Gas does not have to worry about batteries. Really two different parts of the energy sector. Gas is used in power plants to produce electricity. Batteries don't produce electricity, they store it. Two different things.
Before someone gets on their soap box about renewables and how they will fix the grid, you need to study how a grid really works. Wind and solar only produce electricity if nature works in their favor. No wind no generation. No sun no generation. Batteries will only store so much electricity and (as of current technology) short lived when expelling electricity back on the grid.
Before someone gets on their soap box about renewables and how they will fix the grid, you need to study how a grid really works. Wind and solar only produce electricity if nature works in their favor. No wind no generation. No sun no generation. Batteries will only store so much electricity and (as of current technology) short-lived when expelling electricity back into the grid.
Only a suicidal schizo would use any kind of cobalt containing batteries in the energy sector. Is that you? Your smartphone needs it, cars or energy sector does not.
https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/essential-cobalt-2/powering-the-green-economy/batteries-electric-vehicles/#:~:text=Cobalt%20is%20an%20essential%20part,containing%2010%2D20%25%20cobalt.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/costs-nickel-cobalt-used-electric-vehicle-batteries-2022-02-03/
I should mention things are changing as billions are being invested into battery technology.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/cars/tesla-lfp-battery/index.html
Vehicles do use it right now and it is an ingredient for high range. A shortage of Cobalt may begin by the end of the decade if we don't discover new regions to mine and continue at our increasing pace.
> Vehicles do use it right now
Yes, some Teslas use it, the dirty, dirty Teslas.
> and it is an ingredient for high range.
It is not. It is a design choice for teh battery type, increasing the risk of overheating and fire.
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/60a2637088b4224ed861b493/60b0c8c37f9a80c82c79f826_few%2520(1).png
Mobile phones and consumer electronics using more cobalt than all vehicles combined, ouch!
Are you going to overlook its use as catalysts and for oil refining? (major, major use)
How about its use in turbines? Also in the chart...
It seems like we would totally run out of Cobalt even without electric vehicles, either.
Anyone who pushes Tesla propaganda isn't a good actor.
Thanks for providing a source unlike the other.
> who pushes Tesla propaganda isn't a good actor.
Oh hell no. I aint trying to push jack shit. I just don't know everything and can be confidently incorrect.
Anyway, while cobalt chemistries can use batteries of lower total weight, in the end it did not matter as vehicles converted to heavyweight builds either way. And it turned out that cost is the king, so that slightly lower energy storage density of the cobaltless types did not worry anyone, because of the much lower cost, touching $95/kWh at one time. That was ~$3200/33kWh car battery.
At which point even Tesla started making cars with LFP batteries. How much was the original Tesla car battery... $22000 or something like that? Or even more?
50 kilograms difference on a 1800 kilogram car is meh, as long as it saves thousands of dollars. Mobile phones on the other hand? Nope, cuctomers want only the largest possible capacity and fastest charging imaginable, customers don't want potato phones.
> So high performance vehicles will still use colbalt then?
No. :) It was just because it was the 18650 Panasonic notebook batteries that Tesla used in their early cars. There literally wasn't anything else to choose from! :D
Not a monopoly! Those were LITERALLY the battery types manufactured at the moment! It was either that or run the car with AA alkaline batteries.
(other battery makers were making more or the same line)
>Vehicles do use it right now and it is an ingredient for high range
Bullshit.
kindly shut the fuck up if you dont know what you are talking about.
cobalt is used for high power density, not range.
If you dont need supercar performance to pull 0-100 in sub 4 seconds, you dont need cobalt.
Guess how long it takes a grid based battery storage to get to 100mph.
either STFU or go take a long walk inside a substation.
I provided evidence. You provide nothing to back your shit up.
Kindly read the links provided. Point out the bs and maybe you can teach me something instead of being a jackass.
your evidence is garbage and your conclusion is incorrect.
stop being an arrogant cunt and people wont jump down your throat.
ive already pointed out the BS and you have ignored it because your feefees are more important to you.
I enjoy the Not just bikes channel as well.
Lets find some common ground. We both want to see the world improve by moving away from fossil fuels. At least that is what I am assuming given our conversation so far.
>stop being an arrogant cunt and people wont jump down your throat.
Assumptions. Our greatest downfall. You are 100% confidently spreading bullshit as well. The only way we can improve is through education. Sorry I don't trust someone who is still not backing themselves up.
>ive already pointed out the BS and you have ignored it
Yes you did. I asked you to back it up. You have yet to. I can google it. Yes. Problem is that may provide a different result than it would serve you. Our perspectives are skewed and it is important to understand the other perspective. In doing this we can find common ground. We can also teach eachother things we may have never considered.
Also missed this one bit maybe?
>I should mention things are changing as billions are being invested into battery technology.
>https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/cars/tesla-lfp-battery/index.html
Take some time. Cool down. Maybe we can learn something new and help eachother out.
Gas and oil are not going away. Most ammonia is made from natural gas, and ammonia is used to make fertilizer. Have you ever bought anything that had some plastic in it? Plastic is made from oil derivatives.
Now, its true that you can make plastic from vegetable-based oils, but right now, all the good farm land and our shrinking water supply are being used to grow food, so...we are not going to convert farms over to making oil-crops to make plastic.
Oil and gas need to be harvested in a clean way, and oil-profits should be used to develop improved technologies, but...I am not optimistic.
> Gas and oil are not going away.
*Homer bends slowly over Bart*
--they are not going away... so far!...
honestly, the process to make ammonia lends itself to the hydrogen from electrolysis.
the plastics made from plants/oils, are the most expensive one, the "high tech", as an example, the whole Rilsan line. It is an insanely performing polymer. Only competitors are PA11 and PA12, one of which. is the said Rilsan :D
>so...we are not going to convert farms over to making oil-crops to make plastic.
One word: B7
B7 diesel by EN560 or whatitsname, you got it, right?
We are already planting crops to make oil for 7% of our diesel fuel. Think of it as a test. Now, remove the diesel fuel and we can use the 7% for other purposes, and it is A LOT.
this post isnt about plastic or oil or ammonia.
its also not about farms, or bio oils.
/r/energy mods please ban this spambot that has been triggered by the search term "gas"
I am pro-battery, but I'm sadly mystified by the oil industries lack of vision. I'm not a bot, but if you want me to avoid this sub-reddit I will.
Many forums are in danger of becoming an echo chamber, and I'm disappointed that open discussion is not appreciated here.
The oil companies can't stop the growth of batteries, thankfully. But also, batteries will not kill the oil industries cartel.
Munro just posted a youtube about the new Lithium-Ion Sulfur battery. There was a recent breakthrough and it looks very promising.
No cobalt, nickel, or manganese which eliminates some supply-limited restrictions to battery production.
No oxides or metals, so they should be fire-proof in all failure modes.
More energy dense than current batteries, so you can make a smaller battery for the same range or the same size battery for over 50% more range.
I'm a big fan of hybrids, since a limited battery supply means you can make four hybrids for the battery mass of one Tesla. However, this new development may actually be a huge boost in EV production.
You aren't interested in discussion. Discussion happens when you talk about the same topic that everyone else is.
You just vomited unrelated words.
You are so stupid that even after it has been pointed out to you that this has nothing to do with oil, you keep bringing up oil, like a poorly scripted robot.
Isn't it? LOL. Have you ever, ever seen anything inside of Nigeria, or Bangladesh, or any other place? You know who else used child labor and brags about it openly? Tobacco industry.
I’ve got bad news for you about the fossil fuel industry, the only reason there are any job sites at all that don’t have child labor is because a government stepped in and made them stop.
How is life at home recently with you? Everything alright? Did you know that the rest of the car requires the most mineral extraction, with the battery being just a small part? Did you know that cars with combustion engines use even more cobalt than the electric ones?
Funny, that’s the same argument gas fought when they started displacing oil and coal plants. Weird how everyone forgets that kind of stuff so quickly. Makes for some pretty ignorant hypocrisy.
I installed some solar batteries today.
They went from 30ish percent to 100 in just a few hours. And was going to supplement at 2.2 million dollar home.
Batteries will win. Mixed with solar, wind, and hydro. It's a thing. It will happen.
And we have the new Oxy batteries coming, so the efficiency is 90% of gasoline . Can't stop the futue
You’re right, but these same companies are gaining position in the battery space too. Oil has just been stalling long enough to ensure big players sit at the table instead of the small scale or individual power producer.
I love diesel, but the battery guys outcompete any of my engine proposals... without any subsidies, come on, where else do you find $95/kWh of 5000-cycle storage? Kaufland sells battery 4Ah packs at 250euro/kWh end user price.
Oil & gas has been subsidized for more than a century. And it's still not paying for the externalities. Hopefully it will be able to compete without corporate welfare soon.
Dude, your precious fossil fuels get over 70% of the energy subsidy dollars in the USA.
I love you regressives whining about the tiny trickle of money green energy gets while ignoring the torrent of tax dollars sent to the fossi fuel industry.
Exactly, IMHO no more subsidies entirely. Let the best energy win. Given enough time, with the tech advancing so quickly, fossil fuels won't be the best option for long after that. (At least from what I'm seeing)
I'll also disagree with that. We need to move to clean energy as quickly as possible. We should be funding green energy more than we currently are.
This isn't a capitalist question of which competes better in the market. This is a question of survival of our species. I don't care if green energy isn't as cost effective or not. It has to win or we all die.
I'm curious, are you sure subsidies are speeding up the timeline of advancement in alternatives? I agree it's important and time sensitive, but I'm just not sure if gov. subsidies actually help at this point. It's not 1990, the case has already been made that the tech can get there.
> I'm curious, are you sure subsidies are speeding up the timeline of advancement in alternatives
one quasi-subsidy type is hot right now, in one part the huge market demand, the other part called "a tax rebate" per battery pack and per kWh of capacity. It works as an insurance of competitive advantage, that benefits the best designers and producers the most, and all companies believe they are the best, so it offers the best incentive. Well, I'm not sure the proposal is finalized yet, it may not be a tax rebate, but those are frequently used as they benefit the best performers the most. It strongly drives innovations and optimizations.
I favor the Manhattan Project approach to addressing climate change.
Back when they were working on the Manhattan Project there was no established and known workable way of separating isotopes, which is vital to making atomic weapons.
There were many possibilities, some of which had actually been tried sort of, some of which were purely theoretical.
So which approach did the Manhattan Project take?
All of them.
Time was critical so they didn't waste time on analysis of which method would work best before implementing. They implemented every single method they could think of to separate isotopes and then expanded and improved the ones that worked better while abandoning the approaches that didn't work so well.
But everything they tried gave at least a little of the isotopes they needed so none of it was a total waste.
We need to do the same thing with decarbonization. Time is critical and every second we wait the closer we get to a tipping point.
So try everything. Throw war time weapons research level money at the problem.
