Slashdot Mirror
Will New Battery Technologies Smash The Old Order? (telegraph.co.uk)
"The world's next energy revolution is probably no more than five or ten years away," reports The Telegraph. "Cutting-edge research into cheap and clean forms of electricity storage is moving so fast that we may never again need to build 20th Century power plants in this country..." Slashdot reader mdsolar quotes their article:
The US Energy Department is funding 75 projects developing electricity storage, mobilizing teams of scientists at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the elite Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge labs in a bid for what it calls the "Holy Grail" of energy policy. You can track what they are doing at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). There are plans for hydrogen bromide, or zinc-air batteries, or storage in molten glass, or next-generation flywheels, many claiming "drastic improvements" that can slash storage costs by 80pc to 90pc and reach the magical figure of $100 per kilowatt hour in relatively short order.
"Storage is a huge deal," says Ernest Moniz, the U,S. Energy Secretary and himself a nuclear physicist. He is now confident that the U.S. grid and power system will be completely "decarbonized" by the middle of the century.
One energy consultant predicts the energy storage market will be worth $90 billion in 2025 -- 100 times larger than it is today.
"Storage is a huge deal," says Ernest Moniz, the U,S. Energy Secretary and himself a nuclear physicist. He is now confident that the U.S. grid and power system will be completely "decarbonized" by the middle of the century.
One energy consultant predicts the energy storage market will be worth $90 billion in 2025 -- 100 times larger than it is today.
Research into battery storage has been intense for 20 years. We've had promises of drastic improvements, and we have seen some significant improvements. Yes, R&D has picked up even more but improvements are more likely to be incremental than breakthrough.
If I had a penny for every slashdot article about batteries since the late 90s, I'd...
... Government subsidizing the development of new technologies has the universal effect of distorting competition and making any such projects fail. ...
Like the railroads, airplanes, nuclear power, computers, the Internet, GPS, biotech, all of which had heavy US government subsidy in the beginning.
Depends on who you are rooting for; transmission works great for the entrenched utilities, but batteries work better for off-grid and micro-grid. Long term, batteries are likely to prove better for distributed generation as well.
From an engineering, policy, and economic perspective I prefer distributed generation and emphasis on micro-grids; it works very well for everything but city cores, but those cores should be focusing on district heating and cooling, which might make them take longer to leave carbon and nuclear fuels.
Many of the advanced battery technologies will have toxic chemicals. With huge production volumes, there's going to be a lot of poisonous waste materials. I suspect the environmental damage of new batteries is going to make the claimed damage of carbon seem like happy-fun-day.
No, the current buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is a slow-motion apocalypse because it leverages the sun's vast energy output to push the entire planet away from the conditions that humans evolved to live within. No amount of run-of-the-mill poisonous chemicals could touch it. (Not that these chemicals would be released into the environment anyway. Utility storage batteries are very easy to track and regulate.)
Germany has plenty of problems with renewable energy, but they have an excellent national grid (much like the rest of Europe). A problem is that conventional plants cannot always ramp up or down quickly enough to cope with highly variable renewable power, and having a good national grid doesn't always solve that problem. You end up buying extra power at inflated prices, or are forced to dump power and sometimes even pay for the privilege. The grid manages but the economics fail. And that is where power storage comes in: it doesn't just balance the load but also prices.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
As many have posted here, his lack of objectivity is annoying and unhelpful.
Thanks.
to push the entire planet away from the conditions that humans evolved to live within
Wow, in fell fell swoop you not only show that you know zero abut the history of the Earth's climate, but also that you actually believe evolution works exactly the opposite of the way it really does!
Humans evolved over time to work within whatever climate they were given which changed dramatically over time - historically it's already been way warmer than it will be from the latest round of climate change, and vastly colder as well (which it will be again someday, not a cycle we can stop). They did not evolve through thousands of years just to mesh with the environment we have today (and which humans evolved "correctly" then, given that some live in very warm climates and some in very cold?), which is itself nothing but a transitory state that was never going to last.
So even if it gets warmer humans will do what they always have done - adapt co conditions as the change.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We're rapidly nearing the point where the energy to extract more fossil fuel will exceed that from the additional fossil fuel.
People have been saying that for something like 50 years... and it's less true than ever before. New technologies like Fracking always come along to keep cost of extraction cheap. The whole reason the price of oil has tanked is exactly because it's so cheap to use fracking to fossil fuels...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Randroids always forget about those and pretend that something like nuclear power, which is incredibly expensive and difficult, would have ever existed without the taxpayer bankrolling it.