This seems like a good thing. Export sun power from sunny parts of the US to less sunny parts.
We still want to do lots of distribution, but it'll be for reliability reasons rather than cost.
1: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...
Bring on the sodium ion grid storage! Also, I'd think California has the terrain to do pumped hydro storage.
I don't think that. Some gas and oil companies have, via their lobbies, produced content that implied this is true with articles that complain about the various processes over the lifetime of a solar panel that produce waste, but I think even they have refrained from making the claim that it's almost as bad as gas.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2...
This is why the EU has plans to build out a large hydrogen transportation and storage grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_curren
> The Changji-Guquan ultra-high-voltage direct current (UHVDC) transmission line in China is the world’s first transmission line operating at 1,100kV voltage. The transmission line traverses for a total distance of 3,324km and is capable of transmitting up to 12GW of electricity.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/changji-guquan-uhv...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity...
Losses can be compensated for with...more renewable generation.
(note that the above distance is roughly the distance across Europe east-west, distance across the US is a bit more, but you don't need to pull east coast generation all the way to west coast load centers or vice versa)
Thanks for the insights, its not something I really thought of before.
The cost of a hydrogen pipeline is only slightly larger than that of a methane pipeline of the same BTU capacity, even though the energy value of a hydrogen molecule is considerably less than a methane molecule. That's because hydrogen has considerably lower viscosity, which reduces pumping costs.
Challenge is getting the pricing model correct for such ancillary grid benefits to make it worth it for developer to build.
edit: Just re-read your comment I assumed you were implying high frequency trading as a bad thing - though it might have been to help non-energy people understand.
In both situations maybe there's an argument for market efficiencies and liquidity and such. But it scares me a little.
I am not a financial person (in the solar field, but not markets). I could totally be talking outta my ass!
The energy markets are significantly layered in power contracts that I would think it would be difficult for an energy storage provider to play that much of a position.
https://electrek.co/2023/04/19/tesla-reports-massive-increas...
https://lorenz-g.github.io/tesla-megapack-tracker/
(on a smaller scale, to date, Tesla has deployed Powerwalls and Powerpacks at more than 50,000 sites worldwide; their Lathrop, CA facility is ramping to manufacture 40GWh/yr of capacity)
I'm not sure if a household sized water tank-full could provide heat over the course of a cold night, and whether a heat exchanger for air heating or water pipes would be more efficient. I suppose it depends on the insulation and placement of the ducts and pipes and how much of the heat makes it to and through a wall.
I did some very crude calculations but assuming 50 gallons at 60C and 1000W energy loss per hour from a moderately insulated house on a 50F night, the full water heater could keep the house at 70F for 5.14 hours. Someone with more recent practical physics usage is welcome to check this figure.
I live in a city center that uses chilled water for some use cases, but it certainly does not seem scalable enough to be an "easy technical remedy" to the issues of distribution being expensive.
Competition is already there - its next how do you deploy your development costs for winning those assets.
These are targeting 8-10 hours of sustained power when needed.
I’m sure the loss is very high, but maybe could be overcome with ample solar inputs?
These guys have two projects (check their operating plants) using flywheels. They're used for frequency regulation. About 20MW each.
They are not good at long term storage though, as the self discharge rate is high. And historically they have been expensive.
Or do you plan to focus more on microgrids?
We're still working out costing, but it might even make sense for residential use to take advantage of time-of-use rates or energy arbitrage. Other applications are industrial processes that require high power for short periods.
Hopefully constructive feedback: I would put that residential thing further down on your list. I think that stuff tends to be too complicated unless / until you can aggregate a lot of loads (eg. I think Tesla only recently recently started doing this stuff residentially. Probably awhile before you reach their scale...)
Pumped hydro is one of the better options but it has the ecological impact of just building new hydro power but less great economic impacts because the water level is less stable for people to live beside.
There’s over 280 million cars in the US, assuming on average that’s ~75kWh each we’re looking at ~21 tWh worth of battery storage. Meanwhile the average daily electricity use in the US is currently only 11 tWh. Of course that increases in a 100% EV world but EV’s are generally quite flexible demand.
PS: Solar power plants are often built to store ~50% of their daily output in batteries. It’s currently economically viable because that’s released at peak demand and thus peak prices, but with how quickly battery prices have been falling they will soon be viable even for normal nighttime prices.
Another big thing is your 21 TWh number has huge flaws. That's fully draining everyone's batteries to provide the power and no one is going to accept that we want the cars because we need to go places. Next we're decades away from even getting close to full EV penetration. Even if we stop selling new ICE vehicles they're durable goods that people hold on to for a long time. It's the kind of 'Company/technology X takes over everything' assumption that so vastly inflates the valuations of tech companies all over the sector.