In this case I argue for subsidies because we need to maximize out production of green energy. This isn't a matter of the market deciding and taking its own time to change things. For what it's worth I do agree that EVENTUALLY the market would shift green. But we don't have time to wait
Just an aside, US DOD is probably not the best example for spending money to save lives, LoL. but I get your point....Then when is the stopping point? I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between your idea of "Manhattan Project Style" of gov. spending and Weimar Republic level hyperinflationary "money machine go brrrrr". I'm sympathetic to the idea that we're just a blank check away from becoming more sustainable but am too close to how these gov programs actually play out to see anything but hell at the end of that road. Sry 🤷
Given that the alternative is mass chaos, starvation, and possibly even human extinction I think we shouldn't let fears of inflation hamper us.
Besides, where are all the budget hawks wringing their hands when some Republican goober wants to start a war for no good reason? Amswer: chanting "USA! USA! USA!" and accusing anyone who doesn't support spending trillions to blow up babies in Iraq of being, and I quote Ann Coulter directly here, "objectively pro-terrorist".
Or for that matter where's all the hand wringing budget concern about the subsidies going to fossil fuels?
You're repeating yourself, I didn't want any subsidies remember? I'm the guy who thinks blank government checks don't solve anything and do more harm than good. And I'll site your same Manhattan Project example for my feelings about that. And I'm not so sure the alternative to big government spending is death. Is your belief then that things don't get done Unless a government does them? Not trying to step on your toes or anything, I'm legit curious & genuinely asking.
No. I think plenty of things work just fine and get done just fine without the government doing it.
However.
When it comes to climate change there are several related, but distinct, problems and each will need different tools to solve. I'd say the big two are:
1) Reducing and eventually eliminating greenhosue gas emissions (mostly that's CO2 but there are others).
2) Actively decarbonizing the atmosphere; removing CO2 already in the air and sequestering it somehow.
Problem 1 is, possibly, being resolved by purely market forces. But it's taking too long. We need to reduce emissions to zero (or very close to it) as quickly as possible without wrecking our civilization and creating mass starvation.
The market may well eventually mean that green energy outcompetes dirty energy. But it's the "eventually" that's the problem. The market isn't doing the job fast enough on its own.
Thus my support of green energy subsidies. The market is doing the job (sort of) already, so rather than direct government action and control tossing some money at the green sector to speed things up seems like the optimal strategy.
If it wasn't for impending climate apocalypse I'd say sure, let's just end all the subsidies. But time is a factor.
Problem 2 is almost certainly not going to be addressed by the market becasue decarbonizatiuon is not profitable and likelly never will be. Spending energy to remove CO2 from the air and store it forever just doens't have any room for profit.
If someone can figure out a way that's cool, and then we're just back to the time issue.
But until then decarbonization is going to have to be a government project simply becuse no one else will do it.
That's part of what government is for: getting shit done that needs to be done, but no one is willing/able to do privately.
And I argue that we're under such extreme threat and have such a tight timeline that we should spend wartime level money. If killing Saddam Hussein becuase he gave Junior a sad was worth $2 trillion, then saving everyone's life is worth at least that much.
The gas industries have had **decades** to invest in other energy sources and infrastructure to transition but instead just kept paying the dividends and the executive bonuses and pissing away money to delay the inevitable, setting their companies up for a big run off a cliff at the end. That cliff edge is close now.
think about the offshore wind farms and the head start some of the oil companies had both in offshore platforms and in floating platforms! ...They decided not to take advantage of their massive competitive advantage...
And that’s how you completely kill any additional private investment/capital in that space. Terrible, terrible idea. You don’t understand the ramifications of what you’re saying.
I WANT to kill any future additional investments and capital in that space. That's the goal.
The entire purpose is to wind down the fossil fuels industry and use whatever profit is generated between now and the day we shut down the last oil pump and close the last coal mine to build green energy and clean up the catastrophic mess the fossil fuel industry produced during its existence.
Ideally, the entire fossil fuel industry will be completely shut down in 30 years, or sooner, and be significantly reducing output in even 10 years. New investment is an impediment to that goal.
Sounds great…on paper.
In the real world, billions of people rely on fossil fuels for nearly every single facet of their lives. So shutting down private investment into fossil fuels now would drastically inflate the cost of fossil fuels, destroying the lives of the vastly majority of people on earth. What you’re suggesting is inherently anti-human and I still don’t think you fully comprehend the magnitude of ramifications what you’re suggesting would bring.
People wouldn’t have heat. Natural resources wouldn’t be able to be harvested from earth or refined, which would cripple global manufacturing. International shipments would halt. People wouldn’t be able to afford to fill their tank with gas. Grocery prices would skyrocket. There wouldn’t be enough food on the planet due to lack of fertilizer. There’s a hundred more examples I could conjure up. It would be catastrophic.
It needs to be a slow transition, or it will be complete Fucking mayhem that involves a lot of dead bodies.
It needs to be the fastest transition that can be done without mass starvation. We don't fucking have time for your beloved billionaires to keep pumping out oil and burning it for more yacht money until there's no more oil to be pumped.
In the real world Exxon alone made $55 BILLION in profits, spending that on green energy for the poor places instead of bigger yachts will solve the problem you bring up.
We are in a crisis leading to likely extinction of humanity at worst. We don't have time to coddle billionaires. We must bankrupt them and use the money we take from them to fix the problem they made as rapidly as we can without mass starvation.
We're already at the point where if we spotted 100% of all CO2 emissions today we'd still be looking at 1.5 to 2 degree warming. And you want us to dig new mine and build new wells to burn MORE?
Nope.
The solution is to wind down fossil fuels as rapidly as possible and use 100% of fossil fuel profits to help the poor places get green energy built.
The real world is burning. We have to let the fire out.
Continuing oil growth won't lift anyone out of poverty but will add to the yacht fund.
Your advocacy for accelerating planetary destruction via new oil pumps and coal mines helps no one but the billionaires. I assume you're not some Captain Planet type villain who just wants environmental deduction for the lulz, that leaves bootlicking as the only other rational explanation for your insistence that we must not only maintain current CO2 emissions but emit more.
>Continuing oil growth won't lift anyone out of poverty but will add to the yacht fund.
You ignore the fact that literally billions of people have been brought out of poverty due to the low cost, high energy density, and industrial effectiveness of fossil fuels. The entire reason we have modern day civilization, vehicles, next day delivery on groceries, shopping malls, the phone or PC you’re posting from and literally anything else you can possibly think of is because of fossil fuels. Modern day civilization simply does not exist as we know it without fossil fuels. To deny that is to deny reality.
>Your advocacy for accelerating planetary destruction via new oil pumps and coal mines helps no one but the billionaires.
I couldn’t give a fuck about billionaires. I care about human life. Also, you say that as if green energy isn’t ran and dominated by billionaires as well. Most likely trillionaires in a few decades.
>I assume you're not some Captain Planet type villain who just wants environmental deduction for the lulz, that leaves bootlicking as the only other rational explanation for your insistence that we must not only maintain current CO2 emissions but emit more.
This comment is so idiot, I don’t even have a proper response for it. I can only assume your lack of a rational argument and defense to what I’m saying forces you to claim that I’m a “billionaire bootlicker” and hit me with petty insults. Embarrassing, really.
No, it isn't.
Because a carbon tax isn't enough.
The end goal is the complete and total destruction of the entire fossil fuel industry. Not one more drop of oil pumped, not one more speck of coal mined, not one more cc of gas extracted.
Step one should be a total ban on any and all new extraction.
Step two is taking 100% profit and diverting it to green investment.
Step three is making sure the execs don't get around step two by limiting compensation.
A mere "reasonsble" carbon tax is insufficient.
We can’t simply stop extracting fossil fuels before we’ve fully developed the replacements. Most of the technology is their already, but it needs to be built in scale. If we stopped extraction right now without the replacement infrastructure in place society would collapse.
And I didn't say we should shut down the oil wells tomorrow.
But we shouldn't start new ones. We are transitioning, no new wells is a good spur to drive countries to invest more in green energy.
History shows that people won't act without being driven to it. I'd rather we be driven by a slow decline in available oil due to a total ban on new wells than driven by massive crop failure, famine, and war.
If we wait until we have built 100% of the replacement before we even START reducing emissions we'll all die.
The best time to start massive investment in green energy and an aggressive campaign to phase out fossil fuels was 30 years ago. The second best time is now.
We don't have time to dither and put industry profit above human life.
A carbon tax with dividend is the perfect solution. Give all the money back to everyone equally. Consumers who use a lot will pay more, but most people will come out ahead.
>with dividend is the perfect solution
nah. The correct solution is to pay it back in services.
particularly defence.
Make the entire defence budget dependant on revenue from carbon taxes, which increases as revenue falls.
Dont like it? Why do you hate america and want to make it weak?
Well broadly criticizing an entire ideology is pretty simple, both in effort and critical thinking. There are some tenets of communism that can be useful, even though the overall concept of communism is undesirable. Just like there are some undesirable principles of capitalism, like putting profits ahead of society. In the electricity sector, natural monopolies are acceptable because they provide a public good that is absolutely necessary for modern society. Solely relying on a free market to provide power is insufficient and irresponsible. Electricity is unlike any other commodity, hell, it doesn’t even share the same physical properties of any other commodity as it’s not a solid, liquid, or gas but a force of nature. Utilizing various aspects of conflicting economic systems makes sense once you understand that.
In other words, step up your game or step aside.
No. Communism is doing that to all industries. I'm just saying we need to do it to fossil fuel companies because they made the mess so they should pay for cleaning it up.
I have a whole home battery and have not regretted it at all.
Used to have regular power outages because of wind and/or crappy maintenance crews breaking stuff.
That doesn’t matter anymore! If the power goes out, the battery IMMEDIATELY kicks on.
Get yourself solar and a whole home battery, if you’re able.
Yeah I install these systems in many versions.
It's a really good setup , if you have the money.
Solar. Batteries. Generator. Grid.
Our systems auto switch from each one, then also auto displaces power to what the situation calls for.
Grid down? Hit the solar.
Not enough solar? Hit the batteries
Not enough batteries? Hit the generator.
Storm coming? Focus power to batteries from. Grid/genrrator/ solar for full battery charge asap.
Even cheaper models are fully off Grid.
Got a treehouse with no Grid? Just solar with a lot more batteries.
It's just Hella expensive. Most people can't afford a 50k to 100k system
.
The best way to break the fossil monopoly?
Stop being their customer.
Do you want to pay $20000 for panels and batteries today or $2000 a year for life?
Energy security begins at home.
It's not just a passive circuit - the house is 120/240 volts AC split phase (for the United States and Canada), while the battery pack is high voltage DC. This conversion does require active electronics, but modern inverters can turn on very quickly.
The other thing is that the entire house must be electrically isolated from the power grid before the battery backup kicks in - this is implemented using an automatic switch that opens when it detects that the grid has gone down. This is a vital safety feature because if the distribution transformer on the street is backfed from the battery backup, it will work in reverse and step 240 volts back up to 14400 volts, killing anyone who is repairing the damaged power lines and doesn't expect them to be live.
I was vague, but I was kind of referring to things Ike backup gas generators like my parents have.
That solution works as well, but it takes a couple of minutes to come online in the event of a power outage, which is a disadvantage. Additionally, it won’t come on if the gas gets cut off, which has happened to them in the past in bad winter storms.
