There's not a lot of options yet for base load. We need a lot more storage, or an environmentally friendly and reliable source for base load. Nuclear would fit, clearly, but it's not financially viable, moreso than coal right now. It's a very hard problem, and it'll take time to sort out with "the market", but building storage from dams and lakes and reservoir would be a good start. Batteries might not be the best for the environment unless we can efficiently recycle the minerals in them rather than mine them, since that is almost as bad as mining the coal. We should also look into geothermal and other sources that we've left behind in favor of oil and coal.
Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so i can't reply, but thanks for the comment about batteries, they're good for decarbonization but maybe not great for the environment in the mining of the materials. Maybe that's an okay trade off.
It's about 6,000 Tesla Megapacks worth of utility scale energy storage in the US [1] to carry you through periods of intermittent renewables generation, along with a more robust transmission network so renewable generation can more readily flow to load centers. Tesla is already under contract to provide these storage systems in California for PG&E (1.1 Gwh facility in Monterey County) [2] [3]. For example, quite a bit of wind energy can't make it out of Texas because of lack of interconnection capacity between ERCOT (Texas' electric system operator) and other grids, so you need funding for upgrading interconnectors. Upgrading electrical infra isn't sexy, but is very much a necessary expense.
Very few areas are geographically suitable for pumped hydro storage, and batteries can be recycled today with existing supply chains. Batteries can also be rapidly shipped and installed (see: Hornsdale Power Reserve, installed in 100 days).
With regards to generation, "all of the above" that is low carbon. As the cost of renewables approaches less than a penny a kWh (we’re just about there for utility scale projects), the majority of your costs are storage and distribution infrastructure.
Natural gas is cheaper, produces less greenhouse emissions, can be ramped up/down quicker, and produces less other toxic emissions (fly ash is horrible stuff) per kWh than coal. It's better in every way than coal. The only reason China is still building coal is because they're China and they don't give a fuck.
re: batteries and mining lithium/cobalt. Sure, mining 1lb of lithium/cobalt isn't any better than mining 1lb of coal, but that 1lb of lithium/cobalt takes you a lot further. You can only burn that 1lb of coal once, but you can cycle that 1lb of lithium/cobalt daily. From a purely environmental standpoint specifically with regards to mining, batteries are still better. However, I don't think the economics are there yet. It will probably be sometime soon though.
> GE boasts 62 percent efficiency with its combined cycle gas plants using its H-Class turbines
That's huge! Normally generating electricity from fossil fuels is about 1/3rd efficient.
Further more: If we assume, with grid loss, that the whole system is 50% efficient once it reaches a home, and we pair it with an older 2.7 COE heat pump, it means that home heating with a heat pump, when using GE's new generator, is 135% efficient. (A typical gas furnace is 90-ish.)
For those who don't know: A heat pump has greater than 100% efficiency because it sucks heat out of ambient air. It cools the outside air to heat the inside.
Combined cycle plants have been around for a while. Another common thing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration, which dates back to the start of electricity production. Both are more efficient than the days when no one cared, but they still spew carbon. Your heat pump can run on wind.
I did not read the article in detail, but a keyword search and quick skim did not show anything about base load or peak load. I don't think you can really talk seriously about energy policy without mentioning those.
Solar doesn't produce energy at night, Wind doesn't produce energy when the wind doesn't blow.
---
My personal opinion is that the grid will have to get a lot smarter to realize the benefits of cheap solar, and that home power distribution and appliances will have to get smarter.
> Wind doesn't produce energy when the wind doesn't blow.
There is never a time when the wind doesn't blow on some part of the interconnected grid. If the wind stops everywhere at once, there's a much larger problem at hand.
Heads up, the Safire Project has solved plasma fusion and started commercialization. See https://aureon.ca/
<SAFIRE can create, control, contain, sustain, and repeat-at-will any number of plasma regimes. No other technology in the world can do this.
Seven years of empirical testing has resulted in a unique patented stable spherical "SAFIRE" plasma reactor. AUREON ENERGY LTD. will commercialize the SAFIRE technology into three key markets:
> clean energy production
> heating
> remediation of nuclear waste
Each market in itself represents a trillion dollar industry over the next ten years. AUREON ENERGY is currently engaging investors to commercialize the technology.
Edit: More details and direct URL added.
Edit again: ha to the down voters. Pretty weak pressing a button without explaining why you think their science is flawed.
In essence it's just a cathode chamber containing hydrogen gas surrounding a spherical anode which they are able to make light up like the sun when the current and voltages are held below arc discharge levels.
First, it is somewhat related to the post but not very related, so the comment adds more noise than information. Perhaps you can submit it as an independent post instead of a comment.
Nuclear fusion is full of promises, fraud and snake oil. There are some interesting project, but there are also a lot of bad projects.
> clean energy production
Prototype or it didn't happen. IIUC they are still researching that, so the commercialization to the trillion dollar market should wait.
