Is anyone currently doing utility scale hydrolysis/fuel-cell generation as a means of storage? Certainly a lot of the demand-response stuff they're contemplating is either embryonic or has never been done.

Also, I thought this was a new paradigm that had never been studied, but it's also just off-the-shelf technology?

I don't know the breakdown between storage types. Personally, I think the other types mentioned, pumped storage hydro and underground heat storage, both of which are used in large scale - especially pumped storage hydro, are going to be used more than fuel cells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orage_projects

Pretty much all the large existing energy storage facilities are pumped storage hydro power. The nice thing about this is they are currently needed for exactly the opposite times as they will be needed when solar energy gets to the point that storage is an issue. Currently they pump during the night because there's excess demand during the day. At some point they will pump during the day for demand at night.

I think other large scale storage facilities will be more similar things like pumped air pressure in abandoned mines rather than anything high-tech.

But, as far as batteries go, I think there will be a lot more small on-site energy storage, greatly reducing the need for utility storage.

I'm not completely anti-nuke. It does threaten the environment. Accidents happen. They are terrible. There is waste that lasts forever. Probably a couple of those fancy new reactors that process old waste would be a good idea.

The big problem with nuclear is it costs more than it seems because subsidies are less direct and don't count externalities. Construction takes forever and for the most part it will be obsolete before any new reactors can be built. The newest reactor in the US took 23 years to complete - that was phase 1, phase 2 started 42 years after construction started.

If my math is right, the largest energy storage facility on that list (by a good margin) which is in California, can store about 23% of the electrical energy generated by utilities in California on an average day.

And again, that's currently being done in the opposite direction of what will primarily be needed to store renewable energy in Cali.

Not that energy solutions everywhere are the same as in Cali. Obviously not. The solutions need to be tailored to the local needs and resources.

He implied that our use of resources is causing climate change to be irreversible. You don't think ending our use of resources and going back to living in caves is going to decrease life expectancy?

The cost is basically irrelevant. You cannot have a carbon-free power grid without baseload generation or utility-scale storage. That means you need to go out and dam up some rivers, build some nuclear plants, or build some other kind of storage capacity that's not currently used at utility scale (like fuel cells). Or continue burning coal or NG. If it's expensive, then that's just the cost of solving climate change. Having the government pick up 30% of the tab for new solar installations is expensive too, but that's what subsidies are for.

And, to return to my point, it's actively insane to shut down operating nuclear plants as part of a climate change strategy unless you've already got ample baseload generation or storage capacity, and the Sanders plan calls for denying renewals of licenses for existing nuclear plants. Which, I reiterate, is actively insane.

Rivers are already dammed. California already has enough pumped storage hydro capacity for vastly more renewable energy than there already is. The most powerful of the pumped storage facilities on the list I linked to, in Virginia, is more powerful than all but one nuclear power plant in the US.

As far as shutting down existing plants (other than like San Onofre which was just shut down at great expense because of leaking) I would agree in general that the nuclear that is already built should be used.

For the most part the fossil fuel power plants will need to be used until they are too old anyway. Cleaner power can only come online so fast and obviously the worst power plants, coal, should be shut down first. With increasing demand, I think for the near and mid-term, we'll be lucky to just not build more fossil fuel power plants.

No one is suggesting going back to living in caves, so I'm not worried.

Neither here nor there, but 30-40 million people in China live in caves.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaodong

Oh could have foolded me, what are you suggesting then?

Increasing the price of carbon so that non-carbon technologies can develop more quickly.

Amazing. So you want to make the only cheap, reliable and plentiful energy source, that people use 87% of the time they want energy more expensive? Even though ~2 Billion poeple live without energy now.

Instead of making carbon more expensive why don't you just develope your technology better? I'm sure if it's cheap, reliable and plentiful people will happily use it.

Absolutely diabolical.



from saturday's new york times: Flint Weighs Scope of Harm to Children Caused by Lead in Water.

That is insensitive and obviously should never evar be said, but such comments from nurses surface quite often because some of them see utterly horrific terribad things on a daily basis such as amputations, blindness, and of course actual death. Its quite possible that just a fews hours/days earlier that nurse was counseling a bereaved parent.

Why do you assume that a carbon taxation plan would raise prices for the poorest people? It's fairly straightforward to provide a rebate to the poor.

You are also ignoring the damage that burning fossil fuels is doing with respect to climate change. Those people without energy now are going to be hit the hardest in the future.

Because we want to rapidly de-carbonize the economy to reduce damage in the future. You don't correct a market failure by relying on the same failing market.

I'm not assuming anything. Raising the price of anything, especially the way people get their energy is going to hurt poor people.

I'm not ignoring anything. The good that comes from fossil fuels far our weighs any risk you dream up. Your entire argument is based off weather prediction models that have never been able to predict weather.

A tax and dividend plan would leave the poor better off than they are now, so you are just wrong on that point. It should be obvious that the poor don't use much energy at all, so it doesn't take much to offset any tax they might owe.

Weather predictions don't have anything to do with climate predictions.

What do you mean the poor doesn't consume much energy at all?

Even if we're comparing the bottom users to the top users in US, we're usually still talking about 20%.

Energy use per capita has a nearly linear relationship between 20k and 100k (household) annual income. It plateaus quickly after that.

The data is very consistent on this and it actually makes rather intuitive sense. 100k is right about where you can afford to keep your house climate controlled to 72F year round.

Is that just for household energy use? Poor people in the US don't drive or fly as much and generally don't consume as much, so they are going to have significantly smaller carbon footprints. And the global poor use far less energy, almost nothing compared to the average American.

With all due respect, poor people's transportation needs arent much different than rich people's unless you want to hyper focus on jefsetters that literally spend half of their time in jets. (Jets by the way are very very fuel efficient)

Depending on the number of people in the car, and the car, a jet may or may not use less fuel per mile per person, but jet setting racks up the miles. (commercial flights are around 100mpg per seat - obviously private planes are another story)

Mass transit crushes as long there aren't too many empty seats.

Direct transportation isn't where a poor person will see the cost, it's the production and transportation of everything we consume and all the important things that make our lives great. Like clothing, food, computers, hospitals, schools, etc.

If the poor around the world use far less energy then the average American shouldnt we want to make energy cheaper? Its fair to say America has a high standard of living, arguably the best. You don't think there is a correlation between energy use and quality of life?

Your solution is actually insane, what's the subsidy? Who gets it? How much more do you tax carbon? Since there is no evidence renewables can scale how will people get their energy? Do you support easing the regulations of nuclear to bring down the cost since its not carbon emmiting?

Denmark gets over 50% of its energy from renewables. Germany 26%. California 20%.

No evidence that it scales. All wild theories about a distant future with flying cars and hoverboards.

According to Wikipedia, Denmark already needs to import electricity from neighboring countries to cover its shortages during downtimes in renewable production at 50%...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...tricity-demand

And they export power sometimes too.

Having nothing to do with renewables (as well as having something to do with them at times) electrical energy is routinely sold across long distances all the time.

And you'll see in that article how the excess power was stored with pumped storage hydro.