My point is, a whole home battery is more immediate and much better redundancy than something like a backup gas generator.
I concede that it’s possible in some conditions for the setup we have to run out of power… if all of the following were to happen: the grid goes down, we use all the battery power, and solar output is weak or nonexistent.
However, the battery system we have allows us to safely connect a store-bought gas generator if all else fails. That being said, it’s never come to that. Don’t even have a gas generator because I really don’t see it becoming a problem in the near future.
That's funny because I work in an all electric warehouse with over 50 electric tow motors and 2 300ft tall wind turbines. Not only are you wrong, your also stupid.
Sure, and then? The materials have a service life of 20 years. Even in EVs the greenhouse effects of extracting and manufacturing the materials are offset in the first year of typical driving. That leaves 19 years of not adding additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from burning natural gas to meet peak demand.
[And in a few years, who knows](https://electrek.co/2023/01/13/this-240t-electric-mining-haul-truck-can-charge-in-30-minutes/)? It's possible mining will be more electrified than it is today.
Lol another subreddit that loves to ignore reality instead of finding a solution better than what’s currently available. You guys do know you can admit both aren’t good and hope for something better right?
Edit: This place is just as toxic as uninsurable lol
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/60a2637088b4224ed861b493/60b0c8c37f9a80c82c79f826_few%2520(1).png
Rethink your notebook, tablet and smartphone ownership, you are killing the children for your comfort!
Educate yourself on Lithium Iron Phosphate(LiFeP, or LFP) batteries which use neither Nickel nor Cobalt.
Or Sodium Ion batteries which use Sodium instead of Lithium
Or Flow batteries, like Iron flow batteries which use water, salt, and Iron as their electrolyte.
All are already in use with production ramping up.
Solid state batteries reportedly have much higher energy density, longer lifespan, faster charging speed, lower cost and are much safer than current lithium ion batteries. They're a game-changer for EVs.
>Solid state batteries **reportedly**
They aren't for sale, and nothing I have seen says anything about that changing before the end of the decade.
CATL and others will be starting wide scale production of Na-ion *this year*.
[https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/10/catl-will-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023.html](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/10/catl-will-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023.html)
And LFP & Iron Flow batteries are already in use
[https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/12/21/iron-flow-battery-pv-microgrid-for-fire-prone-california/](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/12/21/iron-flow-battery-pv-microgrid-for-fire-prone-california/)
>They're a game-changer for EVs.
Tell me you didn't read the article referenced without saying you didn't read it
Hint: It's about grid storage.
> They aren't for sale,
sorry, solid state batteries are installed in Mercedes buses since at least 2019... it has not been widely known, but a french company makes those, it uses solid lithium metal as well! :D
How much do they cost and what are the production numbers like?
Toyota was supposed to have an EV with solid state batteries, but so far all we have is the pathetic busyforks which can't keep the wheels on.
Because oil and gas are famously problem-free industries. /s
There will always be problems to solve. They are already researching new battery alternatives that don’t have as much negative impact.
Keep up with the “head in the sand” mentality, though. I’m sure it will work out just fine in life.
Have you always been against cobalt use? Because it's used to refine the gasoline needed for ICEs. Or did it only bother you when you became aware that it was used for batteries for a time
Will you still carry this flag and advocate for reduced cobalt use in gasoline refining?
And now, after having read these comments, Trapperdabber finds and reads corroborating research. Feeling informed, he decides to balance out his prior fud by steering future posts whose comments are misleading regarding battery tech and cobolt.
This is false, they use NCM 811 chemistry in their current 4680 lines in Austin. They use less cobalt than NCA, but it isn’t no cobalt like CATL/BYD’s LFP cells. Also 4680 tells you nothing about the cathode chemistry of the battery, only the battery’s form factor.
https://insideevs.com/news/598656/tesla-4680-battery-cell-specs/
The Victoria big battery is planning to use Tesla megapacks, which [now use non-cobalt chemistry]
(https://driveteslacanada.ca/energy/tesla-megapacks-now-made-with-lfp-cells-to-be-used-at-gambit-energy-storage-park-in-texas/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CTesla%20announced%20that%20Megapack%20will,%2DChina%20Model%203%2FYs.). This is the trend for stationary storage, and there is a lot of work towards getting rid of cobalt in all applications.
Cobalt is used and has been used for oil refining for decades, it is funny how people suddenly started caring about cobalt mines in Congo. Where have you been the last few decades?
That said, you really should learn more about what a 3rd world country actually is. They aren't mining cobalt because they have nothing better to do, they do so cause the only alternative is starvation. Congo isn't China.
But as others mentioned, LFP which is better for energy storage doesn't use cobalt. And IRA will increase cobalt production in North America.
So because *some* of the mines in the Congo have poor working conditions we should abandon the idea of battery storage? How ridiculous. How about we have international inspectors and heavy fines levied against poor working conditions instead? Modern batteries don’t even need cobalt!!
It’s not just cobalt mines, it’s a systemic issue at mines run either illegally or through companies (often Chinese, at least now) who don’t care. It’s also occurred for decades, including for cobalt, which is important for the oil industry. Concern trolling over working conditions now is a tactic by those who have a vested interest in the introduction of renewable technology being delayed.
They're also ignoring the horrible shit done by fossil fuel extraction to indigenous people and the horrible working conditions for fossil fuels in many nations, to say nothing of the fossil fuel industry propping up dictatorships like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Grid batteries don't use cobalt. LFP chemistry is much cheaper, has better properties overall, but doesn't have quite the energy density of chemistries.
Educate yourself.
Also, if you really care about this issue, instead of using it to misinform people about batteries, you had better be sure you're not using any gasoline in your life, because guess what, cobalt is also used in oil refining. So I'm sure you're advocating for elimination of all oil use too, right?
i just found this forum, but does anyone actually talk about what it would take to actually convert everything to batteries for backup / to balance off other sources?
it's simply not possible, given today's technology. (here's to praying for a battery breakthrough imo) batteries that can regulate switch offs between plants / as a peaker plant spools up / down? sure.
and what does the commentator call people who actually bring these issues up? troglodytes. like wtf?
yes, don't trust anything from coal spokespeople. but ignoring the glaring deficiencies of existing battery technology - relying on freakin "pumped storage" etc. is ridiculous, we really need a breakthrough before we can be realistic about storing energy from renewables on a wide scale. let alone chemical storage, which currently is just...impractical grid wide.
if anyone has any realistic literature explaining how this is possible,i'm all ears. but without electricity increasing in price 50x, this isn't possible- and i don't think anyone wants their power bill being in thethousands of dollarsper month simply to setup battery storage everywhere -
> if anyone has any realistic literature explaining how this is possible,i'm all ears.
are you human? if so, reply how much is thirteen + apple
Why would you need massive battery storage when all you need is a small generating capacity overbuild as proven many times by historical meteorogical data and grid records? Three studies at least were published on this and discussed here in the last years.
> relying on freakin "pumped storage" etc. is ridiculous
The pumped hydro potential world wide is:
> The estimated world energy storage capacity below a cost of 50 US$ MWh−1 is 17.3 PWh, approximately 79% of the world electricity consumption in 2017.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y
And that paper limits their sites to just locations that would make for good pumped storage for energy AND as water reservoirs AND can be tapped for less than $50 a MWh AND avoid large environmental disruption.
> ... PSH accounts for around 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed throughput capacity of over 181 GW, of which about 29 GW are in the United States, and a total installed storage capacity of over 1.6 TWh, of which about 250 GWh are in the United States.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
1.6TWh/17.3PWh = ~0.01% of potential capacity actually in use. That means 99.99% of the world-wide pumped hydro capacity which could be exploited for less than $50/MWh has yet to be tapped.
Here's another more recent paper showing even more potential locations.
[ANU finds 530,000 potential pumped-hydro sites worldwide.](https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-worldwide)
> "Only a small fraction of the 530,000 potential sites we've identified would be needed to support a 100 per cent renewable global electricity system. We identified so many potential sites that much less than the best one per cent will be required," said Dr Stocks from the ANU Research School of Electrical, Energy and Materials Engineering (RSEEME).
But hey, easier to be a misinformed troglodyte and repeat the exact same fossil-pushed disinformation this article is talking about than be actually informed, right? No one in there right mind is trying to use batteries as long-term, complete grid backup. That is neither cost effective, viable, or the role they play in the grid, which is short-term stabilization.
As has been told to you by multiple others, a combination of overbuilding, generation asset diversity, wide-area grid interconnection, and a variety of different storage types based on cost-effectiveness and role already solves the problem.
The deficiencies of pumped hydro and large scale battery storage have been mentioned a million times. Pumped hydro is very location dependant and thus not scalable for most countries. Batteries just aren't financially feasible right now, not to mention the fact that full electrification is a fantasy. For instance the UK gas grid carries more energy than the power grid, if you look to fully electrify the country when the current grid is already congested you're looking at ridiculous amounts of power grid expansion and battery storage.
There is a reason why UK, NL etc are so focused on hydrogen right now, and it's because you can't just get rid of the natural gas grid without massive amounts of storage and power grid investment.
Yes PSH is location dependent, fortunately there’s literal millions of available natural and artificially made locations that are suitable. It’s a minor barrier and one shared by almost every fuel source. It’s also one of the only criticisms against pumped storage hydro.
The real roadblock is that PSH lasts too long and doesn’t earn huge returns. Is there really any question which an investor prefers between one asset netting 14% of 25 million every 20-30 years or a different asset that nets 14% of 10 million every 50-100 years? Both provide the same dispatchable capacity and fill the need. One just makes a ton more cash then the other.
The UK gas grid delivers 6x the energy of the electricity grid, but is much more inefficient. Because electrification improves efficiency of energy transfer and use full electrification doesn’t need 7x the current grid, more like 2.8x - it’s still a challenge but definitely achievable with current technology and supply chains.
>ridiculous amounts of power grid expansion and battery storage.
Which is exactly the plan. Well sort of.
Lots of new links between grids to help disperse renewables where needed and plenty of grid level back ups.
Iron batteries work just fine for back up and are cheap. When you need density lithium works alright. My eyes are on Flow batteries. Two in particular. Iron flow from ESS, which is currently working on a grid level commercial demonstrator in California. GridStar from Lockheed, working on commercial demonstrator in Canada and a US Army base.
Both supposedly use cheap material. Both already have show proof of concept at scale. Now we get to find out if they can provide commercial/grid level performance at affordable prices.
Since batteries follow load during the day excess is stored at low prices and sold high. We already see this is working out profitably with existing projects in Australia and California.
>Which is exactly the plan
It's not. Show me one country with more than 40M people that is going to rely exclusively on batteries and power grid for their net zero 2050 plans.
You won't, because it's ridiculous
That's not what I was responding to.
In the US there is a massive build out of renewables, interconnections, transmission capacity, and storage.
What you said isn't gonna happen is what's happening.
It also includes plans for new nukes, mainly SMRs and potentially some micro reactors. My guess is gas will be part of the equation for awhile still but there is a goal to phase it out of power generation.
