Daniel wrote:But that article does not come across as any smarter than him when it presents "batteries" as the obvious solution to the problem. Actually, nobody knows if its feasable to build and deploy batteries on that kind of scale.
Depends what you mean by "batteries" exactly.
For example, the use of pumped hydro storage has been going on for decades and is absolutely a proven technology:
Two lakes. One low and one high. Use an excess of energy generation - from any source, but let's say from solar or wind - to pump the water up to the higher lake. Then it sits there, as a literal lake of potential energy, waiting for a spike in demand then the top lake is emptied into the bottom lake - by gravity - powering a turbine.
And this can store an awful lot of power. And if you take steps to prevent evaporation - cover the lakes from sunlight - then it can store a tremendous amount of power, with almost no loss, for an indefinite period of time.
They currently use Dinorwig in the video above as an "emergency supply" when demand spikes, to level out the supply.
And it's with good reason that I mention this, as a recent study - being pretty much reported at the same time as Trump's comments - has identified over 500,000 potential sites for pumped hydro storage globally:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... ergy-needs
Which, even if a small fraction of that total is ever exploited, would be more than enough to meet all demands.
But, more crucially, I'd say that one has to think differently about the whole problem. What's also long been a proven technology is micro-generation with small scale batteries.
Basically, a Tesla "Powerwall" is essentially just the same sort of batteries that Tesla put in their cars, but you mount it on your wall at home.
And the concept is quite simple. If every home had a "house battery" like this, with it being considered a normal expected thing for every home to have one, then the overall combined energy storage would be absolutely gargantuan.
Note that one of these "house batteries" is still useful, even if you have no renewables, like solar, to plug into it. Because another simple thing that a battery can be used for is taking power from the Grid when it's cheap - overnight - and then you can run off the battery at peak times - that "cup of tea" moment in the evening, after everyone's got home from work - which can level out the demand on the Grid.
Because here's the thing. At the moment, as there's very little grid-level storage, then the National Grid (or equivalent in other countries) has to constantly adapt to demand with supply. This means that National Grid are sending instructions to turn on and turn off power stations all the time.
So, actually, the National Grid absolutely loves the idea of storage and renewables. Because, as you might imagine, ordering a coal power station to "fire up" or shut down, according to demand, is not an instant process and is very expensive. Here's a video of the actual guy who runs the National Grid to say that directly:
Perhaps people aren't aware of this, but they do actually pay coal and gas power stations to stay on - doing nothing - to be ready for spikes in demand. Which is a ridiculous waste, as they're burning precious fossil fuels that we never get back, simply so that these guys are ready to get going "on demand".
Which is why National Grid love renewables. Because you can instantly turn on and turn off wind turbines or solar installations (well, you can't turn off the Sun, but you can simply - at the flick of a switch - either accept its electricity or just let it go to waste, and it would all go to waste anyway, so who cares?). This has permitted them way more leeway in not having coal or gas power stations to be fired up for expected spikes in demand (which also, of course, might not actually come).
(By the way, I'm not ignoring nuclear in this, but it just needs special treatment. Because the thing with nuclear power stations is that you cannot simply turn them on and off to meet demand at all. It just takes so incredibly long to start it all up and bring it all down again, that nuclear power stations simply never go offline. Ever. They bring them up when they build them. They bring them down when they're being decommissioned. Barring an emergency nuclear incident or the need to upgrade the entire facility, they'll remain on for their entire lifetime. And, yeah, if they are not needed for demand, then they'll do nothing more than run that power to ground, wasting it.)
Current power generation is a victim of its own success. They have gotten rather ridiculously good at matching supply with demand in real time that almost all of us have no idea just how stupidly inefficient and expensive the entire process actually is. They're so good at it, that we just always expect power at our sockets and then never give it a second thought - failing to understand just how complex and wasteful the whole process actually is.
Whenever I advocate for renewables, I quite deliberately never mention "climate change" nor pollution. Which I'm going to continue doing, because my underlying point here is that even if fossil fuels created no carbon emissions at all (which is, of course, impossible, as it's literally burning carbon) and posed zero threat to the environment in any way whatsoever, then there's still a hundred reasons to go renewable and bring "batteries" - of all types - online at home-level and grid-level.
We're still using Edwardian technologies. So very "steampunk", I'll grant you. We drive vehicles that have plumbing in them. Plumbing, for pity's sake. Pipes and pressure gauges. If we stuck it on the outside and made the pipes out of brass, then it genuinely would be "steampunk".
