US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024
US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024
By year's end, 96 percent of the US's grid additions won't add carbon to the atmosphere.
You're viewing a single thread.
Solar/wind + battery storage is cheaper than natural gas and a hell of a lot cleaner. It makes no sense to go for a more expensive, dirtier form of energy.
I'm excited about salt batteries taking up the slack on a lot of this infrastructure in the future.
Iron-air rust batteries are also pretty intersting. Just iron, air and water to store power by exploiting how rust forms.
anything that's outside of rare metals batt technology either lithium or sodium based right now is basically off of the table, except for silver zinc iirc, and nickel hydrogen. Those are like the two options that are probably viable, everything else simply doesn't exist yet.
I'd just like to note that a lot of storage technologies that are currently in the pilot project stage are based on using components with existing supply lines to minimize the time and effort needed to scale up production.
to be specific, most of the shit like aluminum air batteries are still in the heavy research stages of production, we haven't even gotten them remotely close to lithium tech, such that lithium tech is still king.
Give it a decade and there will likely be more than a few types of batts kicking around though.
It's not about production scaling, that's the easy part, you just make and sell more product, we've been doing that since the 1800s. The hard part is making it market viable. Or even exist at all in the first place.
They are a lot more expensive than expected at the moment, once they start selling at the 30$/KWh they were proposed at they will be fantastic but if they stay at their current price LFP is going to be a lot cheaper.
Yep your not wrong. In my local area, they are starting to use them for the grid. I know one of the engineers over at a local makerspace. The process is getting refined ATM. Its cool this and concrete power cells are becoming a thing.
I'll trust that's true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.
I don't think that's true, do you have sources for that? Because my understanding is that solar/wind is cheaper than natural gas, but battery storage makes it way more expensive at scale.
There’s a huge difference between day/night storage which is sufficient for most locations in the world that are somewhat closer to the equator, and seasonal storage. We have no good solution for seasonal storage at the moment.
Exactly. Day/night storage can probably be met (at least partially) by using EVs (i.e. arrive at work empty, recharge from solar, arrive at home full). But that's not going to be enough to get through the winter in higher latitudes.
That's why we need a reliable base load, and natural gas is very attractive because it's:
- easier to build than nuclear
- way less polluting than coal
- compatible with existing supply lines
Battery storage is prohibitively expensive in many parts of the world, and there aren't very many ready alternatives. I think we should be investing in nuclear power instead of utility grade battery backups, and we should be looking at EVs to help even out the day/night cycle.
Hydro is a good option for this, if you have a big enough lake. It can ramp up and down very fast, meaning it's great for filling in gaps between other renewables.
What is your understanding based on?
Regarding production batteries might be more expensive, but they can be charged some thousand times without any additional cost
Just from looking at some government studies. This doesn't necessarily compare longer-term costs, but it does give some direct comparisons between storage options.
I'm certainly no expert here, but just throwing out some rough estimates of battery degradation, it doesn't seem to be cost-effective vs natural gas, which is already only slightly more expensive than solar. So solar plus battery storage seems to be significantly more expensive than natural gas.
It's certainly more complex than that (i.e. you'd need less generation if battery backup is plentiful), but that's the data I'm looking at.
But how can one consider natural gas? The whole point is to avoid getting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?!
No, the point is to put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas is way cleaner than coal, and it's quite a bit cheaper (from what I can tell) vs battery storage. Everything has a cost tradeoff, and the cost tradeoff for natural gas is very attractive right now. Maybe we'll develop some really inexpensive energy storage (sodium batteries look promising), but regardless of what we come up with, there will be a transition period where we roll it out, and natural gas is a fantastic alternative until that's done because supply lines are already in place.
gas turbines are also fantastically versatile. any petroleum fraction lighter than grease, ethanol, biogas, syngas, hydrogen, ammonia, really anything that burns and can get through nozzle can be used as a fuel. if you have a carbon-neutral source of liquid fuel that can be stored, you have carbon neutral peaker plant
Which is why hydrogen is so interesting to me, especially solar-generated hydrogen. It's a pain to store, but if it's used relatively quickly, the losses should be small enough to make it worthwhile. AFAIK, most hydrogen generation is powered by fossil fuels, but there is a path for shifting to renewable generation. I'm a big fan of warehouses generating their own hydrogen and supplementing it with grid-powered hydrogen generation because there's a path toward full renewable hydrogen.