> heating
This look easier, you don't need a self sustainable reaction (ignition). Anyway, it would be interesting to see the analysis of the cost of the equipment and how often it need replacement, and how much power it can process. I can believe they have something here, but I'd like to see the evidence.
> remediation of nuclear waste
I don't understand what they are talking about. (I actually can imagine something like that, but what I imagine seams too difficult. So it smells like a void promise to get money. But let's be optimistic and say that I don't understand what they are trying to do.)
[+] [-] battery_cowboy|5 years ago|reply
Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so i can't reply, but thanks for the comment about batteries, they're good for decarbonization but maybe not great for the environment in the mining of the materials. Maybe that's an okay trade off.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|5 years ago|reply
Very few areas are geographically suitable for pumped hydro storage, and batteries can be recycled today with existing supply chains. Batteries can also be rapidly shipped and installed (see: Hornsdale Power Reserve, installed in 100 days).
With regards to generation, "all of the above" that is low carbon. As the cost of renewables approaches less than a penny a kWh (we’re just about there for utility scale projects), the majority of your costs are storage and distribution infrastructure.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20814930
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/27/humongous-tesla-battery...
[3] https://energycentral.com/news/tesla-pge-get-approval-propos...
[+] [-] nwallin|5 years ago|reply
re: batteries and mining lithium/cobalt. Sure, mining 1lb of lithium/cobalt isn't any better than mining 1lb of coal, but that 1lb of lithium/cobalt takes you a lot further. You can only burn that 1lb of coal once, but you can cycle that 1lb of lithium/cobalt daily. From a purely environmental standpoint specifically with regards to mining, batteries are still better. However, I don't think the economics are there yet. It will probably be sometime soon though.
[+] [-] gwbas1c|5 years ago|reply
That's huge! Normally generating electricity from fossil fuels is about 1/3rd efficient.
Further more: If we assume, with grid loss, that the whole system is 50% efficient once it reaches a home, and we pair it with an older 2.7 COE heat pump, it means that home heating with a heat pump, when using GE's new generator, is 135% efficient. (A typical gas furnace is 90-ish.)
For those who don't know: A heat pump has greater than 100% efficiency because it sucks heat out of ambient air. It cools the outside air to heat the inside.
[+] [-] greglindahl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arkanciscan|5 years ago|reply
Because digging holes is all that some people know how to do for a living apparently.
[+] [-] mistermann|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csours|5 years ago|reply
Solar doesn't produce energy at night, Wind doesn't produce energy when the wind doesn't blow.
---
My personal opinion is that the grid will have to get a lot smarter to realize the benefits of cheap solar, and that home power distribution and appliances will have to get smarter.
[+] [-] jcrawfordor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hedora|5 years ago|reply
Anyway, storage is getting cheaper. Coal’s dead. By the time current capacity goes off line, renewables will have won.
Even of you don’t believe that, nuclear is a far better option.
No one should be building out new coal capacity.
[+] [-] FlyMoreRockets|5 years ago|reply
There is never a time when the wind doesn't blow on some part of the interconnected grid. If the wind stops everywhere at once, there's a much larger problem at hand.
[+] [-] htnsao|5 years ago|reply
<SAFIRE can create, control, contain, sustain, and repeat-at-will any number of plasma regimes. No other technology in the world can do this.
Seven years of empirical testing has resulted in a unique patented stable spherical "SAFIRE" plasma reactor. AUREON ENERGY LTD. will commercialize the SAFIRE technology into three key markets:
> clean energy production > heating > remediation of nuclear waste
Each market in itself represents a trillion dollar industry over the next ten years. AUREON ENERGY is currently engaging investors to commercialize the technology.
Edit: More details and direct URL added.
Edit again: ha to the down voters. Pretty weak pressing a button without explaining why you think their science is flawed.
In essence it's just a cathode chamber containing hydrogen gas surrounding a spherical anode which they are able to make light up like the sun when the current and voltages are held below arc discharge levels.
The end is nigh for oil and coal.
[+] [-] gus_massa|5 years ago|reply
First, it is somewhat related to the post but not very related, so the comment adds more noise than information. Perhaps you can submit it as an independent post instead of a comment.
Nuclear fusion is full of promises, fraud and snake oil. There are some interesting project, but there are also a lot of bad projects.
> clean energy production
Prototype or it didn't happen. IIUC they are still researching that, so the commercialization to the trillion dollar market should wait.
> heating
This look easier, you don't need a self sustainable reaction (ignition). Anyway, it would be interesting to see the analysis of the cost of the equipment and how often it need replacement, and how much power it can process. I can believe they have something here, but I'd like to see the evidence.
> remediation of nuclear waste
I don't understand what they are talking about. (I actually can imagine something like that, but what I imagine seams too difficult. So it smells like a void promise to get money. But let's be optimistic and say that I don't understand what they are trying to do.)
[+] [-] htnsao|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pfhreak|5 years ago|reply
I suspect the answer is, "There are no plans for a production reactor", but hey, prove me wrong!