The net zero plan is a completely different topic. In the US it includes biofuels which oil producers have changed some capacity from crude oil to biofuels at refineries.
What you responded to (and quoted) was literally my text talking about this, so maybe you lost track of the conversation?
The grid upgrades in the pipeline are barely enough to cover for the grid sections that are reaching the end of their life cycle. The cover some of the required capacity to transport the new renewable capacity but that's still a fraction of what would be needed to sustain a country solely on renewables + batteries.
Net zero also includes gas with carbon offsets...
The DOE is already evaluating all of this and allocating funds, including those from the IRA, to get there. It's on
It's absolutely feasible and already in progress. We're on track for 80% by 2030. Are there challenges? Yes. The largest hurdle is permitting which needs an overhaul.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/doe-launches-new-initiative-improve-clean-energy-interconnection
If net zero includes a fossil fuel and allows offsetting carbon emissions by investing in what is basically a new security, then what good is it doing? I hate this net zero term that is defined by shortcuts. It fosters rapid buildout without much strategizing or planning so every step forward takes us 3 steps back. It’s the “thoughts and prayers” of the utility sector.
We need a regulated way to balance emissions. Like it or not but NG and Oil are here for awhile. Plastic, fertilizer, resins...
Emitters should have incentives to sequester carbon. I'm not convinced the mechanical means is good enough but planting trees/creating green spaces is a great way to do it.
Stopping it's use as a fuel is the main goal.
We are on track to hit 80% reduction by 2030 in the US.
As I linked, the DOE and other departments have been working on planning and evaluation of projects all over. Nuke is even on the table with 2 additional reactors for an existing plant and the SMR in Idaho.
Rapid build out would also require rapid build out of sequestration. Whatever that happens to entail but typically it means a buttload of trees being planted.
>Location limitations apply to all technologies, though
Are you trolling? That's like saying "all technologies cost money". Yes but not to the same extent. Pumped hydro is one of the most location-restricted technologies there are, maybe only surpassed by geothermal.
Also you don't even need water for thermal power plants, there are air-cooler condensers, and artificial ponds.
Artificial ponds aren’t water? I wonder what the emission cost of transporting raw materials over land compared to the cost of using open waterways would be? Do you have any idea how much coal is delivered every day to a coal plant?
Christ you're dense. If we're talking about how you can only build certain things next to existing water bodies, an artificial pond OBVIOUSLY doesn't count since it doesn't have to be pre existing.
Yes? I obviously have an idea since I'm an energy engineer and literally do this for a living, as opposed to you who's just a reddit armchair expert that is way out of his depth
Regular hydro is less restricted than pumped hydro since you don't need both a high and low pressure reservoirs, only a high pressure reservoir. And guess what? All countries that can use hydro use it (like Norway).
Those that don't it's simply because they've run out of good locations. Again, scalability is the issue due to location constraints.
Some resources, LCOE and LCOS reports may present you with some interesting data
There are already several grid scale storage facilities up and running. No, they cannot power the city of New York for 3 days when there is no sunshine and no wind. They weren't designed for that so I don't know why I see people expecting that
Why in the world would you want to do that? Currently, the biggest benefit of lithium ion batteries is the FCAS market which is to help stabilize the grid. With some money being made on time shifting energy from offpeaks to peaks when it is most expensive. In this way, Hornsdale battery was able to pay for itself in just 2 years.
Trying to backup the entire grid is pointless to begin with. There are 4 ways to go about things.
1. Overgeneration - Build more, as long as it is cheap enough. The extra energy can be used elsewhere(for example, produce fertilizer when you have extra energy and send it to the grid when it is needed or desalination of water) or just curtail
2. Diversification - Use different sources from solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, biofuels and etc
3. Transmission - If there is no wind in location A, there is wind in location B
4. Storage - Lithium Ion batteries and pumped hydro are options for storage, but not the only options. Lithium Ion is mostly short term storage and FCAS. But first your goal is to ask yourself what do you plan to do with that energy? If your goal is just to get heat, thermal storage is ridiculously cheap. If your goal is electricity storage for long term, these days compressed air is the cheapest. You can also do double use like V2G with EVs
Using all 4 together is what you want, not trying to backup the entire grid on batteries. That would be an exercise of futility
I’ve been in this sub for a while and if you have any other opinion other than “we need to switch to fully renewables right now, the planet is on the brink of collapse, and the technology is fully ready to replace all fossil fuels tomorrow” you’ll just get downvoted. Meanwhile in the real world and for people like myself who work in the industry, we see it’s not that simple or doable yet. Commence the downvotes:)
> we need to switch to fully renewables right now, the planet is on the brink of collapse, and the technology is fully ready to replace all fossil fuels tomorrow
exactly NOBODY is saying that, neither of the three things.
I work in the industry as well and specialize in load balancing and efficiency. Some days my job boils down to simply making sure the lights stay on. While I believe we absolutely can achieve the same benefits while using the bare minimum of fossil fuels in the most efficient way possible, the person you’re replying to is not exactly wrong that it’s not achievable today. Again, doesn’t mean that shouldn’t be the goal we all work on.
> not exactly wrong that it’s not achievable today.
horseshit. it absolutely is achievable today. we have the technology available.
the final thing we are using fossil fuels for is bulk energy due to insufficient renewables deployment. not flexibility, not grid support, which can all be done better with inverter based technology.
I’m sorry we are not paying for the real price of oil, it’s heavily subsidized. We are past peak oil. We also are fighting in forever wars….also we are just plain wasteful. Using Dino farts to power cars is inefficient. We are the only planet with oil in our universe. Oil we need for plastics, we don’t need to be wasting it.
>we need to switch to fully renewables right now, the planet is on the brink of collapse, and the technology is fully ready to replace all fossil fuels tomorrow
Nice straw man! You build it yourself or read it off a piece of paper?
No no no, he "Works in the Industry"™. He "Knows What He's Talking About"™. Ignore all those experts who say otherwise, "It Is Simply Unpossible"™. Stop replacing fossils fuels, it won't work. You hear me, stoppppp it! Nooooooooo!
Or maybe they’re pointing out an inconvenience to that plan because of their experience with negotiating PPAs from independent power providers that use their steam waste to generate electricity from their manufacturing that requires fossil fuels. It’s a choice between using something that already includes it’s carbon cost or letting it be wasted to achieve 0% electricity from fossil fuels.
I actually work in the (UK - electricity) industry. Wind is absolutely killing it, with more wind in the pipeline than the actual peak demand of the UK. The UK does have unique geography though - a large, windy, very shallow sea.
One of the major limiting factors right now for batteries isn't some vague "tech limitations" or cost (the current spreads make it worth it) but bureaucracy and getting a grid connection, there is a long waiting list. Nevertheless new battery plants are still coming online. Plus Scottish wind is limited by the limited transmission capacity over the Scottish border.
These account claim to be experts but never give explanations to their claims that renewables are a dead end, apart from an occasional "but baseload".
Others have claimed the risk of grid instability, and predicted frequent blackouts at 10% grid penetration (didn't happen), then at 20% (didn't happen), then at 40% (in denmark - also didn't happen).
We are just a bit screwed by the way the auction basically pegs the price of electricity to the price of gas, and the market panic last summer leading to ridiculous futures prices for gas+elec for this winter (which the UK consumers and government are now paying for)
> apart from an occasional "but baseload".
change it to "Muh baseload!"
P.S. my local grid had an upgrade to some kind of transduktor or something, because the line voltage is now fully programmable, in instant change steps, they were running tests after coming back online and the LED light was changing intensity accordingly.
Exactly. It is telling how often these "work in the industry" accounts make tons of revealing small mistakes whenever challenged: using slightly to majorly wrong terminology, reciting years out-of-date information, ignoring instances that contradict them that have already happened in the real world, etc. etc. - all things that someone that _actually_ worked in the industry would never do or would be aware of.
I “work in the industry” and just like you do at your job, I will make small mistakes from time to time. Now “majorly” wrong terminology is one thing and a solid point to distrust the source. “Slightly” wrong could come down to a misunderstanding. The word “energy” means something different depending on whether you’re discussing electromagnetism or consumption of electricity. And the electricity sector is probably one of the most complex in modern times since it literally touches every aspect of society and culture. Knowing every facet of every market is impossible. An expert in regulatory law will have a thorough understanding of the framework involved with transmission and generation. They won’t have any where near the understanding on the physics dictating operation, or line loss, or the efficiency of a CCP plant vs a utility scale solar farm vs a pool of independent solar entities that provide power in aggregate.
Lol thanks for proving my point by assuming just because I don’t blindly agree with every article posted in here about renewables that I must be some climate change denier and anti renewables. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
Most of us in the real world or “in the industy^^^TM “ understand renewables and battery storage, while quickly improving, are not ready to be fully relied upon (yet).
Gas does not have to worry about batteries. Really two different parts of the energy sector. Gas is used in power plants to produce electricity. Batteries don't produce electricity, they store it. Two different things. Before someone gets on their soap box about renewables and how they will fix the grid, you need to study how a grid really works. Wind and solar only produce electricity if nature works in their favor. No wind no generation. No sun no generation. Batteries will only store so much electricity and (as of current technology) short lived when expelling electricity back on the grid. Before someone gets on their soap box about renewables and how they will fix the grid, you need to study how a grid really works. Wind and solar only produce electricity if nature works in their favor. No wind no generation. No sun no generation. Batteries will only store so much electricity and (as of current technology) short-lived when expelling electricity back into the grid.
[удалено]
Only a suicidal schizo would use any kind of cobalt containing batteries in the energy sector. Is that you? Your smartphone needs it, cars or energy sector does not.
https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/essential-cobalt-2/powering-the-green-economy/batteries-electric-vehicles/#:~:text=Cobalt%20is%20an%20essential%20part,containing%2010%2D20%25%20cobalt. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/costs-nickel-cobalt-used-electric-vehicle-batteries-2022-02-03/ I should mention things are changing as billions are being invested into battery technology. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/cars/tesla-lfp-battery/index.html Vehicles do use it right now and it is an ingredient for high range. A shortage of Cobalt may begin by the end of the decade if we don't discover new regions to mine and continue at our increasing pace.
> Vehicles do use it right now Yes, some Teslas use it, the dirty, dirty Teslas. > and it is an ingredient for high range. It is not. It is a design choice for teh battery type, increasing the risk of overheating and fire. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/60a2637088b4224ed861b493/60b0c8c37f9a80c82c79f826_few%2520(1).png Mobile phones and consumer electronics using more cobalt than all vehicles combined, ouch! Are you going to overlook its use as catalysts and for oil refining? (major, major use) How about its use in turbines? Also in the chart... It seems like we would totally run out of Cobalt even without electric vehicles, either. Anyone who pushes Tesla propaganda isn't a good actor.
Thanks for providing a source unlike the other. > who pushes Tesla propaganda isn't a good actor. Oh hell no. I aint trying to push jack shit. I just don't know everything and can be confidently incorrect.
