Posted on 04/29/2024 4:50:00 AM PDT by MtnClimber
In my self-designated role critiquing various schemes for total transformation of the world energy system, I get to review large amounts of poor, shoddy, and incompetent work. When people get into advocating for this “energy transition,” the stars regularly align to bring forth the most extreme levels of ineptitude. Start with the fact that the “smartest” people are filled with arrogance and hubris, but are not actually very smart. Add that many innumerate Politics and English majors have flooded into a field that cries out for engineering calculations. Add too that groupthink and orthodoxy enforcement prevent anyone from pointing out obvious flaws. And then throw in a strong dose of religious zealotry that obstructs the intrusion of anything resembling critical thinking. All in all, it’s a prescription for catastrophe.
But in a field rife with bad, worse, still worse, and even dangerously incompetent work, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything as shockingly inept as the Report just out from the International Energy Agency with the title “Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions.” The Report has a date only specified to the month of “April 2024,” but the press release came out just two days ago on April 25.
If I had been given the assignment by the North Koreans to write the Report to somehow induce the West to self-destruct, I don’t know how I would have done it differently.
Are you familiar with the International Energy Agency? It is not part of the UN, but rather a separate consortium currently of some 40+ countries, mostly Western and mostly rich, founded in the wake of the oil shocks of the 1970s with a then-goal of promoting energy security. It is based, of course, in Paris. The current (and since 2015) head is a guy named Fatih Barol. Here is a picture of Barol from Wikipedia:
Somewhere along the line the IEA completely lost track of the energy security mission, and turned into an unabashed advocate for the green energy transition. That’s where they are today.
I don’t know how many people work at the IEA, but it seems like most to all of them got in on writing this Report. On page 5 there is a list of some 35 “directors,” “lead authors,” and “principal authors” from among IEA employees, plus another 4 who provided “support,” and then, on pages 6 to 8, some 89 people said to be “high-level government representatives and international experts from outside of the IEA” who somehow “contributed to the process.” From the content of the Report, one has to wonder if any of these people ever completed the study of arithmetic at the sixth-grade level, let alone if any have read any of the important work in this area.
The thesis of the Report is that batteries, and particularly lithium ion batteries, are the key to the impending energy transition, and need to be scaled up massively and immediately with whatever amount of government subsidies and handouts that it takes. Here are a few quotes from the press release:
After their deployment in the power sector more than doubled last year, batteries need to lead a sixfold increase in global energy storage to enable the world to meet 2030 targets. . . . In the first comprehensive analysis of the entire battery ecosystem, the IEA’s Special Report on Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions sets out the role that batteries can play alongside renewables as a competitive, secure and sustainable alternative to electricity generation from fossil fuels. . . . IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol [said,] “Batteries will provide the foundations in both areas, playing an invaluable role in scaling up renewables and electrifying transport while delivering secure and sustainable energy for businesses and households.
I suppose it would be too much for me to expect these grandees to have read my energy storage report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation in December 2022. But if you are claiming that you have at hand a “competitive, secure and sustainable alternative to electricity generation from fossil fuels,” as these guys are, there is a series of very obvious question that must be addressed. Those include:
- Quantitatively, how much energy storage, in watt-hours (or gigawatt-hours) will be necessary to provide full back-up to a national electricity grid once all fossil fuel back-up has been banished and the storage is all that is available when the instantaneous generators are not supplying the full demand?
- How much will that amount of storage cost?
- What is the maximum length of time that energy must be held in storage before it is called upon, and is the proposed storage technology capable of the task of storing energy for that period of time?
There are other comparably important questions, but at least those are absolutely essential.
The IEA Report addresses none of them.
What we get instead is endless happy talk about the wonders of lithium ion battery technology, how the costs are falling rapidly, how deployments are soaring, and how utopia (i.e., meeting UN COP 28 emissions reduction targets) is right around the corner if only we accelerate the process with massive government “support.” The full Report is some 159 pages (with appendices and references), so I can only give you a small sample. But here are a few choice quotes from the Executive Summary:
- From page 11: “Batteries are an essential part of the global energy system today and the fastest growing energy technology on the market. Battery storage in the power sector was the fastest growing energy technology in 2023 that was commercially available, with deployment more than doubling year-on-year.”
- Also from page 11: “Lithium-ion batteries dominate battery use due to recent cost reductions and performance improvements. Lithium-ion batteries have outclassed alternatives over the last decade, thanks to 90% cost reductions since 2010, higher energy densities and longer lifetimes.”
