Posted on 05/27/2022 4:40:31 AM PDT by MtnClimber
As I’ve been pointing out now for a couple of years, the obvious gap in the plans of our betters for a carbon-free “net zero” energy future is the problem of massive-scale energy storage. How exactly is New York City (for example) going to provide its citizens with power for a long and dark full-week period in the winter, with calm winds, long nights, and overcast days, after everyone has been required to change over to electric heat and electric cars — and all the electricity is supposed to come from the wind and sun, which are neither blowing nor shining for these extended periods? Can someone please calculate how much energy storage will be needed to cover a worst-case solar/wind drought, what it will consist of, how long it has to last, how much it will cost, and whether it is economically feasible? Nearly all descriptions by advocates of the supposed path to “net zero” — including the ambitious plans of the states of New York and California — completely gloss over this issue and/or deal with it in a way demonstrating total incompetence and failure to comprehend the problem.
And then suddenly appeared in my inbox a couple of weeks ago a large Report with the title “The Future of Energy Storage: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study.” MIT — that’s America’s premier university for matters of science and technology. The Report is 378 pages long, full of lots of detail, charts and graphs, mathematical equations, and technical jargon. It lists as authors some 18 members of the MIT faculty. Surely, if anyone can address this “net zero” energy storage problem competently, these will be the people.
Sorry. This is a product of modern American academia. MIT is as extreme left as any of them.
Having now spent about a week trying to wade through this morass, I am not impressed. The Report is an exercise by genius would-be central planners concocting enormously complex models that just happen to come to the results that the authors are hoping for, while at the same time they avoid ever directly addressing the critical question, namely what is the plan to get through that worst case sun/wind drought. Implicit in every page of the Report is that it is an advocacy document for the proposition that the U.S. should embark full speed ahead on crash “net zero” plans for our multi-tens-of-trillions-of-dollars economy without ever doing any kind of demonstration project to show it can work on any scale no matter how small.
You start to get an idea where this is going at the very beginning, when you come on page romanette v to a list of members of an “Advisory Committee” that appears to have given direction to the project. Members include John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, someone from the Environmental Defense Fund, an “Alternative Energy Research” guy from the Bank of America, an ex-World Bank guy (the World Bank being an organization dedicated to keeping poor countries from having access to energy that works), an environmental bureaucrat from the Massachusetts state government, several people from other alternative energy investors and environmental advocacy groups, and so forth. Clearly, this Report had to come to a pre-determined conclusion that energy storage issues do not pose any major impediment to net zero ambitions.
This being a product of left-wing academia, you can expect the usual touching faith in the ability of the federal government to solve all problems, no matter how intractable, by the magic of spending money out of the infinite federal pile. Thus, early in the Executive Summary, we find a recognition that the only battery storage technology currently being deployed in large amounts in commercial applications — namely Lithium Ion — cannot provide backup for periods longer than about 12 hours:
Li-ion batteries will continue to be a leading technology for EVs and for short-duration storage, but their storage capacity costs are unlikely to fall low enough to enable widespread adoption for long-duration (> 12 hours) electricity system applications.
OK then, what is the technology that will step up for the periods of a week or two that may need to be covered in a world without fossil fuels. From page xv:
To enable economical long-duration energy storage (> 12 hours), the DOE should support research, development, and demonstration to advance alternative electrochemical storage technologies that rely on earth-abundant materials. Cost, lifetime, and manufacturing scale requirements for long-duration energy storage favor the exploration of novel electro-chemical technologies, such as redox-flow and metal-air batteries that use inexpensive charge-storage materials and battery designs that are better suited for long-duration applications.
(Emphasis in original.). The feds will “support research” into “novel technologies,” of course using the infinite money pile, and the technology will magically appear. And what exactly is the technology that will then emerge to rescue us? They have no idea:
While several novel electrochemical technologies have shown promise, remaining knowledge gaps with respect to key scientific, engineering, and manufacturing challenges suggest high value for concerted government support. Innovation in these technologies is being actively pursued in other countries, notably China.
You’ve got to hate those “knowledge gaps,” but clearly all that is needed to fill them is enough federal funding. And you can’t let those Chinese beat us!
Well, how about just using that ubiquitous element hydrogen, easily available through the electrolysis of water? They discuss that too:
[H]ydrogen produced via electrolysis can serve as a low-carbon fuel for industry as well as for electricity generation during periods when VRE [variable renewable energy] generation is low. . . . We support the effort that the DOE is leading to create a national strategy that addresses hydrogen production, transportation, and storage. In particular, the ability of existing natural gas transmission pipelines to carry hydrogen without suffering embrittlement, either at reduced pressures or if hydrogen is blended with natural gas or other compounds, remains an open question that deserves government-supported study by the DOE and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Funny that private investors aren’t putting any real money into this “hydrogen economy” thing. That’s because to get hydrogen out of water is extremely costly, and once you have it, it is inferior to natural gas in every way as a source of energy for the people. It’s less dense, more dangerous, and more difficult to transport and store. But again, throw in some of the infinite pile of federal money and it will all magically work.
