Energy storage: a major ‘clean energy hurdle’

Posted: June 2, 2021 by oldbrew in climate, Energy
Tags: , ,

Credit: impactlab.net

Like ‘free beer tomorrow’, projects such as this one may sound good to some, but does the promised tomorrow ever arrive? So far, no. Not even close. And equating so-called ‘clean tech’ with the climate is yet another obviously absurd media fantasy. Solving the issue by 2030 is the target — good luck with that. Of course gas, coal and oil are their own energy storage, but don’t mention those any more.
– – –
A major project aims to overcome a barrier to electricity grids wholly supplied by renewable energy, says BBC News.

Output from wind turbines varies because wind speeds fluctuate; output from solar cells changes according to cloud cover and other factors [Talkshop comment – such as 50% darkness per year].

This is called variability, and overcoming it is crucial for increasing the share of renewables on the grid.

A group of leading nations will invest $248m over the next decade to solve the issue by 2030.

The effort has emerged from a clean-tech research programme called Mission Innovation (MI).

Environmentalists say the sum’s a fraction of the many trillions of dollars of damages that climate change is projected to wreak on society, unless it’s curbed.

But the 23 member governments involved in the programme are spending US$5.8bn per year more than in 2015 – and they say they’ll commit more public funds to clean tech if they can afford it.

Solutions to the variability problem will include energy storage; for example, smart power systems which respond to changes in demand; advanced controls and artificial intelligence.

Those behind MI say that half of the global emissions reductions required to achieve climate targets by 2050 depend on technologies that exist today, but are only at demonstration or prototype phase.

These include hydrogen power, advanced battery storage and zero-emission fuels.

Solar power and wind power are already widely affordable [Talkshop comment – since when?], but the statement says nations need to develop whole energy systems to match.

The other main areas of the group’s research will be hydrogen power, shipping, long-distance transportation, and carbon dioxide removal from the air.

Members of the partnership include the US, UK, the EU and China.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. dscott8186 says:

    There may actually be a cost effective way to storage electrical energy: Gravity

    https://heindl-energy.com/

    They are claiming 80% efficiency using this method, which is certainly better than battery storage.

    Gravity Energy Storage Will Show Its Potential in 2021

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-its-potential-in-2021

    https://gravitricity.com/

  2. oldbrew says:

    Tom Burke from the climate think tank E3G told BBC News: “John Kerry, Bill Gates, et al. are wrong about the importance of R&D [research and development]. Deployment of what we already have is what matters and for which we need big bucks.”

    ‘What we already have’ is gas, coal, oil and nuclear – none of which are in the alarmist frame 🙄

  3. JB says:

    “Environmentalists say the sum’s a fraction of the many trillions of dollars of damages that climate change is projected to wreak on society, unless it’s curbed.”

    A pittance compared to what will be spent AFTER the change in “climate” (more of the cold storms) wreaks its havoc.

    “Members of the partnership include the US, UK, the EU and China.”

    That is bound to work out well the way things are going between them. The only thing agreeable is buying all that trash from China–from China’s POV.

    Now $248M spent on a constant and reliable advanced nuclear reactor design would permanently do away with these issues. But then what would these “activists” have to cluck their beaks over?

  4. Gamecock says:

    ‘But the 23 member governments involved in the programme are spending US$5.8bn per year more than in 2015 – and they say they’ll commit more public funds to clean tech if they can afford it.’

    ‘If they can afford it.’ LOL.

    Is the theory that output from programmes is proportional to money spent? After 20+ years of research, diminishing returns is quite steep. They are approaching just burning money.

    ‘Solutions to the variability problem will include energy storage;’

    So, intermittency is replaced with a euphemism, ‘variability?’

    ‘for example, smart power systems which respond to changes in demand;’

    Not sure what that even means.

    ‘advanced controls and artificial intelligence.’

    Ooooooooo! Artificial intelligence !!!

    Our future is so bright, we need sunglasses at night.

  5. Graeme No.3 says:

    Gamecock
    “smart power systems” means they can shut your electricity off whenever they want.

    As for the oil and gas companies, all they have to do is the same; i.e. shut supply off to a selected
    country claiming that they are obeying the judges ruling and Government rules about reducing emissions.
    Shortly after that the selected country will change course (and probably government). The companies can then move onto the next country.

  6. Phoenix44 says:

    What proponents of battery storage forget is that it has to be charged with excess generation. If there’s no overcapacity storage can’t work.

  7. AC Osborn says:

    Phoenix44 says: June 3, 2021 at 8:36 am
    Of course it can, they will gas or diesels. It still makes sense to them.

  8. Gamecock says:

    ‘The project also says it will help develop ships capable of running on zero-emission fuels such as green hydrogen, green ammonia, green methanol, and advanced biofuels.’

    In the future, ships will run on ‘such as.’

    Your home, too.

  9. Curious George says:

    ‘such as’ wind. That’s how Columbus discovered America. Back to 1492.

  10. ivan says:

    The one thing non of these storage proposals ever tell you about is just how long their pie in the sky idea will supply power when the unreliable renewables are not doing so.

    The UK, on average requires between 20 to 30GW to keep running (see http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ ), I have yet to see any of the storage proposals being able to meet that demand for the days when unreliables are being unreliable and producing nothing. At best the cons mentioned by dscott8186 might last long enough to allow the starting of the STORE diesel generators but then again the most probably won’t.

    Maybe all the idiots should be looking at producing small nuclear reactor units than can te transported to where needed and hooked into the grid to supply reliable power, we could even require the owners of subsidy farms to pay for them.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Solid state batteries are stuck in the development stage…

    MAY 28, 2021
    Next-gen electric vehicle batteries: These are the questions we still need to answer

    Questions that need to be answered to capitalize on that potential include [sic]:

    1– How can we produce ceramics, which are brittle, in the massive, paper-thin sheets lithium metal batteries require? Do lithium metal batteries’ use of ceramics, which require energy to heat them up to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit during manufacturing, offset their environmental benefits in electric vehicles?

    2 — Can both the ceramics and the process used to manufacture them be adapted to account for defects, such as cracking, in a way that does not force battery manufacturers and automakers to drastically revamp their operations?

    3 — A lithium metal solid-state battery would not require the heavy and bulky battery management system that lithium-ion batteries need to maintain durability and reduce the risk of fire. How will the reduction in mass and volume of the battery management system—or its removal altogether—affect performance and durability in a solid-state battery?

    4 — The lithium metal needs to be in constant contact with the ceramic electrolyte, meaning additional hardware is needed to apply pressure to maintain contact. What will the added hardware mean for battery pack performance?

    https://techxplore.com/news/2021-05-next-gen-electric-vehicle-batteries.html
    – – –
    ‘Do lithium metal batteries’ use of ceramics, which require energy to heat them up to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit during manufacturing, offset their environmental benefits in electric vehicles?’

    Lots of ‘carbon-free’ heat required? Tricky 😆

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s