I don't know how hard it is to transition a natural gas plant to a hydrogen plant (or other fuel source), but I do think any step that reduces our emissions is a step we ought to seriously consider taking. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
easy high power generation from hydrogen would be in gas turbines, but this will have horrendous roundtrip efficiency. which is why it'd be better to soak up peak power in hydrogen and use it for non-power uses, like ammonia and then fertilizers, or direct reduced iron, or various hydrogenations in fine chemicals segment. these things take a solid chunk of energy to make. it's net positive because it replaces gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming while storing hydrogen is pain it's easier than electricity, and some intermediate can be stored too if hydrogen consumption can be surged
Which is why hydrogen is so interesting to me, especially solar-generated hydrogen. It’s a pain to store, but if it’s used relatively quickly, the losses should be small enough to make it worthwhile.
The pain with hydrogen storage isn't just leakage (which is a huge problem because of how small the molecule is), but energy density. Gaseous hydrogen needs either extremely large containers or really extreme pressures (meaning thick, heavy, expensive) and even then its not very much energy storage. To get even higher density requires liquification, which means which is only reached at −253°C (−423°F), and that also requires large expensive machinery and energy to run it.
Unless you're changing hydrogen into something else (like ammonia), hydrogen isn't a great solution for energy storage or transportation.
Not for transportation (e.g. pipes), but it seems pretty good for localized energy storage, like for forklifts/heavy machinery at a warehouse/factory. It's probably not a good fit for grid scale storage, but who knows, maybe we'll find a use case to replace natural gas plants for night-time generation. I don't think hydrogen cars will really be a thing, but maybe hydrogen long-haul trucks or trains could be (i.e. machines with predictable stops where they can refuel).
It might be cheaper but that is a pure capitalistic point of view. And capitalism is what brought us to our worlds current state
Yes, the current state is a pretty near constant improvement on standard of living and a pretty steady decrease in greenhouse emissions (at least in the US) despite rising population and access to gadgets. Electric vehicles exist because capitalists found a niche and exploited it at a time when battery densities could finally support a reasonable range. Rooftop solar exists because people care and can afford to place them on their houses. Governments came in later to help encourage those, but the tech existed before the subsidies did.
Capitalism isn't the enemy, it's merely a force that can be channeled to create a lot of good in the world. If a society sets up the right incentives, capitalism is incredibly efficient at meeting the demand.
So we shouldn't be destroying the economy to combat climate change, we should be channeling the economy to combat climate change. For example:
- carbon taxes on everything - coal would get taxed out the nose, while solar would pay pretty much nothing, with natural gas falling somewhere in the middle
- eliminate subsidies and loopholes - charge big trucks significantly more for damage to roads, which makes things like fracking a lot less attractive (if they have to pay to repair the roads they tear up, costs go way up)
- remove protections for corporations - arrest execs instead of just issuing fines for irresponsible, greedy behavior that hurts people
Most of the reason renewables are less attractive vs fossil fuels is because fossil fuels don't need to pay for negative externalities like pollution. If we add that in, the market will adapt and change their operations to reduce costs.
Yah, downvote the guy for asking for sources for a baseless claim. I have heavy doubts that battery storage is anywhere near as cost effective as NG turbines. I'd love to see some real numbers on that.
And I say this as someone with a house running on batteries and solar exclusively.
I guess it kinda depends on how and where you source your batteries.
There was something in Australia I think that was using old EV batteries for grid scale power storage. As EV adoption goes up eventually old batteries will get pulled from vehicles, and reusing them for grid or even home scale power storage is a great use.
Sure, but that's a) going to take some time and b) not going to be very convenient. Pulling something designed for a car (e.g. built in to the frame) and putting it into something for the grid are very different design spaces, so it could end up being prohibitively expensive to retrofit these car batteries into the grid system. Each manufacturer is going to use a different form factor, potentially different voltages, different cooling systems, etc. It's probably easier to break down the batteries and remanufacture them than to reuse them directly for grid storage.
What I do think could be a huge boon is to use cars at rest as storage. A lot of people leave their cars plugged in all day at work (peak generation), as well as at night (no generation), which is a pretty decent fit for a base level of supply. You'd basically drive to work mostly empty and get home mostly full, and you'd get a discount on your energy bill for allowing your EV to be used for energy storage. I don't know if any utility companies are using them that way, but that's a fantastic way to get a bit more use out of EV batteries.