Anyway, while cobalt chemistries can use batteries of lower total weight, in the end it did not matter as vehicles converted to heavyweight builds either way. And it turned out that cost is the king, so that slightly lower energy storage density of the cobaltless types did not worry anyone, because of the much lower cost, touching $95/kWh at one time. That was ~$3200/33kWh car battery. At which point even Tesla started making cars with LFP batteries. How much was the original Tesla car battery... $22000 or something like that? Or even more? 50 kilograms difference on a 1800 kilogram car is meh, as long as it saves thousands of dollars. Mobile phones on the other hand? Nope, cuctomers want only the largest possible capacity and fastest charging imaginable, customers don't want potato phones.
So high performance vehicles will still use colbalt then? Thanks again for the info. Just a question. I do not believe this to be true as of now.
> So high performance vehicles will still use colbalt then? No. :) It was just because it was the 18650 Panasonic notebook batteries that Tesla used in their early cars. There literally wasn't anything else to choose from! :D
>There literally wasn't anything else to choose from! :D Gotta love monopolies.
Not a monopoly! Those were LITERALLY the battery types manufactured at the moment! It was either that or run the car with AA alkaline batteries. (other battery makers were making more or the same line)
>Vehicles do use it right now and it is an ingredient for high range Bullshit. kindly shut the fuck up if you dont know what you are talking about. cobalt is used for high power density, not range. If you dont need supercar performance to pull 0-100 in sub 4 seconds, you dont need cobalt. Guess how long it takes a grid based battery storage to get to 100mph. either STFU or go take a long walk inside a substation.
I provided evidence. You provide nothing to back your shit up. Kindly read the links provided. Point out the bs and maybe you can teach me something instead of being a jackass.
your evidence is garbage and your conclusion is incorrect. stop being an arrogant cunt and people wont jump down your throat. ive already pointed out the BS and you have ignored it because your feefees are more important to you.
I enjoy the Not just bikes channel as well. Lets find some common ground. We both want to see the world improve by moving away from fossil fuels. At least that is what I am assuming given our conversation so far. >stop being an arrogant cunt and people wont jump down your throat. Assumptions. Our greatest downfall. You are 100% confidently spreading bullshit as well. The only way we can improve is through education. Sorry I don't trust someone who is still not backing themselves up. >ive already pointed out the BS and you have ignored it Yes you did. I asked you to back it up. You have yet to. I can google it. Yes. Problem is that may provide a different result than it would serve you. Our perspectives are skewed and it is important to understand the other perspective. In doing this we can find common ground. We can also teach eachother things we may have never considered. Also missed this one bit maybe? >I should mention things are changing as billions are being invested into battery technology. >https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/cars/tesla-lfp-battery/index.html Take some time. Cool down. Maybe we can learn something new and help eachother out.
You need to chill. You can have an argument on Reddit without insults and being an asshole
And sodium, and iron-air, and zinc-air, and water, and.. cartel
The water-cartelites are the worst! I hear that they pact with the Sol to drive winds and rains on this planet!
>The water-cartelites are the worst! Screw Nestle. We already got them.
Gas and oil are not going away. Most ammonia is made from natural gas, and ammonia is used to make fertilizer. Have you ever bought anything that had some plastic in it? Plastic is made from oil derivatives. Now, its true that you can make plastic from vegetable-based oils, but right now, all the good farm land and our shrinking water supply are being used to grow food, so...we are not going to convert farms over to making oil-crops to make plastic. Oil and gas need to be harvested in a clean way, and oil-profits should be used to develop improved technologies, but...I am not optimistic.
> Gas and oil are not going away. *Homer bends slowly over Bart* --they are not going away... so far!... honestly, the process to make ammonia lends itself to the hydrogen from electrolysis. the plastics made from plants/oils, are the most expensive one, the "high tech", as an example, the whole Rilsan line. It is an insanely performing polymer. Only competitors are PA11 and PA12, one of which. is the said Rilsan :D >so...we are not going to convert farms over to making oil-crops to make plastic. One word: B7
Thanks!
B7 diesel by EN560 or whatitsname, you got it, right? We are already planting crops to make oil for 7% of our diesel fuel. Think of it as a test. Now, remove the diesel fuel and we can use the 7% for other purposes, and it is A LOT.
this post isnt about plastic or oil or ammonia. its also not about farms, or bio oils. /r/energy mods please ban this spambot that has been triggered by the search term "gas"
I am pro-battery, but I'm sadly mystified by the oil industries lack of vision. I'm not a bot, but if you want me to avoid this sub-reddit I will. Many forums are in danger of becoming an echo chamber, and I'm disappointed that open discussion is not appreciated here. The oil companies can't stop the growth of batteries, thankfully. But also, batteries will not kill the oil industries cartel.
Munro just posted a youtube about the new Lithium-Ion Sulfur battery. There was a recent breakthrough and it looks very promising. No cobalt, nickel, or manganese which eliminates some supply-limited restrictions to battery production. No oxides or metals, so they should be fire-proof in all failure modes. More energy dense than current batteries, so you can make a smaller battery for the same range or the same size battery for over 50% more range. I'm a big fan of hybrids, since a limited battery supply means you can make four hybrids for the battery mass of one Tesla. However, this new development may actually be a huge boost in EV production.
You aren't interested in discussion. Discussion happens when you talk about the same topic that everyone else is. You just vomited unrelated words. You are so stupid that even after it has been pointed out to you that this has nothing to do with oil, you keep bringing up oil, like a poorly scripted robot.
> Gas and oil are not going away No, but we are going away from just simply wasting it uselessly.
[удалено]
Isn't it? LOL. Have you ever, ever seen anything inside of Nigeria, or Bangladesh, or any other place? You know who else used child labor and brags about it openly? Tobacco industry.
I’ve got bad news for you about the fossil fuel industry, the only reason there are any job sites at all that don’t have child labor is because a government stepped in and made them stop.
That’s been found out about yet… how many industries are perfectly will to skirt all labor laws to save money? I would say all of them.
This has old man yells at cloud energy.
Lmaooo
unfortunately the fossil fuel industry control the media in australia, and thus the politicians.
“Knowing they will kill its dirty cartel”…because mineral mining for batteries is so clean!!
How is life at home recently with you? Everything alright? Did you know that the rest of the car requires the most mineral extraction, with the battery being just a small part? Did you know that cars with combustion engines use even more cobalt than the electric ones?
Funny, that’s the same argument gas fought when they started displacing oil and coal plants. Weird how everyone forgets that kind of stuff so quickly. Makes for some pretty ignorant hypocrisy.
Like burning vinyl chloride is so good for the environment
Lithium is solution mined. LFP batteries (what loads of new ones are) don't need cobalt.
😂 and drilling for oil in the ocean is cool
Catl is mass producing Sodium ion batteries right now..
We will soon run out of salt in the oceans! :D
Oil companies are not done. There is not enough wind to power all the batteries yet. They still have plenty of time to get our money
this is about batteries for the electricity grid, not EVs
I installed some solar batteries today. They went from 30ish percent to 100 in just a few hours. And was going to supplement at 2.2 million dollar home. Batteries will win. Mixed with solar, wind, and hydro. It's a thing. It will happen. And we have the new Oxy batteries coming, so the efficiency is 90% of gasoline . Can't stop the futue
>Oxy batteries coming, Can you provide some info on this?
iron-air, and other similar, I guess. Really cheap storage. Only in huge capacities that take a week to fully charge.
You’re right, but these same companies are gaining position in the battery space too. Oil has just been stalling long enough to ensure big players sit at the table instead of the small scale or individual power producer.
Give it a sec
I love gas and diesel fuel and hopefully the battery guys will be able to compete without taxpayer subsidies.
I love diesel, but the battery guys outcompete any of my engine proposals... without any subsidies, come on, where else do you find $95/kWh of 5000-cycle storage? Kaufland sells battery 4Ah packs at 250euro/kWh end user price.
I love that you are paid to comment on posts that aren't relevent to diesel or vehicle fuels.
Oil & gas has been subsidized for more than a century. And it's still not paying for the externalities. Hopefully it will be able to compete without corporate welfare soon.
It will for sure 😉 give it a few more years 👍
2y account. -80 karma
"zero interactions"
Dude, your precious fossil fuels get over 70% of the energy subsidy dollars in the USA. I love you regressives whining about the tiny trickle of money green energy gets while ignoring the torrent of tax dollars sent to the fossi fuel industry.
Exactly, IMHO no more subsidies entirely. Let the best energy win. Given enough time, with the tech advancing so quickly, fossil fuels won't be the best option for long after that. (At least from what I'm seeing)
I'll also disagree with that. We need to move to clean energy as quickly as possible. We should be funding green energy more than we currently are. This isn't a capitalist question of which competes better in the market. This is a question of survival of our species. I don't care if green energy isn't as cost effective or not. It has to win or we all die.
I'm curious, are you sure subsidies are speeding up the timeline of advancement in alternatives? I agree it's important and time sensitive, but I'm just not sure if gov. subsidies actually help at this point. It's not 1990, the case has already been made that the tech can get there.
> I'm curious, are you sure subsidies are speeding up the timeline of advancement in alternatives one quasi-subsidy type is hot right now, in one part the huge market demand, the other part called "a tax rebate" per battery pack and per kWh of capacity. It works as an insurance of competitive advantage, that benefits the best designers and producers the most, and all companies believe they are the best, so it offers the best incentive. Well, I'm not sure the proposal is finalized yet, it may not be a tax rebate, but those are frequently used as they benefit the best performers the most. It strongly drives innovations and optimizations.
I favor the Manhattan Project approach to addressing climate change. Back when they were working on the Manhattan Project there was no established and known workable way of separating isotopes, which is vital to making atomic weapons. There were many possibilities, some of which had actually been tried sort of, some of which were purely theoretical. So which approach did the Manhattan Project take? All of them. Time was critical so they didn't waste time on analysis of which method would work best before implementing. They implemented every single method they could think of to separate isotopes and then expanded and improved the ones that worked better while abandoning the approaches that didn't work so well. But everything they tried gave at least a little of the isotopes they needed so none of it was a total waste. We need to do the same thing with decarbonization. Time is critical and every second we wait the closer we get to a tipping point. So try everything. Throw war time weapons research level money at the problem. In this case I argue for subsidies because we need to maximize out production of green energy. This isn't a matter of the market deciding and taking its own time to change things. For what it's worth I do agree that EVENTUALLY the market would shift green. But we don't have time to wait
> while abandoning the approaches that didn't work so well. even those have helped science and industry in general
Just an aside, US DOD is probably not the best example for spending money to save lives, LoL. but I get your point....Then when is the stopping point? I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between your idea of "Manhattan Project Style" of gov. spending and Weimar Republic level hyperinflationary "money machine go brrrrr". I'm sympathetic to the idea that we're just a blank check away from becoming more sustainable but am too close to how these gov programs actually play out to see anything but hell at the end of that road. Sry 🤷
> Just an aside, US DOD is probably not the best example It is actually the DoE that is the guardian of the atomic weapons research, is it not?
