[HN Gopher] Zombie Coal
___________________________________________________________________
Zombie Coal
Author : toomuchtodo
Score : 33 points
Date : 2020-04-30 19:48 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theenergytransition.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (theenergytransition.org)
| battery_cowboy wrote:
| There's not a lot of options yet for base load. We need a lot
| more storage, or an environmentally friendly and reliable source
| for base load. Nuclear would fit, clearly, but it's not
| financially viable, moreso than coal right now. It's a very hard
| problem, and it'll take time to sort out with "the market", but
| building storage from dams and lakes and reservoir would be a
| good start. Batteries might not be the best for the environment
| unless we can efficiently recycle the minerals in them rather
| than mine them, since that is almost as bad as mining the coal.
| We should also look into geothermal and other sources that we've
| left behind in favor of oil and coal.
|
| Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so i can't reply, but thanks for the
| comment about batteries, they're good for decarbonization but
| maybe not great for the environment in the mining of the
| materials. Maybe that's an okay trade off.
| nwallin wrote:
| Natural gas is cheaper, produces less greenhouse emissions, can
| be ramped up/down quicker, and produces less other toxic
| emissions (fly ash is horrible stuff) per kWh than coal. It's
| better in every way than coal. The only reason China is still
| building coal is because they're China and they don't give a
| fuck.
|
| re: batteries and mining lithium/cobalt. Sure, mining 1lb of
| lithium/cobalt isn't any better than mining 1lb of coal, but
| that 1lb of lithium/cobalt takes you a _lot_ further. You can
| only burn that 1lb of coal once, but you can cycle that 1lb of
| lithium /cobalt daily. From a purely environmental standpoint
| specifically with regards to mining, batteries are still
| better. However, I don't think the economics are there yet. It
| will probably be sometime soon though.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It's about 6,000 Tesla Megapacks worth of utility scale energy
| storage in the US [1] to carry you through periods of
| intermittent renewables generation, along with a more robust
| transmission network so renewable generation can more readily
| flow to load centers. Tesla is already under contract to
| provide these storage systems in California for PG&E (1.1 Gwh
| facility in Monterey County) [2] [3]. For example, quite a bit
| of wind energy can't make it out of Texas because of lack of
| interconnection capacity between ERCOT (Texas' electric system
| operator) and other grids, so you need funding for upgrading
| interconnectors. Upgrading electrical infra isn't sexy, but is
| very much a necessary expense.
|
| Very few areas are geographically suitable for pumped hydro
| storage, and batteries can be recycled today with existing
| supply chains. Batteries can also be rapidly shipped and
| installed (see: Hornsdale Power Reserve, installed in 100
| days).
|
| With regards to generation, "all of the above" that is low
| carbon. As the cost of renewables approaches less than a penny
| a kWh (we're just about there for utility scale projects), the
| majority of your costs are storage and distribution
| infrastructure.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20814930
|
| [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-
| battery...
|
| [3] https://energycentral.com/news/tesla-pge-get-approval-
| propos...
| jhallenworld wrote:
| It's exciting to see "Lead Carbon" batteries become common,
| for example as a lower cost (than switching to Lithium)
| upgrade to deep cycle marine lead acid batteries for people
| who live on their boat. It will be interesting to see how
| well they hold up in practice.
|
| https://www.solar-wind.co.uk/off-grid-power-
| blog/post/lead-c...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOlnKXX5Yg
| csours wrote:
| From your 2 - they are approved to construct a 1.2 GWh energy
| storage facility.
|
| If a car took 100 kWh of battery capacity (to use round
| numbers), the storage facility mentioned would use 10,000
| vehicles equivalent storage. (If you use 25 kWh vehicle
| equivalent, it would be 50,000 vehicles, etc)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| We're going to need a lot of batteries, clearly. We need to
| make them as fast as we can.
| htnsao wrote:
| Heads up, the Safire Project has solved plasma fusion and started
| commercialization. See https://aureon.ca/
|
| <SAFIRE can create, control, contain, sustain, and repeat-at-will
| any number of plasma regimes. No other technology in the world
| can do this.
|
| Seven years of empirical testing has resulted in a unique
| patented stable spherical "SAFIRE" plasma reactor. AUREON ENERGY
| LTD. will commercialize the SAFIRE technology into three key
| markets:
|
| > clean energy production > heating > remediation of nuclear
| waste
|
| Each market in itself represents a trillion dollar industry over
| the next ten years. AUREON ENERGY is currently engaging investors
| to commercialize the technology.
|
| Edit: ha to the down voters. Check it out further, these guys
| seem pretty legit.
| csours wrote:
| I did not read the article in detail, but a keyword search and
| quick skim did not show anything about base load or peak load. I
| don't think you can really talk seriously about energy policy
| without mentioning those.
|
| Solar doesn't produce energy at night, Wind doesn't produce
| energy when the wind doesn't blow.
|
| ---
|
| My personal opinion is that the grid will have to get a lot
| smarter to realize the benefits of cheap solar, and that home
| power distribution and appliances will have to get smarter.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| The point the article makes is that coal is still a poor
| choice, all this aside. natural gas has the same reliability
| properties at a lower cost.
| makomk wrote:
| I do wonder how long that lower cost will last if oil
| implodes. Isn't the current supply of cheap US natural gas a
| by-product of oil production that may not be viable with
| current oil prices?
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| And, Methane Hydrates! An enormous reserve of natural gas,
| estimated 6X all the oil we've ever drilled, waiting to be
| tapped.
| floatrock wrote:
| At what price?
|
| Every time someone says "Fracking gives us 100 years of
| reserves", they always omit at what price. If most of that
| is cost-effective at $120 or $140 / barrel, is it really
| fair to suggest that's a good reserve?
| pstuart wrote:
| I hope not. Especially if it means strip mining the ocean
| floor. Oh, and that CO2 thing as well.
|
| Fossil fuels should be incentivized away as quickly as
| possible.
| hedora wrote:
| It talks a lot about natural gas.
|
| Anyway, storage is getting cheaper. Coal's dead. By the time
| current capacity goes off line, renewables will have won.
|
| Even of you don't believe that, nuclear is a far better option.
|
| No one should be building out new coal capacity.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I would be very enthusiastic to replace our coal base load
| plants with nuclear. That seems like a very good way to get
| off of fossil fuels for base load power in the short term.
| I'd be totally fine with raising my taxes specifically to
| accomplish that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-30 23:00 UTC)