this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
252 points (99.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5276 readers
635 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7
252
Giant Batteries Are Transforming the Way the U.S. Uses Electricity | They’re delivering solar power after dark in California and helping to stabilize grids in other states. The technology is expanding (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 6 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] franklin@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying that batteries don't I'm just saying they don't have the current technology to be the backbone of our grid.

The issue with batteries currently is that they aren't able to ramp up and down instantly despite what it may seem, so sudden spikes in usage can't be addressed, a pivotal part of electric grid infrastructure.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The issue with batteries currently is that they aren't able to ramp up and down instantly despite what it may seem

Large battery systems are already in use as base load in Australia. They absolutely can ramp up and down and can do so faster than nuclear because nuclear is just a steam generator. Large generators have inertia requiring a minimum of 10 minutes to speed up when already fully operational, otherwise 1-12 hours.

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

You're correct I had misremembered and had to revisit my sources. I was not able to find sufficient data support my claim that batteries have any inherent delay.

However, In Australia which gets relatively consistent wind and solar I think it is more beneficial to invest in batteries.

Conversely in North America where the efficacy of wind and solar vary significantly by season and local climate, it is necessary to oversize generation and use batteries needed in order to ensure grid stability during periods of high demand and low supply.

This is attainable on the small scale and absolutely could be used to stabilize a grid with a steady backbone provided by something like nuclear or natural gas.

However without the stabilization of another steady source the cost quickly becomes unfavorable if you wish to maintain absolute grid stability as excessive over building is necessary with the highly volatile production.

I do think this is shifting more in the favor of battery storage with every new advancement.

My apologies for my previous misinformation it has been a long time since I've visited this topic.