- From page 12: “Policy support has given a boost for batteries deployment in many markets but the supply chain for batteries is very concentrated. Strong government support for the rollout of EVs and incentives for battery storage are expanding markets for batteries around the world.” [For the obtuse among the readership, “policy support” is code for vast subsidies and handouts.]
- More from page 12: “Batteries are key to the transition away from fossil fuels and accelerate the pace of energy efficiency through electrification and greater use of renewables in power.”
- Still on page 12: “To triple global renewable energy capacity by 2030 while maintaining electricity security, energy storage needs to increase six-times. To facilitate the rapid uptake of new solar PV and wind, global energy storage capacity increases to 1 500 GW by 2030 in the NZE Scenario, which meets the Paris Agreement target of limiting global average temperature increases to 1.5°C or less in 2100. Battery storage delivers 90% of that growth, rising 14-fold to 1200 GW by 2030.”
Check out that last bullet point. Yes, they are so dumb that they discuss energy storage capacity in GW rather than GWh. How did they come up with the line that to reach their goals “energy storage needs to increase six-times” when they don’t even know the right units to do the calculations? You won’t find an answer in this Report. In my own energy storage report, I calculated that to reach a zero-emissions electricity sector that could get through a year without fossil fuel back-up would require increasing energy storage by something around 10,000 times. I used the correct units and showed how my calculations were done.
And how about the question of the length of time that energy must remain in storage to back-up a wind/solar powered grid, and whether the proposed technology is up to the task? In my own report, which only considered scenarios of getting through a single year, I showed that much of the stored energy would need to be held for 6 - 12 months before use. In a further blog post on September 28, 2023, I covered a new report then out from the UK’s Royal Society (described by me as “semi-competent”), which used 37 years of data. Based on the 37 years of data, that report concluded that hundreds of hours worth of grid peak usage would need to be held in storage for multiple decades in order to get through worst-case sun and wind droughts. I had this quote from the Executive Summary of the Royal Society report:
Wind supply can vary over time scales of decades and tens of TWhs of very long-duration storage will be needed. The scale is over 1000 times that currently provided by pumped hydro in the UK, and far more than could conceivably be provided by conventional batteries.
(Emphasis mine.). I’m ready to forgive these IEA guys for not being familiar with my own report, but not for complete ignorance of the Royal Society’s effort.
The entire discussion that I can find in the IEA Report on the problem of need for massive amounts of very long duration storage consists of a chart and one paragraph of text on page 47. Here is the chart:
And the text:
Iron air and other battery technologies that potentially could enable the storage of electricity over longer durations measured in weeks, are still in their infancy. Currently it is not clear whether those technologies can be developed so as to provide what is required in a cost-efficient way. For even longer duration storage, such as seasonal storage, battery technologies are not fit for purpose, and other mechanical, e.g. pumped storage hydro, and chemical, e.g. hydrogen storage, technologies need to be deployed.
So 90 plus percent of the storage needed to back up the intermittently-supplied grid needs to be stored for months and years, but the only battery technologies that can even last for “weeks” are things that are “in their infancy” and where it is “not clear” that they can be provided in a “cost-efficient way.”
Overall, a shockingly inept and embarrassing piece of work from the IEA. Undoubtedly our government will react by piling forth a few more hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize batteries to do a job for which they are completely “unsuitable.”
“Batteries are better then ever. Way back in the good old days, a top shelf car battery had an 18 month warranty.
The 12 volt system was introduced in 1956 - then new high compression engines, AC, power accessories, meant the 6 volt electric system couldn’t keep up, especially with generator charging systems.
Modern cars and trucks have all that stuff and more. Security systems, satellite comms, all sorts of parasitic drains. Check the voltage after a few days and they are depleted. There is enough juice to reliably start the engine - but the battery will be toast in just a fraction of its potential service life.
Yep, very well explained. The trick with lead acid batteries is never let them get below 10.5 volts or let them sit down on charge too long and they will last much longer. We lived off grid for quite awhile, and with proper maintenance and “rotation” in the bank our cheap common 12v marine deep cycle batteries would last at least 4 years. Something about the slow discharge and slow recharge from wind and solar actually helped the life expectancy vs the fast discharge and fast recharge from vehicles.
I agree 100% with part of the sentiment (reducing demand is part of the math) but not the other part (changing lifestyle).