Many of the charts and graphs are very complicated and technical, but if you spend some time with them, you start to realize that they are an insult to your intelligence. I’ll give you just one of my favorites, this one from page 191. Here we are considering what the electricity generation system will look like for two regions, the Northeast (New York and New England) and Texas, in various low and no-carbon scenarios. The cutoffs of 0g, 5g, 10g and No Limit at the left refer to how much carbon emissions are allowed per kWh of electricity generated.
Thus at the top right we see what a zero-carbon scenario will look like for Texas. Supposedly, with about a 3 to 4 times overbuild of a system having only wind and solar generation, then we will only need battery storage for about 50% of capacity and about 11 hours duration. Really? Does anybody remember February 2021? Texas’s wind and solar generators produced at less than 10% capacity for days on end. Can a three times overbuild of wind capacity and 12 hours of battery storage solve that? The answer is no. Not even close. And you could get a wind/solar drought of a full week. If you have no fossil fuel backup, you had better have enough storage to cover that.
And if you take some time to study this chart (not saying that I would recommend that) you can find multiple other equally implausible assertions.
Bottom line: I’m not trusting anybody’s so-called “model” to prove that this gigantic energy transformation is going to work. Show me the demonstration project that actually works.
They won’t. Indeed, there is not even an attempt to put such a thing together, even as we hurtle down the road to “net zero” without any idea how it is going to work.
It does not seem that there is very much concern about outages. I am sure the elitists would have private backup systems so nothing to worry about you peasants.
— Donald Fagen, I.G.Y.
You can’t read/watch ANY science or technology peice without climate change as a fact and that a carbon free society is the solution. It’s pathetic.
But decentralized battery storage can be quite handy and pay for itself in the long run. Especially if your goal isn't to be 100% dependent on battery storage during weeks of nothing but rain during the winter.
If my predictions about my solar upgrade (including upgrading the battery storage) and throughput of an EV are as accurate as my predictions a year ago about my solar system, then during the winter months in Alabama I'll be about 70% independent energy wise in my all-electric two story house charging an EV to drive ~200 miles per week. (Obviously being close but not quite to 100% energy independent during the summer months.) It'll all pay for itself on about the 10th year. If I was to try to make myself 100% energy independent even through winter I'd run headlong into the law of diminishing returns and my system wouldn't pay for itself before my equipment needed replacing.
Without an EV, the 59% throughput I got last year is about as good as I can get and it all pay for itself in 9 to 10 years.
So if you're a do-it-yourself-cuz-we-can-count-on-government-to-just-mess-stuff-up kind of person, some battery storage can be helpful even if it's not a 100% solution against the Dims' energy madness.
It’s not supposed to “work”. It’s supposed to keep those in charge comfortable while the rest of humanity is thrown back into the stone age.
New York City has a VAST and as yet untapped resource for power generation. It is the utilization of the daily production of waste in the city, and much of the sewage plant discharge.
Startech Environmental Corporation has developed the Plasma Converter System for the safe and irreversible destruction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The new system integrates an automatic metal recovery system operating before the Plasma Converter, as well as a hydrogen recovery system and an electrical power generation system after the Converter. The complete Plasma Converter System enables customers to process MSW at zero dollars per ton. A Startech MSW facility can be an attractive low profile plant with no smokestack. It also outlines how the blackout-proof facility can produce its own green electric power and not be a burden to the electric grid.
Cost to set up such a plasma converter is estimated to be about $500 million or so but once up and running, it is capable of producing some six times the power necessary to keep the system running. At the present-day cost of trash removal and disposal, and the rising price of electricity, this system makes use of a growing degree of waste utilization, eliminating landfills, and in fact could be used to carry out further waste reduction in those same existing landfills.
The technology was developed in 2004, and has been extensively tested.
https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garbage.
This link discusses at length how the system works, and its feasibility. It is estimated that nine such systems could be set up and running to fully serve the needs of New York City alone.
But I bet the municipal unions would fight this tooth and nail. Department of Public Sanitation is a strong constituency in city government.
Absolutely right. Every “analysis” starts with the foregone conclusion that burning any carbonaceous fuel will destroy the earth.
Republicans need to get on legislation that makes these “scientists” and government officials personally accountable for the failure of their plans. If conditions worsen due to advocacy or legislation, those who contemplated and enabled same should be held financially liable to the totality of their personal wealth.