Solar/wind + battery storage is cheaper than natural gas and a hell of a lot cleaner. It makes no sense to go for a more expensive, dirtier form of energy.
How exactly is the production of batteries cleaner and cheaper than the production of natural gas?
In the US, the major source of natgas is now fracking.
And uh, fracking is about the most gross extraction method for anything you can dig out of the ground.
A potential solution here is to dramatically limit or eliminate protections for fracking, but still allow it. If they can pay for any damage they cause, they should be allowed to do it. The problem is that we're subsidizing these efforts in a number of ways, and giving these orgs way too many protections. We should remove those, but IMO not ban fracking itself, since it can be a very useful way to produce energy in our transition away from coal.
That said, we should absolutely be investing in clean energy. I want to see a renewed push for nuclear power, expansion and optimization of hydro, etc. But we're not going to switch to green energy overnight (and the US is improving on emissions faster than many other countries), and fracking works well in the short-term as we move away from coal. As renewables get built out, we can reduce how much fracking we do.
pay for any damage they cause
Things have gotten somewhat better after some high-profile messes, but we're still basically just shoving tens of thousands of gallons of toxic wastewater into holes and hoping it stays there and doesn't go anywhere else. Which, of course, uh, water likes doing, so it's very much not a good permanent solution to anything.
I'm pro-nuclear myself, given that of a long list of mediocre (wind, solar, hydro) to bad choices (coal, biomass) it's probably the best and most reliable option that relies the least on highly contentious resources (lithium) and the waste problem isn't entirely insurmountable given the progress on fuel recycling that's been being made in recent years.
And I'm sure I'm going to get shit for calling wind, solar and hydro mediocre, and that's probably reasonable. But the problem is solar and wind aren't good base loads, and building a large hydroelectric plant is incredibly impactful for wherever you're building it, since it kinda requires you to make a giant-ass lake on an area that's probably not already one.
waste problem
And we have a lot of empty land here in the US. I'm in Utah, and people here push back against nuclear, but we literally live next to a massive desert. Nobody cares if we dig a big hole in W. Utah or E. Nevada, we can bury it however deep we need and it's not going to impact the water table at all (we don't really have a water table here anyway...). Likewise in California. E. US is a bit more difficult, but there are plenty of trains that go through very unpopulated areas that we could use to transport hazardous material for burying.
Processing it is obviously better, but we really shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better here. Yeah, nuclear isn't perfect, but it works really well at providing a base level of energy and can help us phase out coal and natural gas that much sooner. Utah already sells electricity to California, so it's not like we need a power plant right next to major population centers, we can move electricity relatively effectively over long distances. So stick the plants in the middle of nowhere so nobody has to be worried about nuclear fallout (which isn't going to happen anyway).
Even if battery storage gets way cheaper, nuclear will still help us phase out fossil fuels as storage ramps up. And for costs, my understanding is that most of the issues are due to delays, so surely there's something we can do about that.
It's all NIMBYism. We absolutely could shit out a standardized reactor design and build as many as we need but you can't get people to agree that we should do that, and even a lot of the people who DO want nuclear power want it as far away from them as possible.
Too many decades of mis/disinformation around things like TMI and Chernobyl have ruined several generations of people's opinions on being near nuclear even if they generally approve of it. (And by near, I mean in the same state as them, even.)
This is strictly a public opinion problem, and one reason solar and wind is expanding so rapidly is nobody has any major objections to those.
Yup. But like any good solution to a complex problem, it's best if we have a lot of options. We're putting tariffs on China, which will increase the cost of solar and probably wind, as well as battery imports (and yes, we're making more batteries here, but it's going to be small potatoes for a while).
Nuclear really shouldn't be impacted by any of this, so the time to really nail down the specifics is right now, or preferably several years ago.
I’m in Utah, and people here push back against nuclear, but we literally live next to a massive desert. Nobody cares if we dig a big hole in W. Utah or E. Nevada, we can bury it however deep we need and it’s not going to impact the water table at all (we don’t really have a water table here anyway…)
If you don't have water nearby, you're not going to be able to use nuclear power in any utility grade scale there.
It didn't stop TSMC from building a fab out in Arizona, nor did it stop the NSA from building a massive data center here either. Water is available, especially if we cut down on how much alfalfa we grow here. AFAIK, the problem isn't water, it's NIMBYs.