Part of my energy project was doing things to make our home operate way more efficiently (sealed cracks, replaced old gaskets around doors, added insulation, installed a variable speed heat pump, hybrid water heater and directing the cold air byproduct from the water heater to my HVAC during the warm half of the year). Since it was time to replace my wife's ICE crossover anyway I replaced it with an EV crossover, choosing one that has a good miles/kWh throughput. And I set up two charging circuits (one constantly powered and one intermittently powered) to optimize charging the EV with mostly homemade power. About the only thing left to make the home more efficient would be to take down the sheetrock on all the walls so I could put real insulation in the walls. But that's cost prohibitive now that my power bills average $80/month in my all-electric, 2,300 sq ft home and charging the EV to drive 1,300 miles per month (with homemade power charged miles, not counting if we take it on road trips).
Rule #1 before I began this project engineering task was that mine and my wife's lifestyle wouldn't be limited. We'd still get in the hot tub as much as we want. We'd still keep the home temperature set to what we want. We'd still drive as much as we want (now that we do most of the driving in the EV, our driving habits are related to our solar throughput). So our lifestyles aren't changed.
What's changed is that the Dims' stupid energy polices and their warmageddon cult impact our monthly budget only about 20% as much as they used to. My small power bill + loan payment I took out to do the solar and other upgrades is equal in my budget to what my year 2019 budget was paying in power + natural gas + gasoline. In other words, I've removed the past 5 years' worth of dumb energy price inflation from my budget. As the loan balance is paid down the monthly payment amount goes down too -- but I still pay the same amount to pay it down early (again, freezing the energy cost portion of my budget like it's forever year 2019).
When the loan is paid off I'll probably still "pay" the same amount to an investment account to build up for repairs to the solar system or appliances. (What I'll probably do instead is just withdraw that much less from our Roth IRA's but designate that portion to being for the home energy project. That way a higher percentage of our wealth stays in our Roth IRAs growing tax free.)
“bought them 3 years old and had nothing but issues.”
It would be difficult to make an accurate generalization about battery chemistry based on the performance of second hand year old batts, how do you know for sure they weren’t abused, neglected, permanently sulfated etc?
I think this is all very good information for personal use. But what are we going to do about industry?
I saw someone say that people used to live with no electricity at all and managed just fine.
Are we going to go back to outhouses too? And are we going to have to grow all of our own food, instead of having it grown somewhere else (with no petroleum-based fertilizers of course)
And no money to buy products ranging from nails to fasten a board to a wristwatch to keep track of time, never cars. We don’t need cars, right? Horse and buggy?
And when you get sick, old, or infirm, you are on your own?
Do we really want to go back to those times? I think this is great for individuals. Are we really advocating for a return to pre-industrial times?
True, as long as you do the math on your situation (power consumption habits, weather patterns in your area, etc.). Not everybody can make solar work well enough to pay for itself.
But what are we going to do about industry?
On that we're in 100% agreement. See post #12 where I use my own experience with home energy self reliance (a successful project if being 80% self-reliant is the goal) and discuss how being 100% self-reliant is not at all feasible. Then doing that on a city-wide, industrial scale is horrible. And especially outside a climate that's not good for solar (i.e. northeast U.S. or northwest U.S. vs warm sunny Alabama).
I figured that was the case that we agreed on that.
If we destroy industry and transportation, there are going to be a lot of people with no heat, no food, no water, and things are going to go South very quickly.
I can only conclude this is all by deliberate design, the goal.
3 banks for me is 42kw
With BMS about $9k
Plus time to build
Some people just look like wankers. Faith is one of them.
What I meant was exactly the opposite of what you are striving to do. You will find that it will be a full time job just to try and keep up with this lifestyle you want from a self sustainable system. The more money you throw at it, the bigger it gets, the more maintenance it will need. Been there... It ends up being like trying to maintain six cars instead of just two when your true needs are satisfied just fine with only two.
To be practical and sustainable it first takes a lifestyle adjustment in the mind. Beginning with impractical ideology and expectations from the system. Beginning with size of dwelling you need to heat and cool and luxury toys. I am approaching the concept from a general perspective that not everyone has a half million dollars to set up a system just to try and satisfy an impractical and exuberant lifestyle.
I mean really... Is a 4000 square foot home for one person or even a couple actually practical? Or is it just a status symbol to show off wealth? How many rooms can one occupy at one time? Same with luxury toys... Are they really a hill to die on that one cannot live without? Or just status symbols that put an unnecessary demand on the system? Or just conveniences to satisfy laziness?
Anyone can become self sustainable and do it affordably if they adopt and practice a little minimalism, effort, and practicality rather than try to maintain status symbols and laziness.
