The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Jokodo]

Sure.

But both have a lot of hydropower - which is only possible because of their topography and climate.

Nuclear power can be installed anywhere. Hydropower is the only other reliable low carbon electricity generation technology; But it can't.

ETA: And Austria isn't very green. Unlike France, Sweden, and Norway.

I did say that Austria is pretty green, not very green, and that Norway is "even more so". Off the top of my head without looking up current figures, we have about 2/3 hydro, most of the rest natural gas, and biomass and photovoltaic competing for third place. We're pretending that coal is no longer relevant but in fact we do import coal generated electricity during peak demand.

I don't think we actually disagree. I wanted to add, for the sake of completeness, that nuclear isn't, strictly speaking, the only way to achieve carbon independence - though it may well be the only currently feasible way for many countries. There are advantages and disadvantages to both hydro and nuclear - as you've mentioned, a big advantage of nuclear is that it is independent of climate and topography. Another advantage of nuclear is that it is probably overall safer - depending on how you count and what assumptions you make about the effects of low dosage radiation where the data isn't very clear, the  Vajont_Dam breach alone arguably caused more deaths than half a century of civilian usage of nuclear power. I have earned myself quite some negative rep on an Austrian forum arguing that the hydroelectric plants along the Drava river in Carinthia, Austria (upstream of Slovenia's second largest city Maribor, and in a geologically active region) represent a greater threat to Slovenia than Slovenia's Krsko nuclear plant represents to Austria (Austrians, across political camps, tend to be quite religious about their opposition to nuclear power, and quite presumptuous in demanding of our neighbours to close down their plants - especially "Eastern" (which includes Northern and Southern in strictly geographical terms) neighbours, there isn't half as much animosity against German and Swiss reactors as there is against Slovak, Slovene and Czech ones).

However, hydro, wherever it's feasible, and in countries that don't have uranium deposits of their own, does have the big advantage of granting independence of shifting alliances that might, on relatively short notice, dry up ones supply chains in times of crisis.

Nuclear power is FAR safer than hydropower, even if we assume massive impact on health from low radiation doses (which would be contrary to all the evidence). The Banqiao Dam disaster alone killed almost a quarter of a million people, and destroyed nearly seven million homes.

Well, as I said, the Vajont dam disaster alone probably killed more people than have been killed in half a century of civilian use of nuclear power - and it's nowhere near the biggest disaster in the industry - just the biggest one within 500 miles from where I live.

 

[lpetrich]

Thermoelectric Stoves: Ditch the Solar Panels? - Resilience

Wood stoves can provide a household with thermal energy for cooking and for space and water heating. Wood stoves equipped with thermoelectric generators also produce electricity, which can be more sustainable, more reliable and less costly than power from solar panels.

...
A thermoelectric generator consists of a number of ingot-shaped semiconductor elements which are connected in series with metal strips and sandwiched between two electrically insulating but thermally conducting ceramic plates to form a very compact module. [2] They are commercially available from manufacturers such as Hi-Z, Tellurex, Thermalforce and Thermomanic.

Stick a thermoelectric module to the surface of a wood stove, and it will produce electricity whenever the stove is used for cooking, space heating, or water heating. In the experiments and prototypes that are described in more detail below, the power output per module varies between 3 and 19 watts.

...
Ever since the thermoelectric effect was first described by Thomas Seebeck in 1821, thermoelectric generators have been infamous for their low efficiency in converting heat into electricity. [1, 3-6] Today, the electrical efficiency of thermoelectric modules is only around 5-6%, roughly three times lower than that of the most commonly used solar PV panels. [4]

That might be a nice way of charging cellphones, but not much more.

 

[lpetrich]

While We've Been in Lockdown, Solar Cell Technology Has Smashed Three Big Records from April 18

By researchers in the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, using a six-junction PV cell:

1. Efficiency: 47.1 with concentration factor 143

2. Efficiency: 39.2 with no concentration

By researchers in the German Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin, using a "tandem cell" of stacked silicon and perovskite:

3. Efficiency: 24.16

-

EGEB: Renewables made up all new US electricity generating capacity in April - Electrek - and about 56% of the total added over the first four months.