Cool story. How do we pull rare earth minerals, needed for batteries, from the ground?
Typically not by injecting toxic carcinogens into the ground to do so, like we do with fracking.
Also I've not heard of any strip mining activities that turn a town's only water supply into something that's flammable, but I perhaps missed that?
Or the ongoing incidents of child and adult cancer caused by this itty bitty little toxic waste issue.
Typically not by injecting toxic carcinogens into the ground to do so, like we do with fracking.
Also I’ve not heard of any strip mining activities that turn a town’s only water supply into something that’s flammable, but I perhaps missed that?
Or the ongoing incidents of child and adult cancer caused by this itty bitty little toxic waste issue.
No need to flat out lie in order to make a point.
Unless you want to honestly double down on the "I am so ignorant that I honestly believe mines do not contaminate surrounding areas" card you should take off for the day, rest up, and try again tomorrow bud.
My friend, you are the one who is saying batteries are somehow dirtier than natural gas.
Bring the receipts or head on out, we are getting bored.
Not your friend for one. For the other, I don't need to "bring the receipts" to demonstrate that mining and battery production is not good for the environment.
Anyone who needs that is too mentally feeble to be a part of this discussion and should recuse themselves for their own safety.
Let me ask you this since you do not appear to be arguing in good faith and are using strawmen: do you believe humans are most of the cause of climate change?
You make the batteries once, and the pollution due to production is spread over the 10-15 year lifetime of the battery. During that time gigawatt hours of clean power sloshes in and out of them. This in contrast to having to produce enough gas to make all of those gigawatt hours once, then throw the gas away as co2 and get more, along with the attendant pollution.
Batteries have infinite energy now? No storage issues due to electrical surges, heat, cold, or anything else that makes batteries sub optimal? While seemingly by magic, mining rare earth minerals spreads its environmental impact over 10-15 years of the lifetime of the battery with 0 negative impact to the area the mine is located?
Oh wait... None of that is true so I guess you can try again.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Batteries have an environmental impact, but so does fracking for natural gas. You have the impact up front making a battery, but charging it with renewables does not have continued environmental impact. But if you use gas, you’re going to have to use an awful lot of it over that time period to offset the clean power you’re able to use when you have a battery. And that gas has a very high environmental impact, continually, over that entire time period.
I didn’t say batteries have NO impact, but they have less impact than continually mining and burning fossil fuels.
They are using a strawman and trying to claim victory. They are not arguing in good faith.
Yeah, I think you’re right.
The fact that you believe renewable energy sources have no environmental impact demonstrates to me the need to no longer speak with you. My brain can take only so much ignorance and green washing is my line today.
Ok. Have a nice day.
Sodium batteries require very little rare earths in comparison to lithium batteries.
It really is too bad about the weak life cycle, poor charge/discharge rate, and incredibly low voltage that begin the story of "Why don't we just use sodium ion batteries?" and place it directly in the "tragedy" section of the book store.
Why are people so mad that batteries are better than dead dinosaur farts? What is the weird obsession with burning ooze and gasses from mother earth? We have better options?
Why are people so mad that batteries are better than dead dinosaur farts? What is the weird obsession with burning ooze and gasses from mother earth? We have better options?
Does it hurt being this ignorant or is it truly as blissful as they say?
The fact that you don't understand battery materials are pulled from the ground in much the same way that oil and gas is speaks volumes about value of your opinions.
Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.
Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it's gone.
After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, is "infinitely recyclable". Literally defies physics.
Lets also not forget that oil is recyclable.
The information I've seen regarding deep discharge life-cycle for sodium ion is that the latest tech is actually extremely good, at least according to this. I don't see how the lower voltage is a problem, since for grid situations you'll have step-up transformers anyway, and the batteries can just be hooked up in series to increase the voltage.
They use abundant materials, will be much cheaper than lithium ion, don't need to be actively cooled, and massively lessen the risk of rupture and fires.
The low density per unit of weight isn't relevant for grid storage, so they seem pretty ideal.
mining rare earth minerals
Are you under the impression that we use NMC batteries for grid energy storage?? LOL
Are you under the impression that we use NMC batteries for grid energy storage?? LOL
Sure is weird how you think you are owning me here while ignoring the fact that all batteries have an environmental impact and Lithium is one of the worst when it comes to battery components that are incredibly costly to the environments where it is mined, which is the main component in batteries used for grid storage.
