Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Quest for Ways to Store Energy

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

We have frequently discussed on this blog one of the major shortcomings of solar and wind energy — intermittency and the problem of storing energy. There was a reference in a recent discussion about new technologies and even “outlandish” new technologies.

Along those lines, I just ran across this article in The New Yorker describing some of the research going into developing cheaper and more efficient means to store energy. Some of them are sort of wacky. But, a few things are clear: The problem has been recognized, there is a lot of money being funneled into finding solutions, and there are some really smart people with impressive resumes getting into this area.

The article’s author clearly favors renewable energy, but seems to be clear-eyed about the current lack of storage capacity and the need to account for it, along with the problems associated with expanding our storage capacity. I don’t pretend to understand it all nor am I an advocate of any of the approaches. This is all in the experimental stage and is an example of the entrepreneurial spirit at work.

All in all, the article is pretty fascinating.  It even gives a favorable nod to the pumped storage facility in Virginia’s Bath County. (The New Yorker allows people to access up to six articles a month free.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

28 responses to “The Quest for Ways to Store Energy”

  1. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Let’s have a moritorium on wnd and solar until storage is developed to make them economically reliable. Research is easy, reality not so much.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sometimes it takes a pressing need to spur the research. An example would be the COVID vaccines. Putting a moratorium on the development of wind and solar power would ease the pressure for more economical storage and, perhaps, result in less funding for the research.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yes. And lots of research into small modular nukes and hydrogen and other mirroring our “can do” attitudes to solve our problems and needs.

        a good thing.

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Except we do not need wind and solar so there is no problem.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            we don’t need wind/solar but we do need Nukes?

      2. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Dick, I hope you are not claiming that the “need” for renewables is comparable to COVID.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sometimes it takes a pressing need to spur the research. An example would be the COVID vaccines. Putting a moratorium on the development of wind and solar power would ease the pressure for more economical storage and, perhaps, result in less funding for the research.

    3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Let’s hope we can land a man on the moon soon as well. You’d think we could have achieved that by this point… no…?!

    4. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Does that mean, Biden is wrong to rescue the uneconomic nuke plants and we should let them close also?

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Good article! Here’s one that the pro-nuke , anti-renewable ? crowd might like:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bbc36ec144f966bf48012edbf8c785fb6f0415506cfd4b4aac39bc2c2d17154c.jpg
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db095b7ab5e93a10e88e737ed8f62590d1cebc269e270ae4cd06b4dab6648ed8.jpg
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/128951ac4830b96fd34351ee667bed3bafa8e64337344640b244f710ad61a983.jpg

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-power-biden-climate-change/

    interesting that apparently the nukes are becoming financially unviable failing that LCOE thing losing out to gas and renewables.

    And yes, pump-storage was designed to team with nukes primarily to generate power during daytime high demand and “re-charge” from the nukes at night when demand dropped.

    Pumped-storage also uses more power than it generates which ought to make it less economic if it is using nuke power and nuke plants are closing because they are uneconomic.

    Thanks for yet another “non woke’ blog post! 😉

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    By all means, let’s research new energy-storage technologies. The supply of oil and gas on this planet won’t last forever, and at some point we’re going to need alternate energy sources and energy storage. But you don’t build a reliable, reasonably priced electric grid on the hope that technological breakthroughs will occur. You integrate breakthroughs into the grid as they are proven to be economically viable. The problem is not the ultimate vision of where we’re heading, but the politically driven timeline for getting there. 100% net zero in the Dominion zone by 2045 — that’s only 23 years away.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Should Nuclear plants that are no longer economically viable be shut down and rely on cheaper gas when renewables are not generating?

      Why should we keep nukes around if they cost more to operate than gas and renewables as long as we do have gas to maintain grid reliability?