UK Struggles With Sagging Power Demand and Surging Renewables | Greentech Media

 

[lpetrich]

Agrivoltaics works better with leafy greens, root crops – pv magazine International

U.S. researchers have created a new model to assess the overlap between solar potential and underlying land use. The areas with the largest potential are the western United States, southern Africa, and the Middle East. The researchers concluded that croplands, grasslands, and wetlands are the top three land classes for PV projects linked to agricultural activities, while barren terrain, traditionally prioritized for solar PV system installation, ranked fifth.

PV projects linked to agriculture have thus far shown the highest potential when combined with leafy greens such as lettuce and spinach, as well as with root crops such as potatoes, radishes, beets, and carrots. This is one of the conclusions of a recent research developed on agrivoltaics by U.S. scientist Chad Higgins from the Department of Biological and Ecological Engineering at Oregon State University.

“Pasture grasses and barley has performed very well for us here in Oregon,” Higgins told pv magazine. “Many other vegetables have also shown promising such as tomatoes and peppers, but these are more climate dependent and need hotter conditions.”

He believes that a combination such as strawberries, blueberries, raspberries and lingonberries could also provide for strong power and crop yields. “But we haven’t checked this yet,” Higgins said. “On the ‘likely not a good idea’ side are tall crops that may interfere more with the panels like corn or orchard crops.”

...
“Researchers have successfully grown aloe vera, tomatoes, biogas maize, pasture grass, and lettuce in agrivoltaic experiments,” the researchers noted. “Some varieties of lettuce produce greater yields in shade than under full sunlight; other varieties produce essentially the same yield under an open sky and under PV panels.”

According to a recent study from the University of Arizona, the shade from solar panels growing crops can help produce to two or three times more fruit and vegetables than conventional agriculture setups. The group presented the results of a multi-year research project investigating how chiltepin peppers, jalapenos, and cherry tomato plants grew in the shade of PV panels in a dry location.

That gets around a big criticism of solar power -- all the real estate it needs. It's good that many crop plants are not shaded enough to keep them from growing. In fact, some of them grow better in shade than in full sunlight.

The corn plants I've seen grow up to 6 ft / 2 m, so they are not a very big problem. One will need PV-cell canopy heights of at least around 10 ft / 3 m for good clearance, but that should not be difficult. One will already need that much clearance for farm workers and their machines to work. Fruit and nut trees are a much worse problem, because they can grow much taller. I've found 40 ft / 10 m for apple trees and 100 ft / 30 m for walnut trees.

 

[lpetrich]

Australian rooftop PV market continues to thrive – pv magazine International - "According to the small-scale technology certificate (STC) data, rooftop PV posted its eighth consecutive month above 200 MW, with 222MW registered in May."

France has breached the 10 GW solar barrier – pv magazine International - "France surpassed 10 GW of grid-connected solar generation capacity in the first three months of the year, after installing almost 7,000 new solar parks, most of them in the sunny south of the country, according to the French Ministry of Energy’s Department of Data and Statistical Studies (SDES)."

Agricultural PV emerges as Japan’s next opportunity – pv magazine International - "Self-consumption, the ability to isolate from the grid and provide power in the event of outages, and agricultural solar are key components in the 2020 revisions to Japan’s feed-in tariff program, reports RTS Corp.’s Izumi Kaizuka."

Party Like It's 1880: Renewable Energy Consumption Surpasses Coal

The last time the United States consumed more energy from renewable energy than coal was around 1880. To that point, biomass (primarily wood) was the primary energy source for the nation. But that changed as the first coal-fired power plants began producing electricity in the 1880s. While the first hydroelectric dams also entered operations that decade, coal proved much more scalable and distributable. By 1885, coal generated more total energy than renewable energy (still comprising only wood in that year) and held onto the edge for roughly 139 years.

That all changed in 2019, although a healthy dose of nuance is needed. Energy consumption from renewable energy topped coal last year, but only when all energy sources are counted. In other words, the math only works when electricity production, transportation, and consumption from industrial, residential, and commercial markets are combined. Similarly, renewable energy is a broad category that includes wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, other biomass, and several smaller contributors.

