Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?
Good article, it addresses one of the bigger sticking points with renewable energy. Many of the arguments for maintaining or expanding nuclear power deal with the variability inherent in wind and solar. The study referenced in the article looked into that variability at four locations with different climates over the course of 20 years, and compared that with the cost of storing energy in batteries (many different types) or other storage mediums as a means to address the low points in wind and solar.
Which is necessary to look at because that appears to be one of the biggest weaknesses with renewable. Land use density is also an issue (a wind farm takes up quite a bit more space than the equivalent amount of energy harvest from a nuke or hydrocarbon plant, and the roads and infrastructure needed to build and maintain the wind farm have significant impacts to the wildlands where these farms are usually built). Solar thermal plants can be built with a molten salt energy storage component, but still have an even larger land-use impact (compared to wind) and are also less energy-compact than nukes or hyrdocarbon.
But with better electric storage, rooftop and other photo-voltaic solar power systems start to come into their own. Less land-use impacts, put them on roofs, use them to shade parking lots, lots of urban places to put them with no harm, allowing more of the wild open spaces outside the cities to stay wild and open.
ETA: A link to the study itself, although it is not free: Storage Requirements and Costs of Shaping Renewable Energy Toward Grid Decarbonization
Quote:
|
One of the most heated and interesting debates in the energy world today has to do with how far the US can get on carbon-free renewable energy alone. One faction believes that renewables can supply 100 percent of US energy, with sufficient help from cheap energy storage and savvy management of demand. Another faction believes that renewables will ultimately fall short and need assistance from nuclear power and natural gas or biomass with carbon capture and storage. This war is largely being waged behind the scenes in competing academic papers, but it is highly relevant to current events as a whole host of states and cities are passing laws targeting “100 percent clean energy.” Some, like Hawaii, specifically target 100 percent renewables. Some, like Washington state, target 100 percent “clean,” allowing room for non-renewable sources. Which target is more realistic and prudent? Just how far can renewables get? |
Good article, it addresses one of the bigger sticking points with renewable energy. Many of the arguments for maintaining or expanding nuclear power deal with the variability inherent in wind and solar. The study referenced in the article looked into that variability at four locations with different climates over the course of 20 years, and compared that with the cost of storing energy in batteries (many different types) or other storage mediums as a means to address the low points in wind and solar.
Which is necessary to look at because that appears to be one of the biggest weaknesses with renewable. Land use density is also an issue (a wind farm takes up quite a bit more space than the equivalent amount of energy harvest from a nuke or hydrocarbon plant, and the roads and infrastructure needed to build and maintain the wind farm have significant impacts to the wildlands where these farms are usually built). Solar thermal plants can be built with a molten salt energy storage component, but still have an even larger land-use impact (compared to wind) and are also less energy-compact than nukes or hyrdocarbon.
But with better electric storage, rooftop and other photo-voltaic solar power systems start to come into their own. Less land-use impacts, put them on roofs, use them to shade parking lots, lots of urban places to put them with no harm, allowing more of the wild open spaces outside the cities to stay wild and open.
ETA: A link to the study itself, although it is not free: Storage Requirements and Costs of Shaping Renewable Energy Toward Grid Decarbonization
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/34W7Wcg
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire