Renewables surprisingly “on track” to meet net zero by 2050::undefined

  • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    On the timescale of 27 years, grid-scale storage is going to be a complete non-issue. There’s already a decent amount of work being done at that level right now and battery tech has been improving at a consistent pace. Renewables can work quite well as-is with a good mix of location and source. Offshore wind is more consistent wind speeds, solar locations can mitigate light cloud coverage, solar output peaks during the times of greatest human use, and land based wind is typically dispersed over large areas.

    I’m a huge proponent of nuclear power, but as things stand it isn’t going to be necessary on these time tables. The value in nuclear is that it’s another thing we can build now without needing to wait ten years for battery prices to continue to decline or for manufacturing capabilities to ramp up. Building 10 GW of nameplate capacity wind+solar is great. Building 10 GW of nameplate wind+solar and 5 GW of nameplate nuclear is better! That’s the advantage of nuclear today, and we should fucking make use of it. That doesn’t make it mandatory in the long-term.

    • eleitl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The only current storage technology cheap enough if you happen to have the nice problem of having to curtail renewable production during peak is water electrolysis – if you also happen to have the natgas storage and distribution infrastructure already in place.

      MWh and GWh scale battery infrastructure isn’t cheap at all. It will likely take a decade to have affordable 10 kWh scale domestic storage, and it will be most likely sodium, not lithium. 100 kWh scale, which is almost enough for seasonal demand levelling will still take pressurized hydrogen in cylinders.