Battery Bollocks: Why Giant Batteries Won’t Solve Wind & Solar’s Chaotic Intermittency

Posted: April 30, 2019 by oldbrew in Critique, Energy, propaganda
Tags: , , ,

.
.
Expensive batteries were never an issue for electricity grids before renewables came along, for obvious reasons. Now that a fog of misleading climate propaganda has descended, too many leaders can’t seem to think straight any more.

STOP THESE THINGS

Almost as soon as Joe Public worked out that wind and solar can never work, RE rent seekers started babbling about giant batteries saving the day.

STT will keep smashing the line about giant batteries overcoming the chaotic delivery of wind and solar, while RE zealots keep pushing it.

The pitch from RE zealots is that solution to the chaos delivered by wind and solar is giant lithium-ion batteries, of the kind peddled by Elon Musk. The reefer-smoking, Californian carpetbagger managed to offload one unit in wind power obsessed, South Australia, collected $150 million, and was never seen again.

Bill Gates has called the idea complete and utter nonsense: Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’

Apply a little maths, physics and economics and it’s pretty clear that the mega-battery myth is just that. Norman Rogers picks up the thread below.

View original post 1,087 more words

Comments
  1. SasjaL says:

    All batteries of all types (incl. Li-ion), has continues internal losses. The losses (issues) increase with size. Also, a rechargeable battery needs to be charged with more energy, than can be stored and has to be kept maintained. Efficient? No! Especially not when unreliable sources are used, where there already are plenty of losses involved in the generating process. Environmental friendly? No!

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    the most efficient energy storage is natgas and fissionables. Hydro is good but geographically limited.

    Carbon dioxide is plant food.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Unreliable Nature Of Solar And Wind Makes Electricity More Expensive, New Study Finds
    – Michael Shellenberger

    Previous studies were misleading, the economists note, because they didn’t “incorporate three key costs,” which are the unreliability of renewables, the large amounts of land they require, and the displacement of cheaper “baseload” energy sources like nuclear plants.

    The higher cost of electricity reflects “the costs that renewables impose on the generation system,” the economists note, “including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”

    But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that “the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon.”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/04/22/unreliable-nature-of-solar-and-wind-makes-electricity-much-more-expensive-major-new-study-finds/#3973ea3d4f59

    Do people really want to keep on paying through the nose for this stuff?

  4. Gamecock says:

    Battery backup for renewables means the people will die an hour later.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    It would be nice if “RE” and “SST” were defined. I presume they are not “Real Estate” and “Sea Surface Temperature” or “Super So ic Transport”, but something else….

  6. oldbrew says:

    EM – RE is renewable energy, STT is the blog (StopTheseThings),