"LOL"
Mostly because natural gas is a one and done thing when it is used. Batteries can be recycled. Production of natural gas is largely done through racking which destroys the groundwater. While batteries often require mining (excluding mechanical ones), they often can be broken down and reused in new batteries. And of course there is the greenhouse gas emissions from methane that are horrible. Methane is extremely leaky. Methane usage emits about as much greenhouse gas emissions as coal does.
I enjoy how much effort it takes to ignore how batteries are produced in order to argue for them in a comparison with natural gas.
I enjoy that you are making a strawman. Nobody ever said batteries have no negatives. You asked how they were cleaner than natural gas. I answered. Sorry that the answer hurt your feelings.
How exactly is the production of batteries cleaner and cheaper than the production of natural gas?
On to your bullshit "answer":
Mostly because natural gas is a one and done thing when it is used.
Has nothing to do with the production.
Batteries can be recycled.
Nothing to do with base production, again.
Production of natural gas is largely done through racking which destroys the groundwater. While batteries often require mining
Finally! Production!
Oh no... So apparently mining doesn't impact ground water in anyway? What about nearby rivers? Lakes?
(excluding mechanical ones), they often can be broken down and reused in new batteries.
You already said batteries can be recycled. No shit Shirlocke, doesn't make the mines have less impact.
And of course there is the greenhouse gas emissions from methane that are horrible.
What about all of the GHG to open and maintain a Lithium mine? Transport of raw Lithium to production lines? The refining of Lithium for use in batteries?
Etc. Etc.
Methane is extremely leaky. Methane usage emits about as much greenhouse gas emissions as coal does.
Yup, that is true. Doesn't mean that batteries are a "green" alternative when they do just as much damage and use a resource that is far more finite.
I enjoy that you are making a strawman. Nobody ever said batteries have no negatives. You asked how they were leaner than natural gas. I answered. Sorry that the answer hurt your feelings.
I do love how people like you always default to "sorry I hurt your feelings" like some knob who thinks I don't believe in climate change actually has an impact on my mental health and feelings.
Player one syndrome is strong with you young padawan, look into that before it gets terminal.
When you “mine” natural gas and burn it for heat, it’s gone. It disappears (and produces harmful GHG in the process) You have to keep doing this to get more output.
When you mine materials for batteries, you end up with a physical thing that persists, can be used over and over and can be recycled into new batteries at end of life.
This means the amount of mining required for renewables + batteries is proportional to only the addition of new capacity, whereas the amount of “mining” for fossil fuels is proportional to the total gross energy output (including significant heat losses)
We’re mining a lot of battery materials now, but that’s because we’re adding a crapload of capacity.
Health and Environmental Concerns
Despite the positive outlooks on battery recycling, negative effects also have been shown to impact developing nations that recycle batteries, especially those with lead and lithium.
Lead is a highly toxic substance, and processing it can result in pollution and contamination of people, resulting in long-term health problems and even disability.[59][33] According to one ranking, lead-acid battery recycling is, by far, the most deadly industrial process, globally, in terms of Disability-adjusted life years lost—costing between 2,000,000 and 4,800,000 estimated lost years of individual human life.[60]
Since 2015, developing nations like Vietnam have increased their battery processing capacity as global demand for batteries has grown. The process for recycling batteries often leads to toxic metals being introduced into the environment. In many of these nations, there are little protections available for workers working with the batteries.[3] In nations like Indonesia, it was reported that over a span of four years, battery recycler's blood lead levels almost doubled.[61] Lead exposure to workers can also be transmitted to family members away from work, ultimately leading to lead poisoning. [62]
More studies continue to be conducted to gather an understanding of environmental impacts. Studies show that most lithium-ion batteries contain Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS accumulates in humans and wildlife, often leading to immune and thyroid disfunctions, liver diseases, and other issues relating to homeostasis inside of the body.[63] Lead contamination of neighborhoods has resulted from the process of recycling lead batteries. In 1992, the EPA reported 29 lead-recycling sites were on the EPA's Superfund clean-up list, 22 of them on their "National Priority List."[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling#Lithium_ion_batteries
Do you want the math or would you prefer less reading and more pictures?
Do you want the math or would you prefer less reading and more pictures?
Nothing like an ignoramus to try and make someone else feel stupid for asking a question.
Since you are all knowing, explain to me exactly how deep earth mining is less costly and better for the environment than deep earth drilling.