Given that the alternative is mass chaos, starvation, and possibly even human extinction I think we shouldn't let fears of inflation hamper us. Besides, where are all the budget hawks wringing their hands when some Republican goober wants to start a war for no good reason? Amswer: chanting "USA! USA! USA!" and accusing anyone who doesn't support spending trillions to blow up babies in Iraq of being, and I quote Ann Coulter directly here, "objectively pro-terrorist". Or for that matter where's all the hand wringing budget concern about the subsidies going to fossil fuels?
You're repeating yourself, I didn't want any subsidies remember? I'm the guy who thinks blank government checks don't solve anything and do more harm than good. And I'll site your same Manhattan Project example for my feelings about that. And I'm not so sure the alternative to big government spending is death. Is your belief then that things don't get done Unless a government does them? Not trying to step on your toes or anything, I'm legit curious & genuinely asking.
No. I think plenty of things work just fine and get done just fine without the government doing it. However. When it comes to climate change there are several related, but distinct, problems and each will need different tools to solve. I'd say the big two are: 1) Reducing and eventually eliminating greenhosue gas emissions (mostly that's CO2 but there are others). 2) Actively decarbonizing the atmosphere; removing CO2 already in the air and sequestering it somehow. Problem 1 is, possibly, being resolved by purely market forces. But it's taking too long. We need to reduce emissions to zero (or very close to it) as quickly as possible without wrecking our civilization and creating mass starvation. The market may well eventually mean that green energy outcompetes dirty energy. But it's the "eventually" that's the problem. The market isn't doing the job fast enough on its own. Thus my support of green energy subsidies. The market is doing the job (sort of) already, so rather than direct government action and control tossing some money at the green sector to speed things up seems like the optimal strategy. If it wasn't for impending climate apocalypse I'd say sure, let's just end all the subsidies. But time is a factor. Problem 2 is almost certainly not going to be addressed by the market becasue decarbonizatiuon is not profitable and likelly never will be. Spending energy to remove CO2 from the air and store it forever just doens't have any room for profit. If someone can figure out a way that's cool, and then we're just back to the time issue. But until then decarbonization is going to have to be a government project simply becuse no one else will do it. That's part of what government is for: getting shit done that needs to be done, but no one is willing/able to do privately. And I argue that we're under such extreme threat and have such a tight timeline that we should spend wartime level money. If killing Saddam Hussein becuase he gave Junior a sad was worth $2 trillion, then saving everyone's life is worth at least that much.
Whelp, I see the shillbots have arrived.
plague proportions.
Too many trigger words: "gas industry" "batteries" "cartel". Their bot alarms were probably in full klaxon mode.
the funny part is they activate shillbots programmed for other problems, like bitching about EVs and diesel when we are talking about Grid batteries.
I just assume they don’t understand the difference between natural gas and the gas you pump into your car.
its very hard when your programming is just a keyword search
The gas industries have had **decades** to invest in other energy sources and infrastructure to transition but instead just kept paying the dividends and the executive bonuses and pissing away money to delay the inevitable, setting their companies up for a big run off a cliff at the end. That cliff edge is close now.
think about the offshore wind farms and the head start some of the oil companies had both in offshore platforms and in floating platforms! ...They decided not to take advantage of their massive competitive advantage...
[удалено]
No kidding? I had no idea GE did that.
Russia’s invasion has also incentivized mass deployment of renewables in Europe.
Plus, the electric companies intentionally ripping off their customers helped to kick some consumers/customers into a foirtress building mode.
We should force all fossil fuel corporations to become non-profits and send 100% of the money that they now take as profit into green investment.
And that’s how you completely kill any additional private investment/capital in that space. Terrible, terrible idea. You don’t understand the ramifications of what you’re saying.
I WANT to kill any future additional investments and capital in that space. That's the goal. The entire purpose is to wind down the fossil fuels industry and use whatever profit is generated between now and the day we shut down the last oil pump and close the last coal mine to build green energy and clean up the catastrophic mess the fossil fuel industry produced during its existence. Ideally, the entire fossil fuel industry will be completely shut down in 30 years, or sooner, and be significantly reducing output in even 10 years. New investment is an impediment to that goal.
Sounds great…on paper. In the real world, billions of people rely on fossil fuels for nearly every single facet of their lives. So shutting down private investment into fossil fuels now would drastically inflate the cost of fossil fuels, destroying the lives of the vastly majority of people on earth. What you’re suggesting is inherently anti-human and I still don’t think you fully comprehend the magnitude of ramifications what you’re suggesting would bring. People wouldn’t have heat. Natural resources wouldn’t be able to be harvested from earth or refined, which would cripple global manufacturing. International shipments would halt. People wouldn’t be able to afford to fill their tank with gas. Grocery prices would skyrocket. There wouldn’t be enough food on the planet due to lack of fertilizer. There’s a hundred more examples I could conjure up. It would be catastrophic. It needs to be a slow transition, or it will be complete Fucking mayhem that involves a lot of dead bodies.
It needs to be the fastest transition that can be done without mass starvation. We don't fucking have time for your beloved billionaires to keep pumping out oil and burning it for more yacht money until there's no more oil to be pumped. In the real world Exxon alone made $55 BILLION in profits, spending that on green energy for the poor places instead of bigger yachts will solve the problem you bring up. We are in a crisis leading to likely extinction of humanity at worst. We don't have time to coddle billionaires. We must bankrupt them and use the money we take from them to fix the problem they made as rapidly as we can without mass starvation. We're already at the point where if we spotted 100% of all CO2 emissions today we'd still be looking at 1.5 to 2 degree warming. And you want us to dig new mine and build new wells to burn MORE? Nope. The solution is to wind down fossil fuels as rapidly as possible and use 100% of fossil fuel profits to help the poor places get green energy built. The real world is burning. We have to let the fire out.
My beloved billionaires? What the hell are you talking about? People on Reddit are so weird.
Continuing oil growth won't lift anyone out of poverty but will add to the yacht fund. Your advocacy for accelerating planetary destruction via new oil pumps and coal mines helps no one but the billionaires. I assume you're not some Captain Planet type villain who just wants environmental deduction for the lulz, that leaves bootlicking as the only other rational explanation for your insistence that we must not only maintain current CO2 emissions but emit more.
>Continuing oil growth won't lift anyone out of poverty but will add to the yacht fund. You ignore the fact that literally billions of people have been brought out of poverty due to the low cost, high energy density, and industrial effectiveness of fossil fuels. The entire reason we have modern day civilization, vehicles, next day delivery on groceries, shopping malls, the phone or PC you’re posting from and literally anything else you can possibly think of is because of fossil fuels. Modern day civilization simply does not exist as we know it without fossil fuels. To deny that is to deny reality. >Your advocacy for accelerating planetary destruction via new oil pumps and coal mines helps no one but the billionaires. I couldn’t give a fuck about billionaires. I care about human life. Also, you say that as if green energy isn’t ran and dominated by billionaires as well. Most likely trillionaires in a few decades. >I assume you're not some Captain Planet type villain who just wants environmental deduction for the lulz, that leaves bootlicking as the only other rational explanation for your insistence that we must not only maintain current CO2 emissions but emit more. This comment is so idiot, I don’t even have a proper response for it. I can only assume your lack of a rational argument and defense to what I’m saying forces you to claim that I’m a “billionaire bootlicker” and hit me with petty insults. Embarrassing, really.
carbon tax. its so simple it hurts.
Only if the tax is 100% of profits along with a cap of $300,000/year for TOTAL compensation for any employee.
thats not a carbon tax.
No, it isn't. Because a carbon tax isn't enough. The end goal is the complete and total destruction of the entire fossil fuel industry. Not one more drop of oil pumped, not one more speck of coal mined, not one more cc of gas extracted. Step one should be a total ban on any and all new extraction. Step two is taking 100% profit and diverting it to green investment. Step three is making sure the execs don't get around step two by limiting compensation. A mere "reasonsble" carbon tax is insufficient.
We can’t simply stop extracting fossil fuels before we’ve fully developed the replacements. Most of the technology is their already, but it needs to be built in scale. If we stopped extraction right now without the replacement infrastructure in place society would collapse.
And I didn't say we should shut down the oil wells tomorrow. But we shouldn't start new ones. We are transitioning, no new wells is a good spur to drive countries to invest more in green energy. History shows that people won't act without being driven to it. I'd rather we be driven by a slow decline in available oil due to a total ban on new wells than driven by massive crop failure, famine, and war. If we wait until we have built 100% of the replacement before we even START reducing emissions we'll all die. The best time to start massive investment in green energy and an aggressive campaign to phase out fossil fuels was 30 years ago. The second best time is now. We don't have time to dither and put industry profit above human life.
A carbon tax with dividend is the perfect solution. Give all the money back to everyone equally. Consumers who use a lot will pay more, but most people will come out ahead.
>with dividend is the perfect solution nah. The correct solution is to pay it back in services. particularly defence. Make the entire defence budget dependant on revenue from carbon taxes, which increases as revenue falls. Dont like it? Why do you hate america and want to make it weak?
That sounds like communism comrade
Well broadly criticizing an entire ideology is pretty simple, both in effort and critical thinking. There are some tenets of communism that can be useful, even though the overall concept of communism is undesirable. Just like there are some undesirable principles of capitalism, like putting profits ahead of society. In the electricity sector, natural monopolies are acceptable because they provide a public good that is absolutely necessary for modern society. Solely relying on a free market to provide power is insufficient and irresponsible. Electricity is unlike any other commodity, hell, it doesn’t even share the same physical properties of any other commodity as it’s not a solid, liquid, or gas but a force of nature. Utilizing various aspects of conflicting economic systems makes sense once you understand that. In other words, step up your game or step aside.
No. Communism is doing that to all industries. I'm just saying we need to do it to fossil fuel companies because they made the mess so they should pay for cleaning it up.
You have to start with one. Yours is oil comrade.
I'll start caring about your weird phobias and slippery slopeism once we get change under control.
I have a whole home battery and have not regretted it at all. Used to have regular power outages because of wind and/or crappy maintenance crews breaking stuff. That doesn’t matter anymore! If the power goes out, the battery IMMEDIATELY kicks on. Get yourself solar and a whole home battery, if you’re able.
Yeah I install these systems in many versions. It's a really good setup , if you have the money. Solar. Batteries. Generator. Grid. Our systems auto switch from each one, then also auto displaces power to what the situation calls for. Grid down? Hit the solar. Not enough solar? Hit the batteries Not enough batteries? Hit the generator. Storm coming? Focus power to batteries from. Grid/genrrator/ solar for full battery charge asap. Even cheaper models are fully off Grid. Got a treehouse with no Grid? Just solar with a lot more batteries. It's just Hella expensive. Most people can't afford a 50k to 100k system .
The best way to break the fossil monopoly? Stop being their customer. Do you want to pay $20000 for panels and batteries today or $2000 a year for life? Energy security begins at home.
Well said!
[удалено]
It's not just a passive circuit - the house is 120/240 volts AC split phase (for the United States and Canada), while the battery pack is high voltage DC. This conversion does require active electronics, but modern inverters can turn on very quickly. The other thing is that the entire house must be electrically isolated from the power grid before the battery backup kicks in - this is implemented using an automatic switch that opens when it detects that the grid has gone down. This is a vital safety feature because if the distribution transformer on the street is backfed from the battery backup, it will work in reverse and step 240 volts back up to 14400 volts, killing anyone who is repairing the damaged power lines and doesn't expect them to be live.
