Hell yeah!
And with sodium batteries finally starting to kick off we're even having more climate friendly batteries to store that energy as well
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
252 points (99.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5272 readers
500 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Are they viable yet for solar for the masses? Last I heard they have such a huge voltage range that they require new/redesigned/other inverters. I haven't checked in the progress of those recently.
I believe a decent number of modern inverters and BMS’s have gotten around to adding a preset for them now. The steeper curve is definitely still a disadvantage compared to the LFP cells we’ve gotten used to.
Solar+ batteries is now cheaper than nuclear. I'm a fan of nuclear but it's no longer needed.
Also it would take too long to build the nuclear plants. I’m all for building them but they’ll take like 10+ years. In the meantime we need to use solar/wind + batteries.
We could have avoided burning a ton of fossil fuels if nuclear hadn't been demonized in the 60's, but as it stands, that ship has sailed. Let's skip that stage on the tech tree and move to fully renewable!
Edit: I guess I should say that I think nuclear will and should continue to be a pivotal part of any smart grid for a long time, since it fills a niche that "true" renewables can't yet. I just don't think pushing to build them now is ideal, as it's more pressing to decommission all fossil fuels plants ASAP by any means necessary (which might mean using only the existing nuclear plants while we ramp up production of other green energy sources)
I think you are touching on something important in your edit, which is that diversity of energy source is important for long term grid stability. Solar+battery storage is looking really good right now and I completely agree we need to get on that asap. But there's no magic bullet, no one technology that negates the need for any other. Headlines inherently reduce complex issues into bite sized information, but it's important for science literacy to remember that things are complex and nuanced! We need wind and solar and hydroelectric and energy storage and nuclear and more.
The tricky point here is that fossil fuels were a silver bullet for a long time! There is so much energy in those chemical bonds and they just bubbled out of the ground, so why wouldn't we use that for everything?
Trying to get people to understand nuance and using the right tool for the job is a lot trickier since most people inherently resist complexity as a solution for replacing a simple technology.
I agree. With the cost reduction on renewables, grid-scale nuclear doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.
However, I hope that nuclear will get a revival with SMR technology. Especially as local power facilities for things like data centers and auto plants and other industrial facilities that require as much power as a small nation.
The main advantage of nuclear is the steady production of power that does not need to be stored and can be used on demand by the grid.
Solar is great but we will need an alternative to form the backbone of our grid until energy storage advances. Nuclear is a great contender for them to get away from natural gas.
Batteries give stability to the grid. It doesn't matter where the generation comes from as long as it's there.
Worrying that batteries drain is like worrying that your fuel rods deplete (they have a 6 year lifespan)- You build the capacity so it's never a problem.
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.
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.
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.
Nuclear could be useful in applications that need a high energy load on-site, like steel, cement, and nitrogen production
Meanwhile, TVA (powering huge portions of the Eastern U.S.) is doubling down on fossil fuels, and isn't even putting any meaningful effort into solar. 🤦♂️
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/climate/tennessee-valley-authority-biden-climate.html
The market will dictate what happens long term. Solar will continue to drop in price and most fossil fuel usage will drop as a result.
Especially if we start removing subsides from the from the fossil fuel industry
No mention of the NEM 3 changes that spurred solar companies to push batteries as part of the solar offerings due to massive solar credit increases at specific times but massive reductions at others. Completely changed the landscape around solar installs.
For rooftop, definitely. But those were (at peak) only about 5% of annual solar installs in California. It's almost all utility-scale.
I don’t know why you think that. Battery installs are over 40% of solar installs right now in CA.
What do you do when there's no sun/wind?
What do you do when there's no fuel or breathable air?
This is billions of dollars worth of batteries and energy generation that is being fulfilled by CATL because no American org has the battery technology for that scale of energy storage. America is falling behind in technology for this century.
But... but... muh baseload!