Or did you think we just magically pull batteries from thin air at 0 cost?
Since you are all knowing, explain to me exactly how deep earth mining is less costly and better for the environment than deep earth drilling.
Easy, just compare the amount of pollution required to make a battery and a solar panel with the amount of pollution required to extract and burn fossil fuels for the equivalent power output over the duration of the renewable's working lifetime.
Oh, and don't forget. Fossil fuels are useless without an engine to burn them, so you need to account for those infrastructure costs as well.
Easy, just compare the amount of pollution required to make a battery and a solar panel with the amount of pollution required to extract and burn fossil fuels for the equivalent power output over the duration of the renewable’s working lifetime.
If it is so easy I am waiting.
We don't need to even do the math ourselves. It's already be done countless times and the results are always the same.
BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
I'm surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.
there's not enough lithium on this planet to store enough energy for like half of europe nevermind entire world
you know how to do this the right way? use pumped-storage hydropower. need more? build more, then dump power into heaters (or better yet heat pumps) on demand from grid since fossil fuel heating will be replaced anyway. (we're nowhere close to this, but it can sink a lot of energy quickly while not using it at some other times)
Pumped hydro is both very geologically limited and environmentally detrimental. That technology alone will not substantially reduce the need for other power storage technologies/ peaker plants.
Pumped hydro is both very geologically limited and environmentally detrimental.
If you are willing to live with the very considerable impact and are willing to do a costly megaproject, one possibility that I've raised before: it'd be possible to go implement Atlantropa, but instead of using it (exclusively) to generate hydroelectric power, as its creator envisioned, use it for pumped storage. The world will never need more energy storage than that could provide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
Atlantropa, also referred to as Panropa,[1] was a gigantic engineering and colonisation idea that German architect Herman Sörgel devised in the 1920s, and promoted until his death in 1952.[2][3] The proposal included several hydroelectric dams at key points on the Mediterranean Sea, such as the Strait of Gibraltar and the Bosporus, to cause a sea level drop and reclaim land.
The central feature of the Atlantropa proposal was to build a hydroelectric dam across the Strait of Gibraltar, which would have generated enormous amounts of hydroelectricity[4] and would have led to the lowering of the surface of the Mediterranean Sea by as much as 200 metres (660 ft), opening up large new areas of land for settlement, such as in the Adriatic Sea. Four other major dams were also proposed:[5][6][7]
- Across the Dardanelles to hold back the Black Sea
- Between Sicily and Tunisia to provide a roadway and to lower the inner Mediterranean further
- On the Congo River below its Kasai River tributary, to refill the Chad basin around Lake Chad, provide fresh water to irrigate the Sahara, and create a shipping lane to the interior of Africa
- Extending the Suez Canal and locks to maintain connection with the Red Sea
Sörgel saw his scheme, which was projected to take more than a century, as a peaceful pan-European alternative to the Lebensraum concepts that later became one of the stated reasons for Nazi Germany's conquest of new territories. He envisioned Atlantropa as a way of providing land, food, employment, electric power, and, most of all, a new vision for Europe and neighbouring Africa.
There are two very considerable issues there:
-
First, dropping the Mediterranean Sea by 200 meters is going to have a very large impact on the coasts of northern Africa and southern Europe. Sörgel considered that desirable, but obviously there are going to be a lot of people who don't like such a change.
-
Second, if it's permitted to build structures in this new area -- as was originally intended -- then a rupture of the dams would produce cataclysmic flooding; we would essentially have recreated the Zanclean flood:
Ninety percent of the Mediterranean Basin flooding occurred abruptly during a period estimated to have been between several months and two years, following low water discharges that could have lasted for several thousand years.[3] Sea level rise in the basin may have reached rates at times greater than ten metres per day (thirty feet per day). Based on the erosion features preserved until modern times under the Pliocene sediment, Garcia-Castellanos et al. estimate that water rushed down a drop of more than 1,000 metres (3,000 ft) with a maximum discharge of about 100 million cubic metres per second (3.5 billion cubic feet per second), about 1,000 times that of the present-day Amazon River.
The Royal Air Force bombed two dams in Germany during World War 2 to flood an industrial area in Germany. Russia just blew up a hydroelectric dam in Ukraine that caused a mess and water to drop upstream by 2 meters. If such a dam were to be attacked in a war like that, it would be horrendous. We'd be talking about a water depth difference a hundred times that and a far larger area.
