personally I'm protected, at a high price, others simply get worse and worse services and no backups. Also without any proof that we can reach a stable future and that the actual tech is less pollutant at global scale than even classic fossil (actually p.v. and battery shift pollution in exotic place, but do not reduce it at global scale)...
Oh, just to be clear I'm from the EU, nephew of a WWII Partisan's family, so definitively not something like "proud boys" people.
At a small scale: you can easily store in your garage 1000l, 2000l of diesel. You only need two cheap plastic reservoirs with a supporting structure (something here in EU south priced 50-200€ per tank) and or a high enough support (gravity fall) or a manual/electric pump (various price but in the range of 200-500€ more maximum) and your car will be autonomous for a certain, not that small, amount of time. Similarly to heat your house you might have perhaps 5-15.000l tank underground in your garden, normally sufficient for an year of heating. You can also easy store hot water, it does not last that long but two day is doable. You might have wood burning backups etc. Electricity? Try just to compare the impact of a 5 day gas station strike vs a 5 day blackouts for yourself.
My personal lithium storage suffice for a night at minimum service (just lights, fridges/freezers, home rack etc NO heating/cooling without Sun) and its price was ~4k€ (battery) + 2k€ (battery inverter) for an estimated maximum service life of 10 years. While diesel reservoirs and pumps can potentially last 100+ years. Surely the Sun tend to shine a bit all day, but just to live on it I need at my single-home scale the price of a mid-range car for a similar MTBF. With a very cheap and resilient solution I can survive few months without diesel supply. With relatively cheap freezers I can survive a month or two grocery supply without special attentions. Without water things get complicated, but I still have a bit of autonomy anyway. Without electricity I have a small autonomy thanks to p.v. + lithium but while all the rest it's doable by anyone the p.v. system is too expensive for most and still not suffice to heat the house in winter. In summer I can cool it during the day and lucky here nights are always fresh, but you get the idea.
At a bigger scale I do not have sources is English, this is a study by French Gov. https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services... on the topic, it's conclusion are: we can't run France on renewable nor now nor in the foreseeable future. And that's a study by public body only, no interested parts for nor fossil nor renewables sectors...
>Did you consider how strategical targets became such networks?
All your numbers and calculations are background noise when you can't keep your fundamental concerns coherent.
Edit: Let me say that I see where you're coming from--I get the concern about large, low inertia systems, the ww2 partisans, the need for self reliance. But that ship has sailed. Russia is currently beating the bricks off Germany with the Nordstream. Saudi Arabia has been 'a murdering and 'a terrorizing for the better part of a century on the basis of their petroleum reserves.
I buy that renewables won't pay for the whole party, but it's also undeniable that renewables, in their various and sundry forms, are much more evenly distributed (globally, if not locally) and are therefore much less prone to the kind of exploitative power structures that have already arrived. All other economic considerations aside.
In that sense I see a far more nightmarish scenario where the progress is not anymore done in public universities but in private companies to a point that civil society can just only get black boxes from them, but that's is a bit OT here.
What's in-topic is that few sources state we are near to 100% renewable option, and some other say absolutely not, with the truth probably lie in the difference between theory and practice + availability of something vs it's adoption on scale. If that it's true IMVHO we will not be able to run on renewable for at least 50+ years AND we will suffer MANY issues trying to go faster...
So far, we have never globally replaced fossil fuels with renewable energy, only supplemented their usage (meaning you can't point to a single drop of oil that is designated to never be extracted due to the creation of renewables).
The energy required to build an electric car is massive and results in a lot of CO2 production and takes a fairly long time to balance out.
Here's the really important part: despite lots of progress in electric cars and more importantly tremendous (seriously very impressive) growth in renewables CO2 in the atmosphere is not only not decreasing, it is accelerating.
Ultimately massive renewables infrastructure projects and large scale adoption of electric vehicles are capitalist friendly ways of deluding yourself into thinking you're making change while actively making things much worse.
The only surefire way to slow climate change is degrowth but this is literally a forbidden topic. Most of the comments mentioning this on HN or anywhere else on the web are immediately downvoted into oblivion. Even though we know for a fact that economic contraction leads to decreased fossil fuel consumption and have no evidence that on a system level increased renewables reduces CO2.
And it's not just that capitalists don't like it, but nobody really wants to seriously consider degrowth. But here's the rub: climate change will bring massive degrowth either way, and in a much worse way.
The cynicism is because the optimism around renewables allows people to pretend the problem isn't getting worse, and silences any discussion about hard but real solutions.
It doesn't matter much either way, we've chosen violence and are going to play this out the hard way. If you want to pretend it's otherwise, I've given up on bothering to convince other people awhile ago. Have fun in your fantasy and let me know when the rate of atmospheric CO2 starts to even stop accelerating (forget actually dropping).
Massive investment in renewables at least is a theoretically possible strategy for going to carbon neutrality without a total destruction of people's quality of life.
You're right about electric cars et al being energy intensive to produce right now, but this gets better and better with increasing electrification and CO2 reduction in power generation.
It's not a forbidden topic - most people just understand that it's in some sense treasonous to human civilization (at least in the forms generally espoused by its proponents), so don't bother entertaining it.
> climate change will bring massive degrowth either way, and in a much worse way.
This is a fantastically unrealistic economic model.
Also, who wants to pay for those interconnects when they expect battery prices to plummet, as you say?
It mostly comes from understanding how power production and distribution works.
> Even if we "only" get to 90% renewables by 2045
90% renewables doesn't mean we get to cut 90% of fossil fuel production capacity, and it's almost impossible that we get to 90% renewables without taking serious quality-of-life hits (unless you're including nuclear).
> We aren't done innovating on the renewable front either.
Yeah, in 50 years it will probably be fine. But we're talking about now.
I'm also interested in the opportunity cost of switching to renewables. Maybe we can have the same quality of life we do now off of solar in 50 years, but almost certainly our quality of life would be significantly better if we weren't on solar.
The Kardashev scale is the best cheap proxy for quality of civilizational development.
> It will create a lot of jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
> Thankfully, the world is not only made up of cynics, and a lot of people already are.
Another word for "cynic" in this context is "person with realistic and accurately calibrated economic expectations".