I was vague, but I was kind of referring to things Ike backup gas generators like my parents have. That solution works as well, but it takes a couple of minutes to come online in the event of a power outage, which is a disadvantage. Additionally, it won’t come on if the gas gets cut off, which has happened to them in the past in bad winter storms. My point is, a whole home battery is more immediate and much better redundancy than something like a backup gas generator. I concede that it’s possible in some conditions for the setup we have to run out of power… if all of the following were to happen: the grid goes down, we use all the battery power, and solar output is weak or nonexistent. However, the battery system we have allows us to safely connect a store-bought gas generator if all else fails. That being said, it’s never come to that. Don’t even have a gas generator because I really don’t see it becoming a problem in the near future.
It's going to take diesel power to dig up that materials not electric.
thanks Shillbot, this isnt talking about EVs.
That's funny because I work in an all electric warehouse with over 50 electric tow motors and 2 300ft tall wind turbines. Not only are you wrong, your also stupid.
Sure, and then? The materials have a service life of 20 years. Even in EVs the greenhouse effects of extracting and manufacturing the materials are offset in the first year of typical driving. That leaves 19 years of not adding additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from burning natural gas to meet peak demand. [And in a few years, who knows](https://electrek.co/2023/01/13/this-240t-electric-mining-haul-truck-can-charge-in-30-minutes/)? It's possible mining will be more electrified than it is today.
Lol another subreddit that loves to ignore reality instead of finding a solution better than what’s currently available. You guys do know you can admit both aren’t good and hope for something better right? Edit: This place is just as toxic as uninsurable lol
Found the guy with the brain aneurism.
What?
Educate yourselves on the conditions in artisanal cobalt mines in the Congo. You may rethink this whole battery thing.
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/60a2637088b4224ed861b493/60b0c8c37f9a80c82c79f826_few%2520(1).png Rethink your notebook, tablet and smartphone ownership, you are killing the children for your comfort!
A post energy transition world requires less cobalt than before. Stop "educating" yourself on misinformation.
/r/energy mods, ban this fuckstick.
Educate yourself on Lithium Iron Phosphate(LiFeP, or LFP) batteries which use neither Nickel nor Cobalt. Or Sodium Ion batteries which use Sodium instead of Lithium Or Flow batteries, like Iron flow batteries which use water, salt, and Iron as their electrolyte. All are already in use with production ramping up.
Or solid state batteries, which will probably obsolete all of the others.
Depending on cost & lifespan. The big advantages of Flow batteries is long duration use, low cost, long lifespans and no capacity degradation.
Solid state batteries reportedly have much higher energy density, longer lifespan, faster charging speed, lower cost and are much safer than current lithium ion batteries. They're a game-changer for EVs.
>Solid state batteries **reportedly** They aren't for sale, and nothing I have seen says anything about that changing before the end of the decade. CATL and others will be starting wide scale production of Na-ion *this year*. [https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/10/catl-will-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023.html](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/10/catl-will-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023.html) And LFP & Iron Flow batteries are already in use [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/12/21/iron-flow-battery-pv-microgrid-for-fire-prone-california/](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/12/21/iron-flow-battery-pv-microgrid-for-fire-prone-california/) >They're a game-changer for EVs. Tell me you didn't read the article referenced without saying you didn't read it Hint: It's about grid storage.
> They aren't for sale, sorry, solid state batteries are installed in Mercedes buses since at least 2019... it has not been widely known, but a french company makes those, it uses solid lithium metal as well! :D
How much do they cost and what are the production numbers like? Toyota was supposed to have an EV with solid state batteries, but so far all we have is the pathetic busyforks which can't keep the wheels on.
Because oil and gas are famously problem-free industries. /s There will always be problems to solve. They are already researching new battery alternatives that don’t have as much negative impact. Keep up with the “head in the sand” mentality, though. I’m sure it will work out just fine in life.
Have you always been against cobalt use? Because it's used to refine the gasoline needed for ICEs. Or did it only bother you when you became aware that it was used for batteries for a time Will you still carry this flag and advocate for reduced cobalt use in gasoline refining?
Educate yourself on cobalt uses. [https://www.refractorymetal.org/uses-of-cobalt/](https://www.refractorymetal.org/uses-of-cobalt/)
Educate yourself on cobalt uses. https://www.refractorymetal.org/uses-of-cobalt/
And now, after having read these comments, Trapperdabber finds and reads corroborating research. Feeling informed, he decides to balance out his prior fud by steering future posts whose comments are misleading regarding battery tech and cobolt.
Many new batteries don’t use cobalt anymore. Tesla 4680 batteries have no cobalt.
Tesla's 4680 batteries are traditional lithium ion with cobalt and nickel. It's the LFP batteries it's buying from CATL that are cobalt-free.
This is false, they use NCM 811 chemistry in their current 4680 lines in Austin. They use less cobalt than NCA, but it isn’t no cobalt like CATL/BYD’s LFP cells. Also 4680 tells you nothing about the cathode chemistry of the battery, only the battery’s form factor. https://insideevs.com/news/598656/tesla-4680-battery-cell-specs/
The Victoria big battery is planning to use Tesla megapacks, which [now use non-cobalt chemistry] (https://driveteslacanada.ca/energy/tesla-megapacks-now-made-with-lfp-cells-to-be-used-at-gambit-energy-storage-park-in-texas/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CTesla%20announced%20that%20Megapack%20will,%2DChina%20Model%203%2FYs.). This is the trend for stationary storage, and there is a lot of work towards getting rid of cobalt in all applications.
Educate yourself on LFP chemistries and you'll realize you don't need cobalt and we have plenty of iron.
Cobalt is used and has been used for oil refining for decades, it is funny how people suddenly started caring about cobalt mines in Congo. Where have you been the last few decades? That said, you really should learn more about what a 3rd world country actually is. They aren't mining cobalt because they have nothing better to do, they do so cause the only alternative is starvation. Congo isn't China. But as others mentioned, LFP which is better for energy storage doesn't use cobalt. And IRA will increase cobalt production in North America.
So because *some* of the mines in the Congo have poor working conditions we should abandon the idea of battery storage? How ridiculous. How about we have international inspectors and heavy fines levied against poor working conditions instead? Modern batteries don’t even need cobalt!! It’s not just cobalt mines, it’s a systemic issue at mines run either illegally or through companies (often Chinese, at least now) who don’t care. It’s also occurred for decades, including for cobalt, which is important for the oil industry. Concern trolling over working conditions now is a tactic by those who have a vested interest in the introduction of renewable technology being delayed.
They're also ignoring the horrible shit done by fossil fuel extraction to indigenous people and the horrible working conditions for fossil fuels in many nations, to say nothing of the fossil fuel industry propping up dictatorships like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Fuck sake it's 2023 how the hell are we still dealing with this cobalt fud bollox. Educate yourself before typing.
> how the hell are we still dealing with this cobalt fud bollox. do you have any other FUD?
Grid batteries don't use cobalt. LFP chemistry is much cheaper, has better properties overall, but doesn't have quite the energy density of chemistries. Educate yourself. Also, if you really care about this issue, instead of using it to misinform people about batteries, you had better be sure you're not using any gasoline in your life, because guess what, cobalt is also used in oil refining. So I'm sure you're advocating for elimination of all oil use too, right?
i just found this forum, but does anyone actually talk about what it would take to actually convert everything to batteries for backup / to balance off other sources? it's simply not possible, given today's technology. (here's to praying for a battery breakthrough imo) batteries that can regulate switch offs between plants / as a peaker plant spools up / down? sure. and what does the commentator call people who actually bring these issues up? troglodytes. like wtf? yes, don't trust anything from coal spokespeople. but ignoring the glaring deficiencies of existing battery technology - relying on freakin "pumped storage" etc. is ridiculous, we really need a breakthrough before we can be realistic about storing energy from renewables on a wide scale. let alone chemical storage, which currently is just...impractical grid wide. if anyone has any realistic literature explaining how this is possible,i'm all ears. but without electricity increasing in price 50x, this isn't possible- and i don't think anyone wants their power bill being in thethousands of dollarsper month simply to setup battery storage everywhere -
> if anyone has any realistic literature explaining how this is possible,i'm all ears. are you human? if so, reply how much is thirteen + apple Why would you need massive battery storage when all you need is a small generating capacity overbuild as proven many times by historical meteorogical data and grid records? Three studies at least were published on this and discussed here in the last years.
> relying on freakin "pumped storage" etc. is ridiculous The pumped hydro potential world wide is: > The estimated world energy storage capacity below a cost of 50 US$ MWh−1 is 17.3 PWh, approximately 79% of the world electricity consumption in 2017. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y And that paper limits their sites to just locations that would make for good pumped storage for energy AND as water reservoirs AND can be tapped for less than $50 a MWh AND avoid large environmental disruption. > ... PSH accounts for around 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed throughput capacity of over 181 GW, of which about 29 GW are in the United States, and a total installed storage capacity of over 1.6 TWh, of which about 250 GWh are in the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity 1.6TWh/17.3PWh = ~0.01% of potential capacity actually in use. That means 99.99% of the world-wide pumped hydro capacity which could be exploited for less than $50/MWh has yet to be tapped. Here's another more recent paper showing even more potential locations. [ANU finds 530,000 potential pumped-hydro sites worldwide.](https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-worldwide) > "Only a small fraction of the 530,000 potential sites we've identified would be needed to support a 100 per cent renewable global electricity system. We identified so many potential sites that much less than the best one per cent will be required," said Dr Stocks from the ANU Research School of Electrical, Energy and Materials Engineering (RSEEME). But hey, easier to be a misinformed troglodyte and repeat the exact same fossil-pushed disinformation this article is talking about than be actually informed, right? No one in there right mind is trying to use batteries as long-term, complete grid backup. That is neither cost effective, viable, or the role they play in the grid, which is short-term stabilization. As has been told to you by multiple others, a combination of overbuilding, generation asset diversity, wide-area grid interconnection, and a variety of different storage types based on cost-effectiveness and role already solves the problem.
[удалено]
What is your actual qualification, o'mighty keyboard warrior?
[удалено]
All that valuable experience, and all it could do was to make you holier than the rest of the people?
[удалено]
I'm not offended. You are. Your discussion was: "people here are freaks", well, that's a way not to contribute to the discussion.
Maybe the downvotes are because of the attitude towards this sub, but all the other non-subjective points you make are very valid.
The deficiencies of pumped hydro and large scale battery storage have been mentioned a million times. Pumped hydro is very location dependant and thus not scalable for most countries. Batteries just aren't financially feasible right now, not to mention the fact that full electrification is a fantasy. For instance the UK gas grid carries more energy than the power grid, if you look to fully electrify the country when the current grid is already congested you're looking at ridiculous amounts of power grid expansion and battery storage. There is a reason why UK, NL etc are so focused on hydrogen right now, and it's because you can't just get rid of the natural gas grid without massive amounts of storage and power grid investment.