That's why I like to say that recent renewable-energy development represents the start of a second era of renewable energy. The first one was all of humanity's history before the Industrial Revolution. Our industrialism was powered first by coal, and more recently, also by oil and natural gas. The development of renewable energy looks like it will make it possible to keep full-scale industrialism without dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[bilby]

Australian rooftop PV market continues to thrive – pv magazine International - "According to the small-scale technology certificate (STC) data, rooftop PV posted its eighth consecutive month above 200 MW, with 222MW registered in May."

France has breached the 10 GW solar barrier – pv magazine International - "France surpassed 10 GW of grid-connected solar generation capacity in the first three months of the year, after installing almost 7,000 new solar parks, most of them in the sunny south of the country, according to the French Ministry of Energy’s Department of Data and Statistical Studies (SDES)."

Agricultural PV emerges as Japan’s next opportunity – pv magazine International - "Self-consumption, the ability to isolate from the grid and provide power in the event of outages, and agricultural solar are key components in the 2020 revisions to Japan’s feed-in tariff program, reports RTS Corp.’s Izumi Kaizuka."

Party Like It's 1880: Renewable Energy Consumption Surpasses Coal

The last time the United States consumed more energy from renewable energy than coal was around 1880. To that point, biomass (primarily wood) was the primary energy source for the nation. But that changed as the first coal-fired power plants began producing electricity in the 1880s. While the first hydroelectric dams also entered operations that decade, coal proved much more scalable and distributable. By 1885, coal generated more total energy than renewable energy (still comprising only wood in that year) and held onto the edge for roughly 139 years.

That all changed in 2019, although a healthy dose of nuance is needed. Energy consumption from renewable energy topped coal last year, but only when all energy sources are counted. In other words, the math only works when electricity production, transportation, and consumption from industrial, residential, and commercial markets are combined. Similarly, renewable energy is a broad category that includes wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, other biomass, and several smaller contributors.

That's why I like to say that recent renewable-energy development represents the start of a second era of renewable energy. The first one was all of humanity's history before the Industrial Revolution. Our industrialism was powered first by coal, and more recently, also by oil and natural gas. The development of renewable energy looks like it will make it possible to keep full-scale industrialism without dependence on fossil fuels.

... apart from gas.

Gas consumption for electricity generation has boomed massively as coal has declined. This is an unsurprising result of the market penetration of intermittent sources, which need gas to back them up.

Despite the quasi-religious commitment of renewables advocates to almost entirely mythical grid scale storage, which like controlled fusion is about thirty years away, and always will be.

 

[barbos]

bilby, I am glad that you conceded that solar/wind is already cheaper than the rest and the only thing to solve now is overnight storage.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

 

[bilby]

bilby, I am glad that you conceded that solar/wind is already cheaper than the rest and the only thing to solve now is overnight storage.

Not just 'overnight'. Over as long as it remains overcast for solar; And as long as it remains calm for wind.

That's in the order of weeks, not hours.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

 

[barbos]

bilby, I am glad that you conceded that solar/wind is already cheaper than the rest and the only thing to solve now is overnight storage.

Not just 'overnight'. Over as long as it remains overcast for solar; And as long as it remains calm for wind.

No, just overnight will be enough. With enough scale and extra capacity one would be able to charge for the night reliably.

That's in the order of weeks, not hours.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

Cute, If you want to play that game, then I was wrong, Earth base fusion plants exist, they are called solar plants, they are based on Earth.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

Coal plants do not pay fair environmental costs. So in that sense electrical storage already exists and more viable than coal

 

[bilby]

No, just overnight will be enough. With enough scale and extra capacity one would be able to charge for the night reliably.
With enough extra capacity, you will run out of land on which to put solar panels. They are shit under clouds; And are shit within a few hours before sunset and after sunrise too. Solar gets you electricity about eight hours a day, on days without clouds.

That's in the order of weeks, not hours.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

Cute, If you want to play that game, then I was wrong, Earth base fusion plants exist, they are called solar plants, they are based on Earth.

Yup. Both exist. Neither is viable. So we burn gas.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

Coal plants do not pay fair environmental costs. So in that sense electrical storage already exists and more viable than coal

That's the first sane thing you've said.

Coal is crap. We need to replace it. There's only two existing technologies that can do this - France and Norway have proven they work (and Germany has proven that nothing else does).

Sadly the Norwegian option only works with Norwegian topography and climate (and is insanely dangerous by comparison to the French option).

