• Killing_Spark@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Your tldr does not follow from any of the things you wrote above. Considering current energy densities it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me to build that storage. And I was honestly surprised how little space this would have taken back in 2020, not to mention that, again, this has been reduced by about 4x today. And it’s going to go down further. Your only argument here seems to be space and I don’t see that as a big problem. A few soccer fields worth of land distributed in the vicinity of each bigger city doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

    I do see your point that it is in the interest of fossil fuel to stop nuclear power from replacing them. But I don’t agree that we won’t be able to build an energy grid without fossile fuels. I believe we can have a grid without both of these technologies.

    You seem to be influenced by the “well we won’t do anything until we are already burning” mentality which is coincidentally pushed heavily by the fossil industry. It’s meant to defer people from believing that change is possible and taking action so we all stay at home and bicker about how cool it would have been if we started change 20 years ago.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Your only argument here seems to be space and I don’t see that as a big problem. A few soccer fields worth of land distributed in the vicinity of each bigger city doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

      It’s 1000x “a few soccer fields” for a city like Berlin, and we have zero other working grid level storage facilities in the world at that scale. The handful that do exist are <100MWh, and are meant for specific situations, not for powering 100% renewable cities. No one is building grid-level storage, it’s a pipe dream. But it’s pushed as a solution because the fossil fuel industry knows it will never happen, but what will happen is more fossil fuel plants will be built.

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Have i Not Just calculated that the storage for one day for berlin would be like a few soccer fields? How many days do you think is necessary to be prepared for completely no power input? 10? That’s 100ish soccer fields with 2020s battery technology. Stop spreading that bullshit.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Did you miss this?

          Some numbers. This facility stores 1400MWh, on 2,000 acres or (~8,000,000 sq meters) Much greater then your 40,000sq meter estimate. Plus you said about 33GWh for a day. Well you’d need ~24 of these facilities to cover just Berlin.

          You estimated 40,000sq meters, but that is off by a factor 2000. This is for a facility that actually exists. Theoretically it could be improved, but those theories aren’t being built right now. So based on a grid storage plant that actually exists, berlin would need 48,000 times more square meters dedicated to energy storage then you estimated and in any case, THEY DON’T EXIST and aren’t being built.

          • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            No I didn’t miss that but taking an explorative pilot project as the defacto standard and then rejecting that it might be possible to build something more space efficient is not how the world works