Whereas, with solar, for example, we could be using quantum-based technology - the photoelectric effect is a quantum phenomenon - to harness the free photons of the Sun. Which, by the way, delivers more energy to the surface of the Earth in a day than the human race uses in a year. In a year, the Sun's delivers more energy, reaching the surface of our planet, than all coal, oil, gas, uranium that's ever existed COMBINED.
For free. Having zero environmental side effects. Having perfect "energy security" because every square inch of this planet can access the Sun at some point. And, unlike fossil fuels or uranium, the Sun will not "run out" for the next 5 billion years or so. Thus, once you switch to solar and are able to support whatever you need to support on it, then that's it. Forever. For the rest of the lifetime of this planet.
Once you've switched over, say, your lighting to solar energy, then feel free to leave the lights on forever. This is something that's not emphasised enough. We worry about "energy efficiency" because we're using resources that run out and cause environmental damage. But switch to solar and feel free to waste it all at your leisure. It has no impact on anyone or anything. Switch to renewables and then there's no reason for any "tree hugging hippy" to ever lecture you on what you should do with your energy supply ever again. None of their business, affects no-one, so fuck off.
Oh, yeah, I'm not remotely here to "spoil your fun". Quite the opposite - I want our energy supplies sorted, exactly so we can carry on using the Internet, the lights, refrigerate our food and so forth. What'll actually spoil our fun is hitting the end of fossil fuels without any "backup plan". That's what'll actually force us all back to horse-and-cart Medieval technologies.
And the "energy security" angle has other benefits. Namely, we can tell Saudi Arabia and Russia to fuck off. We can stop pretending that we're okay with their almost "Medieval" human rights abuses, because we've got to play nice and smile to get their fossil fuels.
We can stop funnelling billions at them to effectively subsidise them. Trust me, they understand this equation far better than we do, because they're taking far more forward-looking steps to secure themselves once the oil inevitably runs out than anyone else:
They're the ones actually doing the drilling, so they're more aware than anyone else how it's getting harder and harder to find easily exploitable supplies. So they've got many projects like this, to create 100% renewable cities, with self-sufficient food supplies and so forth. Quite rightly too - they want to survive past the end of the death of fossil fuels. We should perhaps be taking our cue from them, by just how much they're pushing this stuff, as an indication of how soon they reckon they'll be needing it all.
Anyway, the "vision" is this. Every single rooftop on the planet with solar panels. Hooked up to "house batteries" on every building (even the ones that don't have solar panels - batteries are still useful for managing the supply smartly). This is all supplemented by pumped hydro at the grid level. And topped up by all the wind farms, solar farms, tidal lagoons and so forth. A decentralised power grid - no longer "master" (power station) and "slave" (homes), but "peer to peer" with producers and consumers everywhere, exchanging all this free energy around, to keep everyone supplied - where we can... wait for it... completely stop charging for electricity by use. Yeah, no more metering and charging by the kilowatt-hour. Rather it'd be like water. You pay "water rates" - which pays for maintenance of the grid system - but you can turn your taps on and off, as you like, for no cost whatsoever.
I mean, the energy from your own solar panels, filling up your own house battery, goes to you directly. Only when you've an excess does it go to your neighbours. If they have a deficit. If not, then it'll go a little further afield. The point being that such a system uses the power as close to origin as possible, thus optimising transmission losses (and without wasteful things like stepping it all up to 11,000 volts to go through massive pylons to avoid too much loss).
We won't have to "play nice" with Middle East dictators anymore, subsidising their tyrannies. Nope, those folks will have to get off their arses and do a real job. Which is good, as it'll force them to be useful and they'll need a proper education in actual reality - not religious fairy stories - to compete on the global market. They might not see it that way, granted, but we're honestly ultimately doing them a massive favour too.
When you need every penny, you cannot realistically exclude 50% of your population - women - from doing work. From being able to drive. From paying taxes and being consumers. Pragmatism can have good effects sometimes. Forcing people to accept reality for what it actually is.
The Middle East has got a lot of sand. Silly amounts of silicon. They could, instead, become the world leaders in solar panel manufacture and computer chips. Doing the world - and themselves - some good instead of perpetuating the current harm.
You get the gist.
There's a hundred reasons to go renewable and use battery storage, even if climate change was not a thing. But it is, so then, in my view, the whole thing becomes a "no brainer". We must adapt or simply perish.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