A couple of issues I wondered about are: Do we have enough raw materials that we would need to make this many Lithium-ion batteries? Aren’t they the ones that are used in vehicles...the ones that occasionally catch fire?
“I think this is all very good information for personal use. But what are we going to do about industry?
I saw someone say that people used to live with no electricity at all and managed just fine.
Are we going to go back to outhouses too? And are we going to have to grow all of our own food, instead of having it grown somewhere else (with no petroleum-based fertilizers of course)
And no money to buy products ranging from nails to fasten a board to a wristwatch to keep track of time, never cars. We don’t need cars, right? Horse and buggy?
And when you get sick, old, or infirm, you are on your own?
Do we really want to go back to those times? I think this is great for individuals. Are we really advocating for a return to pre-industrial times?”
Of course we would rather not. But unfortunately this is indeed our future. We will be thrown back into the 1800s where communities have their ranchers, farmers, butchers, bakers, and candle stick makers. With a little advantage of some personal electricity for minimal needs such as lights. So we can get caught with our pants down or get ahead of the inevitable and do it on our terms now not on their terms later.
An outhouse is actually a luxury in a survival situation. Been there too. And yes, it is going to come to this pretty soon the way it is going. Of course we don’t want to return to those times but we are not going to have a choice. They are pushing it on us by the day. They are making us dependent on the grid so they can shut it off completely. And yes unfortunately it will indeed become a time where only the strongest will survive. That is exactly their plan...
Unfortunately the choice will be live minimal and practical or be homeless.
I don’t know what the reserves are for lithium, but I think most are controlled by China. I doubt there is enough lithium to make backup storage for the entire world. Recycling lithium batteries is difficult, so there needs to be improvement in technology in that area too.
“Do we really want to go back to those times? I think this is great for individuals. Are we really advocating for a return to pre-industrial times?”
Think third world... Because that is exactly where we are headed very soon.
You are right, most batteries last longer and perform better with gentle charging and discharging cycles. The converse is also true. Constant rapid charging of EV batteries is detrimental to their lifespan and performance. This is often overlooked as one of the costs of an EV. This contributes to the abysmal trade in value of EV’s. When you factor that in to an EV’s expense, It becomes insanely expensive compared to ICE powered vehicles.
And as a reminder, my "only" 80% energy self-reliance includes our driving (charging the EV for 1,300 miles of local driving per month with homemade power). Most people who talk about being off-grid solar still buy gas for all of their local driving, even if it's a lot less than 1,300 miles per month.
To your point, if our political class puts us in a mark-of-the-beast style situation for energy I could go 100% with a change in lifestyle (i.e. closing off the downstairs of the house, getting in the hot tub only on good solar days, less joy riding in the EV and less getting my mother out of the nursing home for 100-mile round trips visiting family and such, just getting out for necessities, etc.).
His thesis is flawed.
Being “smart” implies intellegence at a higher level.
The problem is not intellegence but rather ignorance. One can be ignorant, lack information, but still be intelligent. That is a serious problem on Free Republic where intelligent folk are simply clueless when international subjects are discussed.
The author does allude to the ignorance cause however.
The solution will ultimately be many small and safe nuclear power plants
I have been playing with salt batteries on a small scale. I am currently moving back off grid and want to build a large six cell salt battery to try and store my power. Even though they take up three times the space as other batteries, they have a huge advantage of endless discharge/recharge cycles without losing efficiency. They can also be made more efficient by adding Hydrogen Peroxide. The only real draw back is the cathodes and anodes are sacrificial and need to be replaced once in awhile as a regular maintenance item. But using graphite anodes greatly helps with this issue.
If we get to that point it is going to be mass starvation.
If we can’t get food to markets, and people don’t have money to buy that food, that is exactly what is going to happen.
I don’t think that is hyperbolic. People don’t realize how close we are to that in this country of 330 million people. They won’t be able to grow food.
Personal electricity consumption is going to be the least of anyone’s worries. It is going to be food and potable water.
So why arent people out there talking about the upcoming mass starvation and horrorshow that the leftists are bringing on our country and in all of western civ
Why arent we talking out loud about the death that is soon coming. Writing articles, speaking at venues,
“To your point, if our political class puts us in a mark-of-the-beast style situation for energy I could go 100% with a change in lifestyle (i.e. closing off the downstairs of the house, getting in the hot tub only on good solar days, less joy riding in the EV and less getting my mother out of the nursing home for 100-mile round trips visiting family and such, just getting out for necessities, etc.).”
Unfortunately this is what will happen and what will be required. You will get by then as long as you are willing to actually reduce demand when the time calls for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.