@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis IIRC most studies show that long term storage is only a few percent of total energy, certainly well under 10%. So it is a viable option - if you can get past leaks, and other problems (e.g. the temptation to burn it, producing NOx pollution). And can store vast amounts of energy relatively cheaply.
Nuclear is of course a viable option. There are a few others e.g. iron-air batteries, or just building a lot more renewables than we need. Long range interconnectors help. Lithium is only helpful for short to medium term storage.
Re synthetic fuels, so far extremely expensive and limited scale. Might possibly be used for aviation in the long run (but it’s easier just to fly less, and we still need a reliable, safe solution to the contrails problem). Maybe shipping too (possibly as ammonia).
@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Here’s a study from a while back about how much storage is actually needed, using the example of Australia. You can get to ~98% with relatively little storage. For the remaining 2%, you need to think about more difficult options - demand side measures, nuclear, long term storage, etc.
@matthewtoad43 @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
In terms of filling in the gaps in #energy production we could do some fun maths. Imagine massive #renewable overcapacity and see what storage we need.
Just move the yellow and green lines up x3. This is a typical summer week but we could also look at winter months (less #solar more #wind?)
@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Well, California has done a lot of the work for you. Have a look at their charts, including multiple GW of battery storage.
Also the study I posted about Australia. There was another one but I lost it on the other place. You can get *most* of the way with a few *hours* storage, not weeks.
@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis What that means is if you’re going the long term storage / hydrogen or iron-air batteries route, the inefficiency doesn’t matter (but the capital cost does).
On the other hand if you try to reach 100% with minimal demand side interventions even in emergencies, you end up building way more (~3x) renewables than you ideally need. Which has a cost - rare earths etc.
But there are plenty of options for managing intermittency. All of them have problems or costs though. Which is one reason I’m not strongly opposed to nuclear, for instance, but nor am I terribly enthusiastic about its ability to deliver quickly enough.
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Might be this one. (Haven’t found him directly on Mastodon yet)
Shows how we can get by in Australia with just 5 hours storage. Uses real time data.
https://bird.makeup/users/davidosmond8/statuses/1686581904823484416