There's only one global solution to the problem of generating sufficient electricity to power developed economies without trashing the environment. It's also the safest, most reliable, and cleanest electricity generation technology yet developed. Burning gas, while spending a fortune on mostly ineffective wind and solar, ain't it.

 

[barbos]

No, just overnight will be enough. With enough scale and extra capacity one would be able to charge for the night reliably.

With enough extra capacity, you will run out of land on which to put solar panels. They are shit under clouds;
And are shit within a few hours before sunset and after sunrise too. Solar gets you electricity about eight hours a day, on days without clouds.

That's in the order of weeks, not hours.

It's always sunny in deserts.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

Cute, If you want to play that game, then I was wrong, Earth base fusion plants exist, they are called solar plants, they are based on Earth.

Yup. Both exist. Neither is viable. So we burn gas.

Only if you ignore CO2 emissions.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

Coal plants do not pay fair environmental costs. So in that sense electrical storage already exists and more viable than coal

That's the first sane thing you've said.

Coal is crap. We need to replace it. There's only two existing technologies that can do this - France and Norway have proven they work (and Germany has proven that nothing else does).

Sadly the Norwegian option only works with Norwegian topography and climate (and is insanely dangerous by comparison to the French option).

There's only one global solution to the problem of generating sufficient electricity to power developed economies without trashing the environment. It's also the safest, most reliable, and cleanest electricity generation technology yet developed. Burning gas, while spending a fortune on mostly ineffective wind and solar, ain't it.

It ain't nukes. There is not enough uranium for the current nukes and your new and efficient nukes DO NOT exist yet.


Anyone said PV were not shit under clouds? You need scale and capacity so that when it's cloudy in one place it's sunny in another and there is enough capacity to charge everything from that one sunny place.

PS: You completely screwed quotes.

 

[bilby]

No, just overnight will be enough. With enough scale and extra capacity one would be able to charge for the night reliably.

With enough extra capacity, you will run out of land on which to put solar panels. They are shit under clouds;
And are shit within a few hours before sunset and after sunrise too. Solar gets you electricity about eight hours a day, on days without clouds.

It's always sunny in deserts.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

Cute, If you want to play that game, then I was wrong, Earth base fusion plants exist, they are called solar plants, they are based on Earth.

Yup. Both exist. Neither is viable. So we burn gas.

Only if you ignore CO2 emissions.

Exactly my point. Wind and solar don't meet the goal of reducing those emissions. Because they imply the burning of lots of gas.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

Coal plants do not pay fair environmental costs. So in that sense electrical storage already exists and more viable than coal

That's the first sane thing you've said.

Coal is crap. We need to replace it. There's only two existing technologies that can do this - France and Norway have proven they work (and Germany has proven that nothing else does).

Sadly the Norwegian option only works with Norwegian topography and climate (and is insanely dangerous by comparison to the French option).

There's only one global solution to the problem of generating sufficient electricity to power developed economies without trashing the environment. It's also the safest, most reliable, and cleanest electricity generation technology yet developed. Burning gas, while spending a fortune on mostly ineffective wind and solar, ain't it.

It ain't nukes. There is not enough uranium for the current nukes and your new and efficient nukes DO NOT exist yet.

There's a massive glut of uranium, and the total resource hasn't even been looked at closely yet.

Uranium is easily sufficiently plentiful to fuel many centuries of world energy demand.

Anyone said PV were not shit under clouds? You need scale and capacity so that when it's cloudy in one place it's sunny in another and there is enough capacity to charge everything from that one sunny place.

PS: You completely screwed quotes.

Yeah, I am on my phone, it's easy to do.

 

[fromderinside]

OK, It comes down to heat. Heat is being generated everywhere on or near the surface all the time. We need just be more shrewd and adaptive so we can be exploiting whatever is being generated when something else is at quiescent. Not an impossibly big task. Probably a lot of overlapping infrastructure involved as well.

Problem solved?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It ain't nukes. There is not enough uranium for the current nukes and your new and efficient nukes DO NOT exist yet.