I doubt the the cheapest grid has anywhere close to 21 tWh as having more generation is more useful. Hydro is extremely flexible and reliable can fill in for a modest and predictable multi day shortfall. On the other hand if a power plant is down then batteries get extremely expensive.
That said, the cost of batteries isn’t simply a function of total capacity as unused capacity extends battery lifespan. The actual grid will take this into account which then impacts spot prices etc. Nobody operating grid scale batteries is going to 0% for wholesale prices of 5c/kWh but you bet your ass they’re going to 0% for 1$/kWh.
How many years do you have to go back before "just roll out lots of solar" was the silly hippy-dippy answer that all the sophisticated commenters who got their information via unofficial fossil fuel PR laughed at?
Remember when solar was the big problem that no one had a solution for? Turns out we did.
The future of energy is a lot of solar and a lot of batteries. Some other stuff will be involved but those two will do lots.
We're already at the point where new build pumped hydro doesn't make financial sense unless you have other needs for a big pile of water. Solar and batteries will beat it.
Industrially smelting aluminium, making hydrogen, heating water, desalination.
Not that I'm saying storage shouldn't be part of the mix.
What a ghoulish, inhumane, MBA (but i repeat myself) perspective.
You are the first to bring up 'marginal profits', so it seems like arguing against your own idea, or at best a self-imagined strawman.
Did you intend to reply to the post instead?
Though the closest in what Patrick wrote is still not this concept.
Your post boils down to "maybe it's fine (based on nothing) for people to freeze or die in heat from a grid that's isolated for political reasons"
If not, what 'numbers or evidence' are you referring to?
The only thing I mentioned, costs and figures, are explicitly not known by me, so it seems bizarre to think I made judgements based on non existent knowledge.
The rest seems like your own rambling thoughts.
Texas has an isolated grid. They can't buy or export power. This causes grid overloads. People have ended up freezing and dying in heat waves due to power outages.
You said "maybe it ok, maybe it saves money even if there are catastrophes, but I don't even know what the money is like".
Why would you say that a terrible power grid induces crisis is ok at all, let alone when you don't even know how the money breaks down?
He is the one who specifically brought up profits as a potential reason to accept catastrophe then got all offended and aggressive, name calling etc when people challenged this. Even going as far as to deny bringing profits into it THEN admitting he had no idea of the numbers but STILL doubling down on the ‘don’t believe your lying eyes about what I wrote’.
I genuinely questioned whether it was just me until I checked back in the thread this morning.
So far as I can tell you have not done so, and, judging from appearances, the one writing offended and aggressive comments is not me.
You used the words 'edgy' and 'pathetic' amongst others. I'm sure the edit history is available to mods if you wanna go there.
I will no longer engage, you aren't doing it in good faith and you have lied several times on this thread alone.
Or at least type out the quoted sentences that you remember with 'edgy' and 'pathetic'? And then any passing reader can email dang to confirm if that's in a past comment revision, like you said?
If your unwilling to put in that basic effort after making such an accusation, then it seems self-defeating, plus no one would trust it.
I do sometimes use 'edgy', so maybe that is possible, but I really don't think I've ever called anyone 'pathetic', so this seems like a lame accusation.
(As a sidenote I don't even remember for my own comments made 48 hours ago how I edited them or what words changed after, so it's pretty astonishing that another user is keeping track.)
I wasn't too impressed with the last conversation I had with you, Cyberdildonics, and at best it seems as if your objecting to your own hasty paraphrase of my comment so I don't see how this could benefit any passing reader either.
You basically said 'what if it saves money' when discussing multiple state wide crises. Saying 'what if' isn't an argument in the first place, now you're avoiding confronting what you said completely.
Trying to argue around this fact is pretty odd and it's unclear what the intention is.
You are also free to contact any HN user you trust and confirm whether I'm making this up or not?
I don't understand your question at all. Making what up? Why are all your comments deflection? Why not quote yourself and explain what you were trying to say?
I explicitly stated 3 days ago:
> Well this seems a bit too snarky and not in good faith so I'm not going to substantially respond any further.
See this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37516711
Frankly, although I didn't want to bring it up previously lest it be too embarrassing, perhaps logging off and seeking some help would be the better choice, if you are genuinely forgetting how to check past HN comments.
EDIT: After thinking it over, I'm going to disengage here since I rather not risk the chance of inadvertently nudging someone further into a negative spiral.
You didn't substantially respond at all.
No one is victimizing you by asking you to focus on what you originally. You originally said that maybe statewide energy crisis that directly result in deaths are fine because it might make sense financially without even having any numbers or actual information of any kind.
All you did after was try to be insulting and act like you are being victimized while avoiding anything about what you originally said.
Why not just deal with the current topic? Why not explain what you said? It's bizarre that you would rather thrash around and try to blame people for replying when you could just deal with the thread directly.