Thank you for that link, alloysteel. Very informative.
I remember considering solar for my house in Florida 35 years ago. And I too calculated that it would take 9 to 10 years to break even. The trouble is, by then you'll probably have to spend good bucks to keep the system working, then you're playing catchup again.
My neighbor in Florida had a solar heater for his pool but he had to make "constant" repairs, i.e., solar people parked in front of his house every other month.
But if it works for you, go for it!
Absent in this discussion is nuclear power. Zero carbon emissions, and not subject to the vagaries of weather.
Good find about a criticism of the ivory tower’s “real world” that they seek to impose. FaLaLaLa. Thank you.
My 10kW solar panels have a 25-year warranty guaranteed to have only a slight degradation in throughput to still be operating at 70% in the last year. My 30kWh batteries have a 19-year / 50% warranty. My 9kW inverter has a 10-year warranty. (It's technical rating is 12kW, but the other 3kW is for other stuff it does besides the DC-to-AC conversion.)
And power is relatively cheap in Alabama. Our stated rate is 10.6 cents per kWh (really it's usually 13 cents per kWh after all the riders and taxes). Basically, if power is cheap anyway there's no reason to try to save money by reducing my power bill. So I was reluctant to go solar until equipment prices came down per kW and kWh and the warranties went up. Then when Obama made my power company spend a beelyun dollars shutting down a coal plant and replacing it with a natural gas plant, my power bill went up. Brandon followed that by limiting natural gas supplies, making both my natural gas bill and my power bill go up. That was the point at which going solar would pay for itself. (Along with converting my two natural gas appliances into high efficiency electric ones to get rid of my natural gas bill while having all the comforts I was used to having but in a way that my solar inverter could power my comforts.)
Plus, Alabama doesn't do net metering. The short version of that is I have no financial incentive to put power onto the grid and get paid for excess power (in fact I'd have to pay more because of it). In other words, the only way it'll pay for itself is strictly in reducing how much power I buy from the grid. Thus, my overall budget for the system has to be careful not to overdo it and spend money for too much power I wouldn't use or store for later.
Finally, there's the issue of solar heating a pool in Florida. If I'm not mistaken, we're talking about in the cool winter months only, correct? We're talking less hours per day for sunshine, more liable to go days in a row of nothing but rain (winter weather in the southeast). Basically, when you need solar the most (heating up the pool during cold weather) is when you have the least solar energy. Contrast that with me trying to win my main battles in the summer. My main power usage is from keeping my house cool during the warm half of the year --- which is when I have the most solar energy. So part of an effective solar power strategy is to pick the battles that would A) destroy or reduce most of the big costs you face, and B) be able to win those battles most of the time. Just winning the battle of A/C cost during the warm half of the year, which is the easiest time of the year for my solar to "battle" on my behalf, makes my solar system worth the investment. Bonus points when the solar system helps me some during the rest of the year, even it it's not as effective during those months.
Cal Tech would disagree…. mIT is not premier anything
Thanks for posting. Not so much for this paper but for the topic. Storage is a key problem we need to solve no matter what power source we use. Unfortunately these guys did not offer much in this paper.
Storage is used to mitigate short-term peaks in demand, and to keep more capacity (such as coal-burning plants) running 24-7, to improve overall efficiency. This works well to avoid having to build primary generating capacity (not much has changed since Peter Lynch described the problem in "Beating the Street"). Battery storage is obviously more flexible, and cheaper, and upgradable, but the Sun doesn't shine at night.
> MIT is as extreme left as any of them.
Yep, I worked there. 401K plan has a Blackrock fund, Crowdstrike used for internal IT infrastructure monitoring, Zoom for IP based phones, clot shot vaccines mandated, wearing masks indoors on all campus buildings required. Some departments require statement of preferred pronouns in email signatures.
Complete leftists.
Well, you’ve obviously done your homework and not accepted claims by salesmen at face value.
The efficiency you describe is very large compared to what I was looking at 35 years ago, which was just a system used for heating hot water.
But I thought from your original post that you expected the equipment to last only about 10 years, which was my expectations at the time. So, for me it looked like it would take 10 years to break even and cover the investment - just in time for the original equipment to wear out and need a replacement investment. And if had to pay for unexpected repairs, well then I lose.
Plus, for me the panels were ugly and huge. They would’ve had to cover most of the roof on one side of the house and be very visible. At least my neighbor, heating his pool, had the panels out of sight on the back side of his house.
I had a heat pump to heat the pool during the winter months. However, I found that I didn’t care much for swimming in the winter. The water was warm, but part of the fun is to laze around and soak up the sun after being in the pool and it was too cold for that when just wearing a swimsuit.
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.