If you have been reading this blog recently, you know that the mythical transition to an energy future of pure “green” wind and solar power faces a major problem of how to deliver energy storage of the right type and quantity. To make the grid work, somehow, the continuous production of sun and wind must be transformed into a steady stream of electricity that meets customer demand minute by minute throughout the year. So far, that task has been accomplished largely by a backup of natural gas, which rises and falls as the sun and wind slope up and down. However, now governments in the US, Europe, Canada and elsewhere say they will move to “zero” carbon emissions at some point in the 2030s. Natural gas emits CO2. , so “non-pure” means natural gas has to go. The alternative is energy storage of some sort.
Obviously, it’s time to start figuring out how much energy storage we’ll need, and what kind. Indeed, it took a long time to start figuring that out. If our government is even a little bit capable and also serious about “net zero” electricity by 2035, by this point, it has long since produced detailed feasibility and cost studies. as well as demonstration projects showing exactly how this works. Naturally, they don’t have any of that.
So how can this problem be solved? One approach, discussed many times before on this blog, would be to collect detailed data on hourly electricity usage as well as hourly output from existing wind and solar facilities. , and use that data to create a spreadsheet that will reveal information like how many gigawatt hours it will need to store, how long the energy has to be stored, over what period of time the energy will be released, and how much this will probably cost. Examples of such exercises have been reported many times before here, most recently, for example: this post January 14, 2022.
But if that’s how you approach the problem, then you don’t think like a progressive. For some insight into the progressive approach, we turn to the New York Times as always. So far, the Times has not devoted much of its precious time and attention to this issue of energy storage, but it was a coincidence that they brought up this subject in an important article that appeared today. over on the front page of the business section, the title “Repair of Existence energy. But They Need Money. ” (The online title is different.). The minor lines are Eshe Nelson and Adam Satariano.
You can get the gist from the headline itself. High profile people like Times reporters and government activists decided that the planet had to be saved; and they assure us that “fixes exist.” Now it’s a matter of spending money so that low-status people can perform the trivial task of figuring out the details.
The Times clearly states the issue as follows:
The problem: how to make wind and solar available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.
And how do we know that “fixes already exist”?
Experts say there will be solutions if promoted financially.
Aha! – This is the Times’ usual retreat for well-known unnamed “experts”. None of these experts are named or cited in this section. There’s also no mention of issues like how many gigawatt hours of storage might be needed to back up the US grid if powered solely by wind and solar (calculations in the 14th post). January is about 250,000 GWH), either how much that might cost, or whether a battery that can do the job can be manufactured, or technologically feasible, to store energy for months continuously and discharged over a period of many more months or not. Instead, we learn, for example, about the operations of Jakob Bitner’s battery company, VoltStorage.
Mr. Bitner said that VoltStorage needed “significantly” more money to develop its new battery technology. In 2020 and 2021, the company raised 11 million euros, or $12 million. Now, they are trying to raise up to 40 million euros more this summer. “While we’ve had great early investors from Germany and Europe that have always backed us, it’s been difficult to raise the level of tickets we need right now,” said Mr. Bitner, referring to personal investments.
So, if this company and its technology are so promising, why aren’t investors lining up for a chance to cash in? According to the Times, that’s because those stupid venture capitalists have turned their attention to making quick bucks on the latest worthless fads, while the planet is struggling.
Venture capitalists, once green energy cheerleaders, are more enamored with crypto and startups that deliver groceries and beer within minutes. Many investors are put off by capital-intensive investments.
Could it be that smart investors look at these proposed new battery technologies and immediately realize that they cannot provide the required storage capacity at a reasonable cost, or that they cannot? meet the test of ability to store energy for months and discharge all of the month? Those possibilities are not covered here. After all, “experts say” that “solutions are available.”
And what do these “investors” say when faced with their reluctance to invest in new energy storage projects? You won’t be surprised:
[I]investors think that government policy can help them more. Despite climate commitments, existing regulations and laws have not created a strong enough incentive for investments in new technology.
What is “government policy”? Well, to begin with, the government needs to stop existing industries from generating carbon emissions:
Mr. Boni, founder of 360 Capital, said industries such as steel and concrete are forced to adopt greener production methods.
And basically as in all Times articles, it is only a matter of time before we meet the need for government funds to subsidize the project:
To store energy. . . and other large-scale projects, the government should expedite licensing, cut taxes and provide appropriate funding, Mr. Fadell said. . . .
Don’t worry, in the world of The New York Times, the government has a ton of money.
Related