EDIT: And a third, I suppose -- if you take water out of the Mediterranean via evaporation and pumping, it will eventually wind up elsewhere, and we live in an era where sea level rise is already a concern, so it'll cause sea level rise elsewhere. Would eliminate concerns about sea level rise for the Mediterranean, though...
There is also the issue that if building nuclear plants takes too long and is too expensive to be the solution, then such a project would also be too late to matter. Also transmission losses likely mean this is a solution for much less of the world population than you think. If we had a truly global lossless grid, then we would need much less energy storage to begin with.
Impracticalities aside, absurd geoengineering what-ifs are entertaining. Thanks for sharing.
at least it works at scale relevant to grids. there are other interesting devices that store high grade heat in things like molten silicon or sand, then convert it to electric energy again, but it's rather at prototype scale now i think. power to hydrogen is fine if it's replacing hydrogen from natural gas, but it's wack for storage of energy
Lithium Ion is more advanced battery technology because it's got high energy density which means it's used in consumer electronics. Lower energy density technologies exist with better properties for storing at grid scale. They're heavier and bigger than lithium ion batteries, but can store energy a lot longer and use much more available materials. One example is Form Energy's Iron/Air battery, which uses rusting iron to store electricity for hundreds of hours.
Sodium batteries are already being produced (only in one factory in the US and one in China so far but its a start to commercial production), there's enough of that stuff to build batteries for the entire planet a thousand times over.
Didn't realize we had sodium batteries being made in the US on a commercial scale.
there's not enough lithium
I am hopeful that developments in sodium ion battery tech will yield different strategies. The weight and energy densities vs cost and abundance mean that it makes more sense (at this time at least) to reserve lithium ion battery tech for more mobile use cases like handheld devices and EVs, but use sodium ion battery tech for things like grid storage or home energy management solutions. I dream of a day in the next decade or two in which virtually nobody bothers to have a generator for emergency home power and instead opts for a UPS with inverters and chargers hooked up to a home battery, allowing not only emergency power, but a "smart" system to power the home via battery during high grid demand and charge during low demand, normalizing grid supply curves and making power bills cheaper for all. The path to this starts with big scale early adopters like hotels and apartment buildings, which could easily supplement energy needs through solar panels on their large roofs at the same time.
For all the enshittification we're seeing across most industries, I am cautiously optimistic that we might be living at the edge of an energy revolution. We may see fucking huge fundamental changes to our energy infrastructure within our lifetimes, and that's one of the few things I'm excited about for the near future. It's unfortunate that it's taking a crisis to force these changes, but it would be a great pivot nonetheless.
i think that in order for that to happen we have to change the way we think about energy. more of use it when it's available, and less use it on demand
Dirty production initiates based on demand. So-called "peaker plants" start up under high demand when cost per megawatt rises. They typically start early in the day as most people wake up and cook breakfast and get ready for work and then shut down after people get home and wind down for bed. More extreme versions of this only fire up for more extreme weather events or when other plants trip offline unexpectedly. If demand is normalized, so too is production, which would phase out dirtier power production like coal and natural gas. As an operator at a combined cycle natural gas power plant, this would force me to find a new job. Which is fine by me. The system needs to be changed to be fixed, even if it causes a little pain for me.
Think of the grid as a pressurized system. To maintain consistent pressure, demand and supply need to be approximately equivalent. When use is high, the pressure drops so demand goes up to maintain that pressure, so prices per megawatt rise to incentivize power plants to step on the gas pedal to produce more. When use drops off, that production needs to reduce to prevent over pressurization of the grid. With battery storage, that pressure swing diminishes. It's effectively a pressure regulator.
Additionally, the home power management system via UPS and inverters does exactly what you're saying in terms of using it when it's available. At times of high demand and high cost and low supply, your home could seamlessly switch over to your home battery supply for your energy needs to remove strain on the grid, and this would be attractive to set up through things like proposed tax credits and generally reducing your home energy bill. So at 3pm in an August heat wave, your AC could be battery powered from when you charged while you slept the night before. And you'll recharge tonight when everybody's AC has switched off for the most part. All this to say: you're absolutely right and we already agree, but also we can use emerging tech and legislation to vastly expedite this badly-needed transition.
there’s not enough lithium on this planet to store enough energy for like half of europe nevermind entire world
This is a good use case for sodium batteries. They're less energy-dense so not great for vehicles, but for a stationary application like this they're perfect.
yeah this is fine, but these need to run at high temperatures last time i've checked. that makes it a bit more complicated to use
Sodium electric batteries, like the type that CATL developed? Or do you mean hot molten salt thermal batteries? Because I think the other poster is referring to the first kind.
i thought sodium batteries need low hundreds C for ceramic electrolyte to work. i stand corrected
e: CATL made sodium-ion battery, i was thinking of sodium-sulfur battery
Oh there's enough lithium. Not enough lithium production, surely, but there's enough lithium in the ocean and in brines easily.