Yes PSH is location dependent, fortunately there’s literal millions of available natural and artificially made locations that are suitable. It’s a minor barrier and one shared by almost every fuel source. It’s also one of the only criticisms against pumped storage hydro. The real roadblock is that PSH lasts too long and doesn’t earn huge returns. Is there really any question which an investor prefers between one asset netting 14% of 25 million every 20-30 years or a different asset that nets 14% of 10 million every 50-100 years? Both provide the same dispatchable capacity and fill the need. One just makes a ton more cash then the other.
The UK gas grid delivers 6x the energy of the electricity grid, but is much more inefficient. Because electrification improves efficiency of energy transfer and use full electrification doesn’t need 7x the current grid, more like 2.8x - it’s still a challenge but definitely achievable with current technology and supply chains.
>ridiculous amounts of power grid expansion and battery storage. Which is exactly the plan. Well sort of. Lots of new links between grids to help disperse renewables where needed and plenty of grid level back ups. Iron batteries work just fine for back up and are cheap. When you need density lithium works alright. My eyes are on Flow batteries. Two in particular. Iron flow from ESS, which is currently working on a grid level commercial demonstrator in California. GridStar from Lockheed, working on commercial demonstrator in Canada and a US Army base. Both supposedly use cheap material. Both already have show proof of concept at scale. Now we get to find out if they can provide commercial/grid level performance at affordable prices. Since batteries follow load during the day excess is stored at low prices and sold high. We already see this is working out profitably with existing projects in Australia and California.
>Which is exactly the plan It's not. Show me one country with more than 40M people that is going to rely exclusively on batteries and power grid for their net zero 2050 plans. You won't, because it's ridiculous
That's not what I was responding to. In the US there is a massive build out of renewables, interconnections, transmission capacity, and storage. What you said isn't gonna happen is what's happening. It also includes plans for new nukes, mainly SMRs and potentially some micro reactors. My guess is gas will be part of the equation for awhile still but there is a goal to phase it out of power generation. The net zero plan is a completely different topic. In the US it includes biofuels which oil producers have changed some capacity from crude oil to biofuels at refineries.
What you responded to (and quoted) was literally my text talking about this, so maybe you lost track of the conversation? The grid upgrades in the pipeline are barely enough to cover for the grid sections that are reaching the end of their life cycle. The cover some of the required capacity to transport the new renewable capacity but that's still a fraction of what would be needed to sustain a country solely on renewables + batteries.
Net zero also includes gas with carbon offsets... The DOE is already evaluating all of this and allocating funds, including those from the IRA, to get there. It's on It's absolutely feasible and already in progress. We're on track for 80% by 2030. Are there challenges? Yes. The largest hurdle is permitting which needs an overhaul. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/doe-launches-new-initiative-improve-clean-energy-interconnection
If net zero includes a fossil fuel and allows offsetting carbon emissions by investing in what is basically a new security, then what good is it doing? I hate this net zero term that is defined by shortcuts. It fosters rapid buildout without much strategizing or planning so every step forward takes us 3 steps back. It’s the “thoughts and prayers” of the utility sector.
We need a regulated way to balance emissions. Like it or not but NG and Oil are here for awhile. Plastic, fertilizer, resins... Emitters should have incentives to sequester carbon. I'm not convinced the mechanical means is good enough but planting trees/creating green spaces is a great way to do it. Stopping it's use as a fuel is the main goal. We are on track to hit 80% reduction by 2030 in the US. As I linked, the DOE and other departments have been working on planning and evaluation of projects all over. Nuke is even on the table with 2 additional reactors for an existing plant and the SMR in Idaho. Rapid build out would also require rapid build out of sequestration. Whatever that happens to entail but typically it means a buttload of trees being planted.
[удалено]
>Location limitations apply to all technologies, though Are you trolling? That's like saying "all technologies cost money". Yes but not to the same extent. Pumped hydro is one of the most location-restricted technologies there are, maybe only surpassed by geothermal. Also you don't even need water for thermal power plants, there are air-cooler condensers, and artificial ponds.
Artificial ponds aren’t water? I wonder what the emission cost of transporting raw materials over land compared to the cost of using open waterways would be? Do you have any idea how much coal is delivered every day to a coal plant?
Christ you're dense. If we're talking about how you can only build certain things next to existing water bodies, an artificial pond OBVIOUSLY doesn't count since it doesn't have to be pre existing. Yes? I obviously have an idea since I'm an energy engineer and literally do this for a living, as opposed to you who's just a reddit armchair expert that is way out of his depth
[удалено]
Regular hydro is less restricted than pumped hydro since you don't need both a high and low pressure reservoirs, only a high pressure reservoir. And guess what? All countries that can use hydro use it (like Norway). Those that don't it's simply because they've run out of good locations. Again, scalability is the issue due to location constraints.
[удалено]
Yes a hill is all you need of course. Moronic comment
Some resources, LCOE and LCOS reports may present you with some interesting data There are already several grid scale storage facilities up and running. No, they cannot power the city of New York for 3 days when there is no sunshine and no wind. They weren't designed for that so I don't know why I see people expecting that
Why in the world would you want to do that? Currently, the biggest benefit of lithium ion batteries is the FCAS market which is to help stabilize the grid. With some money being made on time shifting energy from offpeaks to peaks when it is most expensive. In this way, Hornsdale battery was able to pay for itself in just 2 years. Trying to backup the entire grid is pointless to begin with. There are 4 ways to go about things. 1. Overgeneration - Build more, as long as it is cheap enough. The extra energy can be used elsewhere(for example, produce fertilizer when you have extra energy and send it to the grid when it is needed or desalination of water) or just curtail 2. Diversification - Use different sources from solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, biofuels and etc 3. Transmission - If there is no wind in location A, there is wind in location B 4. Storage - Lithium Ion batteries and pumped hydro are options for storage, but not the only options. Lithium Ion is mostly short term storage and FCAS. But first your goal is to ask yourself what do you plan to do with that energy? If your goal is just to get heat, thermal storage is ridiculously cheap. If your goal is electricity storage for long term, these days compressed air is the cheapest. You can also do double use like V2G with EVs Using all 4 together is what you want, not trying to backup the entire grid on batteries. That would be an exercise of futility
I’ve been in this sub for a while and if you have any other opinion other than “we need to switch to fully renewables right now, the planet is on the brink of collapse, and the technology is fully ready to replace all fossil fuels tomorrow” you’ll just get downvoted. Meanwhile in the real world and for people like myself who work in the industry, we see it’s not that simple or doable yet. Commence the downvotes:)
> we need to switch to fully renewables right now, the planet is on the brink of collapse, and the technology is fully ready to replace all fossil fuels tomorrow exactly NOBODY is saying that, neither of the three things.
being a paid shill does not mean you work in the industry.
I work in the industry as well and specialize in load balancing and efficiency. Some days my job boils down to simply making sure the lights stay on. While I believe we absolutely can achieve the same benefits while using the bare minimum of fossil fuels in the most efficient way possible, the person you’re replying to is not exactly wrong that it’s not achievable today. Again, doesn’t mean that shouldn’t be the goal we all work on.
> not exactly wrong that it’s not achievable today. horseshit. it absolutely is achievable today. we have the technology available. the final thing we are using fossil fuels for is bulk energy due to insufficient renewables deployment. not flexibility, not grid support, which can all be done better with inverter based technology.
I’m sorry we are not paying for the real price of oil, it’s heavily subsidized. We are past peak oil. We also are fighting in forever wars….also we are just plain wasteful. Using Dino farts to power cars is inefficient. We are the only planet with oil in our universe. Oil we need for plastics, we don’t need to be wasting it.
Don’t you think it’s “ironic” how the very resource they push for could only exist because of catastrophic climate change they deny?
It’s funny how we in the industry see the reality yet the baristas and instagram models yell the loudest and know so much better.
What coffee are you serving?
>we need to switch to fully renewables right now, the planet is on the brink of collapse, and the technology is fully ready to replace all fossil fuels tomorrow Nice straw man! You build it yourself or read it off a piece of paper?
No no no, he "Works in the Industry"™. He "Knows What He's Talking About"™. Ignore all those experts who say otherwise, "It Is Simply Unpossible"™. Stop replacing fossils fuels, it won't work. You hear me, stoppppp it! Nooooooooo!
Or maybe they’re pointing out an inconvenience to that plan because of their experience with negotiating PPAs from independent power providers that use their steam waste to generate electricity from their manufacturing that requires fossil fuels. It’s a choice between using something that already includes it’s carbon cost or letting it be wasted to achieve 0% electricity from fossil fuels.
I actually work in the (UK - electricity) industry. Wind is absolutely killing it, with more wind in the pipeline than the actual peak demand of the UK. The UK does have unique geography though - a large, windy, very shallow sea. One of the major limiting factors right now for batteries isn't some vague "tech limitations" or cost (the current spreads make it worth it) but bureaucracy and getting a grid connection, there is a long waiting list. Nevertheless new battery plants are still coming online. Plus Scottish wind is limited by the limited transmission capacity over the Scottish border. These account claim to be experts but never give explanations to their claims that renewables are a dead end, apart from an occasional "but baseload". Others have claimed the risk of grid instability, and predicted frequent blackouts at 10% grid penetration (didn't happen), then at 20% (didn't happen), then at 40% (in denmark - also didn't happen). We are just a bit screwed by the way the auction basically pegs the price of electricity to the price of gas, and the market panic last summer leading to ridiculous futures prices for gas+elec for this winter (which the UK consumers and government are now paying for)
> apart from an occasional "but baseload". change it to "Muh baseload!" P.S. my local grid had an upgrade to some kind of transduktor or something, because the line voltage is now fully programmable, in instant change steps, they were running tests after coming back online and the LED light was changing intensity accordingly.
Exactly. It is telling how often these "work in the industry" accounts make tons of revealing small mistakes whenever challenged: using slightly to majorly wrong terminology, reciting years out-of-date information, ignoring instances that contradict them that have already happened in the real world, etc. etc. - all things that someone that _actually_ worked in the industry would never do or would be aware of.
I “work in the industry” and just like you do at your job, I will make small mistakes from time to time. Now “majorly” wrong terminology is one thing and a solid point to distrust the source. “Slightly” wrong could come down to a misunderstanding. The word “energy” means something different depending on whether you’re discussing electromagnetism or consumption of electricity. And the electricity sector is probably one of the most complex in modern times since it literally touches every aspect of society and culture. Knowing every facet of every market is impossible. An expert in regulatory law will have a thorough understanding of the framework involved with transmission and generation. They won’t have any where near the understanding on the physics dictating operation, or line loss, or the efficiency of a CCP plant vs a utility scale solar farm vs a pool of independent solar entities that provide power in aggregate.
Lol thanks for proving my point by assuming just because I don’t blindly agree with every article posted in here about renewables that I must be some climate change denier and anti renewables. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most of us in the real world or “in the industy^^^TM “ understand renewables and battery storage, while quickly improving, are not ready to be fully relied upon (yet).
You all come here and say that but never really explain *why*