Plenty of uranium if we use reprocessing and breeder reactors. Breeder reactors aren't anything exotic, it's just been irrational fear of plutonium that has kept us from going this route. (If you want plutonium for weapons you have to process the fuel fairly quickly. The desired reaction is U₂₃₈ + n > Np₂₃₉ which decays to Pu₂₃₉. Leave it too long and you start seeing Pu₂₃₉ + n > Pu₂₄₀. Too much Pu₂₄₀ and your bomb probably fizzles. Separating Pu₂₃₉ from Pu₂₄₀ is not practical--if you are going the isotope separation route to a bomb it's a lot easier to separate U₂₃₈ and U₂₃₅.

Anyone said PV were not shit under clouds? You need scale and capacity so that when it's cloudy in one place it's sunny in another and there is enough capacity to charge everything from that one sunny place.

That is an incredible amount of extra capacity, not to mention all the wires you're going to need and the losses on those wires. (Imagine what happens when the whole northeastern US is socked in with a winter storm.)

 

[fromderinside]

Storms. Another dynamic heat system that needs be exploited for power for Usens.

 

[barbos]

No, just overnight will be enough. With enough scale and extra capacity one would be able to charge for the night reliably.

With enough extra capacity, you will run out of land on which to put solar panels. They are shit under clouds;
And are shit within a few hours before sunset and after sunrise too. Solar gets you electricity about eight hours a day, on days without clouds.

It's always sunny in deserts.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

Cute, If you want to play that game, then I was wrong, Earth base fusion plants exist, they are called solar plants, they are based on Earth.

Yup. Both exist. Neither is viable. So we burn gas.

Only if you ignore CO2 emissions.

Exactly my point. Wind and solar don't meet the goal of reducing those emissions. Because they imply the burning of lots of gas.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

Coal plants do not pay fair environmental costs. So in that sense electrical storage already exists and more viable than coal

That's the first sane thing you've said.

Coal is crap. We need to replace it. There's only two existing technologies that can do this - France and Norway have proven they work (and Germany has proven that nothing else does).

Sadly the Norwegian option only works with Norwegian topography and climate (and is insanely dangerous by comparison to the French option).

There's only one global solution to the problem of generating sufficient electricity to power developed economies without trashing the environment. It's also the safest, most reliable, and cleanest electricity generation technology yet developed. Burning gas, while spending a fortune on mostly ineffective wind and solar, ain't it.

It ain't nukes. There is not enough uranium for the current nukes and your new and efficient nukes DO NOT exist yet.

There's a massive glut of uranium, and the total resource hasn't even been looked at closely yet.

glut does not say about amount of the uranium in the crust. Current reactor designs are extremely inefficient and would last few decades if everyone switch to nukes.

Uranium is easily sufficiently plentiful to fuel many centuries of world energy demand.
not with current nukes

Anyone said PV were not shit under clouds? You need scale and capacity so that when it's cloudy in one place it's sunny in another and there is enough capacity to charge everything from that one sunny place.

PS: You completely screwed quotes.

Yeah, I am on my phone, it's easy to do.

You keep doing it.

 

[barbos]

It ain't nukes. There is not enough uranium for the current nukes and your new and efficient nukes DO NOT exist yet.

Plenty of uranium if we use reprocessing and breeder reactors. Breeder reactors aren't anything exotic,

You forget that they are fucking expensive.

it's just been irrational fear of plutonium that has kept us from going this route. (If you want plutonium for weapons you have to process the fuel fairly quickly. The desired reaction is U₂₃₈ + n > Np₂₃₉ which decays to Pu₂₃₉. Leave it too long and you start seeing Pu₂₃₉ + n > Pu₂₄₀. Too much Pu₂₄₀ and your bomb probably fizzles. Separating Pu₂₃₉ from Pu₂₄₀ is not practical--if you are going the isotope separation route to a bomb it's a lot easier to separate U₂₃₈ and U₂₃₅.

Anyone said PV were not shit under clouds? You need scale and capacity so that when it's cloudy in one place it's sunny in another and there is enough capacity to charge everything from that one sunny place.

That is an incredible amount of extra capacity, not to mention all the wires you're going to need and the losses on those wires. (Imagine what happens when the whole northeastern US is socked in with a winter storm.)

Deserts and Really High Voltage lines.

 

[bilby]

No, just overnight will be enough. With enough scale and extra capacity one would be able to charge for the night reliably.