      Should we subsidize nukes to keep them online?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        We have provided tax breaks to oil and gas companies for decades, as well as to the solar industry recently. Why not provide such breaks to nuclear plants that need them? They produce clean energy and are safe and reliable.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Also we cap liability to the existing plants:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/acd4181f95672702f30c268fe2d975b90929fddfe1a44d1faabd22224bb8cdaf.jpg

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

          New small modular reactors are supposed to be much safer and perhaps won’t need the insurance waiver.

          But I would not shut down the existing Nukes until the small reactors came online anymore than I’d shut down renewables until storage was cheaper.

          we need both and ought not shut down either.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Lots of different energy sources are subsidized in various ways, and it is often hard to compare the impact. Apples, oranges, pears and grapes. There would be no plans, zip, zilch, for all this offshore wind without the tax credits. In the case of nuclear, there is some major liability protection. What was making the nukes uneconomic (well, one thing) was incredibly low gas prices and they are gone for a while. There have also been instances (shocking, I know) when the industry’s tears were of the crocodile variety.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          so if we know there are subsidies, why do we also say that the lowest cost and most reliable should be the choice?

          Why do we continue to operate Nukes if they cost more than gas and renewables?

        2. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Most of what are incorrectly called subsidies for oil and gas are depletion allowances, which are just ordinary asset depreciation. In fact depreciation is a penalty, not a subsidy. If I buy a car for my business I cannot deduct most of the expenditure in the year it occrs. I have to spread it out.

          By coincidence Homewood just wrote about this in the UK. So-called subsidies are pure green nonsense:
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/04/24/does-the-uk-subsidise-fossil-fuels/

    2. ARL Avatar
      ARL

      No innovation ever is cost effective in the beginning. The only way to make it cost-effective is to build and learn. As much as wind gets knocked around on these pages, PPAs for offshore wind in Europe are sub $50/MWh. It started off many multiples of that.

  4. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Thanks for at least making sure we could read the article without a paywall. They seemed to miss the point that the Bath County facility was built to back up the nuclear plants, which are more efficient when run at capacity but are not always needed for supply. There will be improvements, breakthroughs, in battery technology but I doubt sufficient to allow the desired reliance on wind and solar. I see a greater chance the new technology will roll out and improve the EV’s, lower the weight and extend the range.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      cell phones today would not exist as practical devices if not for a technology that just emerged 3 decades ago.

      the original cell phones looked like this:

      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTc22oLCX690EV6ii_uIrr6AwZHbsfyFk7uUq0NvMQ4x5PP93UQPUxeiD7LuZxlrw0pSN8&usqp=CAU

      Being the optimist that I am , I see storage technology on a similar path that cell phones took. We just need to maintain our focus and follow where the research takes us.

      Why science and research has become so political is weird and counter to what America has always done with technology.

      IMHO of course.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdc6bf911156e2944df4fd995364af13847fd9a40de2f95669c45d7634804adf.jpg

      2. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        So let’s wait 30 years then begin to deploy reliable wind and solar. Mind you Studebaker’s first car, sold in 1910, was an electric.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          we did not wait for cell phones. The early ones were atrocious but they needed to be in use to be able to advance them. It’s that way with most technology. The first cars that had air emission systems on them really sucked. It took years for them to get optimized. Do you remember 8 track tapes, cassettes, floppy-disks?

  5. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Reality bites: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-4-20-the-new-york-times-does-energy-storage

    250 million MWh of storage? Impossible.this is magic wand world.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/environment/hydrogen/NRCan_Hydrogen-Strategy-Canada-na-en-v3.pdf

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      A well known climate denier writing about science? uh huh….

    3. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      how many millions, billions in subsidies have we given to research to develop “clean coal”?

      or billions to develop small modular nuclear reactors?

      Are you opposed to funding all energy research or just research for energy storage?

  6. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Mind you it is good to see the green left finally acknowledge the issue, as I have been writing about it for five years or so. But the only interesting question is how the impossibility will manifest itself?

Leave a Reply

Read More