Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanlarsen | Hacker News Reader

No, but Solar and Wind + existing hydro + existing nuclear + a moderate amount of storage + a better grid can replace fossil fuels.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545044/electrify/

View on HN

Storage at anywhere near relevant scales is anything but moderate. To put this in perspective: The USA uses 12,000 GWh of electricity every day. The world uses 60,000 GWh. The amount of storage required depends on how much overproduction we have, and the tolerance for blackouts. But many estimates arrive at around 1 day's worth of storage. But even that is likely and underestimate [1].

This is part of why plans for a primarily renewable grid assume that hydrogen or some other heretofore untested system will fulfill the overwhelming majority of storage. Because none of the existing electrical storage mechanisms are sufficient for grid-scale storage.

1. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8

Many people think we need a season's worth of storage. So by that measure a days worth of storage is moderate. And unlike a season, it is possible to have 12 TWh of storage within a decade or two. It'd be nice to have cheaper storage, but even 12 TWh of batteries plus sufficient renewables is cheaper than nuclear.

No, 12TWh of batteries is not feasible. The entire world produces about 400 GWh worth of batteries per year. And bear in mind that 12 TWh is a day's worth of electricity just for the US - the global figure is 60TWh. Furthermore, as transportation, heating, and industrial processes are electrified that's going to drive that 12TWh figure up even higher. Only about half our fossil fuel use is due to electricity production. And again, remember that electric vehicles are going to consume the lion's share of battery production,.

No, there was 1.2 TWh of capacity in 2022, and there are over 5 TWh of factories announced.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-dominance-in-battery...

1.2 Twh of capacity but only ~400 GWh of actual production. Don't confuse figures on production capacity with figures on actual deliveries. Capacity is often 2-3x higher than actual production figures: https://cdn.ihsmarkit.com/www/images/0722/global-battery-cel...

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/growt...

Capacity is the appropriate metric when talking about what we could do.

Actual production figures are what determines the supply of batteries available, not what the factories hypothetically could produce if they had unlimited inputs. Your factory could make 1000 GWh of batteries per year, but if you only have enough input materials to build 500 GWh then that extra capacity is useless.

Sure, if we're talking about 2024. My comment was about the next couple of decades.

I don't think this paper completely refutes the commentor you responded to, since it does not include nuclear power (current or projected future capacity) in its analysis.

It is unclear if nuclear would fill the gap they calculated.

It's even simpler than that: solar, wind, existing hydro+nuclear, short term storage, and natural gas is enough to bring us to net zero.

Wait, you say, natural gas? But natural gas is dirty. Well, in the US if we could magically remove all other sources of greenhouse gas emissions except for the natural gas power plants, we'd be at net zero right now.

>No, but Solar and Wind + existing hydro + existing nuclear + a moderate amount of storage + a better grid can replace fossil fuels.

There is no such thing as a 'moderate amount of storage'. The best you can get is pumped storage (if you have the correct geography for it).

Outside of that, sure, you can add solar/wind to the energy mix - does that invalidate my point? Does that actually support OP's point?

There has never been an hour in the last 30 years where there hasn't been either sun or wind somewhere in North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute

Germany exists in a single weather zone, North America encompasses several.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com