With enough extra capacity, you will run out of land on which to put solar panels. They are shit under clouds;
And are shit within a few hours before sunset and after sunrise too. Solar gets you electricity about eight hours a day, on days without clouds.

It's always sunny in deserts.

So the "only" thing to solve is a massive and hugely expensive problem that will probably have no sufficiently inexpensive solution ever.

And unlike earth based fusion, storage actually exists, it's just not yet economic when comparing with coal which does not include environmental costs.

Earth based fusion already exists. It's just not practical, because it costs more energy than it makes.

Cute, If you want to play that game, then I was wrong, Earth base fusion plants exist, they are called solar plants, they are based on Earth.

Yup. Both exist. Neither is viable. So we burn gas.

Only if you ignore CO2 emissions.

Exactly my point. Wind and solar don't meet the goal of reducing those emissions. Because they imply the burning of lots of gas.

So it's just like grid-scale storage.

And like fusion, practical and affordable grid scale storage is about twenty years away, and always will be.

Storage is the holy grail of the renewables advocates. But it's a unicorn. And they keep talking up the donkey with an ice cream cone on it's head, and saying "See! We're nearly there!".

It would be cute, if they were six years old.

Coal plants do not pay fair environmental costs. So in that sense electrical storage already exists and more viable than coal

That's the first sane thing you've said.

Coal is crap. We need to replace it. There's only two existing technologies that can do this - France and Norway have proven they work (and Germany has proven that nothing else does).

Sadly the Norwegian option only works with Norwegian topography and climate (and is insanely dangerous by comparison to the French option).

There's only one global solution to the problem of generating sufficient electricity to power developed economies without trashing the environment. It's also the safest, most reliable, and cleanest electricity generation technology yet developed. Burning gas, while spending a fortune on mostly ineffective wind and solar, ain't it.

It ain't nukes. There is not enough uranium for the current nukes and your new and efficient nukes DO NOT exist yet.

There's a massive glut of uranium, and the total resource hasn't even been looked at closely yet.

glut does not say about amount of the uranium in the crust. Current reactor designs are extremely inefficient and would last few decades if everyone switch to nukes.

Resource scarcity is not an issue. There's more uranium out there than we could possibly need.

We can even recover it from seawater - and the world's rivers replace it faster than we could possibly use it.

Recovery from seawater is unviable ONLY because there's a massive glut of uranium.

The global reserve is huge; The resource is effectively infinite (certainly it's many millennia of supply even if we had ten billion people all consuming electricity like modern Americans).

Shit, Arnhem Land alone could likely supply the world for centuries.

Uranium is easily sufficiently plentiful to fuel many centuries of world energy demand.
not with current nukes

Anyone said PV were not shit under clouds? You need scale and capacity so that when it's cloudy in one place it's sunny in another and there is enough capacity to charge everything from that one sunny place.

PS: You completely screwed quotes.

Yeah, I am on my phone, it's easy to do.

You keep doing it.

Yes.

 

[barbos]

Let see some numbers.
Little bit of googling and it seems one can buy ~250 wh LiFePO4 for $50.
That's $200 for 1KWH. US consumes ~30KWH per day per person. So let's take that number and would cost $6K per person.
LiFePO4 lasts 10 years, that's $50/month that's how much storage costs right now.
And don't forget that US for some reasons consumes 2x more than the rest of normal (EU) countries.
I suspect A/C and electric driers are the culprits. Which gives you an idea of stopping doing laundry at night and considering that A/C is mostly needed during hot sunny days when electricity is free. 30KWH may be an overkill.

Electric Storage bills could be a great incentive to change behavior. Just charge people actual cost of electricity+storage at any given moment of time and people will stop doing laundry at night and may even get rid of electric driers, same with A/C - start using more efficient (more expensive to install) systems.

 

[barbos]

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-titanate_battery, I don't know how expensive they are, but suspect they are similarly priced. They are even more durable than LiFePO4 - up to 20,000 cycles which is 50 years. Car makers even complained about that

So if you plan for 50 years these batteries could be 5 times cheaper than LiFePO4.

So the only limiting factor is amount of lithium which is not a problem since we have oceans
And then there are sodium/potassium-ion batteries which have no scarcity problem at all and dirt cheap and last 10 years.