There are plenty of alternatives for lithium batteries, chiefly sodium and a redox flow. Heating/cooling is good as well to store, but not every structure is energy efficient enough that it would make much sense. Good thing to work towards, but grid batteries would probably be faster and easier to implement. I have reservations towards pumped hydropower, in part due to watching how hard it is to decommission a lot of hydroelectric dams these days in US as well as the cost to create the areas to hold the water (a lot of the areas that are geographically advantageous for pumped hydropower tend to be nature reserves or national parks, soo...).
Since most energy is used for heat, storing it as heat makes a lot of sense, and there are sand thermal storage systems that can scale from single household to whole neighborhoods.
But then you're just having another system for storing energy, which probably isn't very easy to implement. An easier solution if you don't want to use grid batteries is just to improve housing insulation and schedule heating/cooling for non peak hours, so that you are just using less energy overall. The problem in my mind is that that would require a lot of renovation on older homes, which is just more expensive and slower than adding grid batteries. Don't get me wrong, those changes should be mandated for newer housing, but expecting it to be implemented in older housing probably isn't gonna happen.
They're already using them in Finland. And there's a company building them for residential applications
If you take something not unlike a water heater and fill it with sand that you then heat to about 1,000 degrees farenheit. Then when you need heat you just pump some air through it and use that feed of hot air to provide heat where you need it. And unlike heat pumps, this can be added to the sort of baseboard heat you find in a lot of older homes.
And since the heaters are just simple resistive coils with 100% efficiency, it's a simple and cheap way to store electricity that you're going to use for heating anyway. Remember that every time you change energy from one kind to another you're going to lose some of it in the process.
i have a sneaking suspicion that if 80%+ of energy is used on heating anyway then storing that heat at point of use and topping it up when excess energy is available is the easiest, least wasteful way to go
Heating/cooling probably, but renovation of older structures is generally expensive and complicated, whereas grid batteries can scale until newer construction (which should be more insulated) can keep up. It's not an either or, but more of both that will compliment each other as time progresses.
redox flow doesn't have that much better energy density. granted, it's great for long term storage, but it's still not there, plus it takes stupidly large amounts of vanadium to run. there's also zinc bromide flow battery but this one deposits zinc so it's limited on one side
Of course, Li-ion batteries will never cover large-scale power demand. Not primarily because of lack of lithium, but because it's a technology that scales far too poorly into the MWh/TWh scale, and has a far too short lifetime.
The battery tech we need for truly large scale storage is different from what we need for small, portable storage. Stuff like redox-flow batteries are looking promising.
There's also hydrogen, with different storage methods being actively researched- from direct storage to using ammonia as a carrier.
The issue with using mechanical storage (like pumped hydropower) is threefold (off the top of my head):
- It has ridiculously low energy density
- Even after > 100 years of pumps and turbines, the power loss in a pump/release cycle is very high.
- It's heavily limited by geography
I'm not saying pumped hydropower isn't part of the solution: I believe the solution is that we need many solutions. I just think it's important to point out that battery tech isn't some monolithic thing, and that there are issues with pumped hydropower (and mechanical storage in general).
You know what pumped storage hydro is? A battery. Unfortunately that is not an option everywhere and takes up a massive amount of space. The space portion is not a huge issue for grid energy storage for the most part but it can definitely limit where you can do it and its capacity.
As for the amount of lithium available, there is absolutely more than enough considering it is one of the most abundant materials on our planet. Not that we need to use lithium for grid energy storage. Lithium is very high density energy storage which you are correct that is not a high priority for grid energy storage.
Basically there is no one solution for grid energy storage. There are mechanical batteries, medium density chemical batteries, and even "depleted" EV batteries. We just need to apply what is right for each particular scenario.
I'm not disagreeing with you overall. But I figured more info and context is helpful.