1. Time arbitrage of energy. Store energy from times when it is abundant, and put it back when it's more scarce. This is profitable on most grids with at least high single digits of percentage of renewable generation. And to say it's profitable for battery operators is the same thing as saying it's reducing costs, if the grid/utility is operated in a fair way.
2. Location arbitrage of electricity by making use of times with less grid congestion. The grid itself is the only location arbitrage we have had up until grid-sized batteries. But it's expensive, and the costs are not even. Some locations are far cheaper to service than others. Battery storage has long been a "non-wired alternative" that in many cases is cheaper than stringing wires to expand capacity.
There's probably more that I dont understand. Battery storage on the grid is a disruptive technology, because up until now the grid was pretty much the only major system I could think of that doesn't have any storage. (Computer networking is kind of similar, but buffers have always existed. It just turns out that buffering is not tremendously useful in the network itself when the endpoints have tons of storage...)
In the US, transmitting and distributing electricity is more expensive than generating it. That imbalance is going to widen far further as solar and wind get cheaper, which they will for a minimum of a decade, based on the current pace. They could get cheaper for multiple decades. We don't really know what the floor is going to be, but we do know it will be electricity far cheaper than we had imagined from any other technology up until now.
More domestic batteries reduces the electricity demand at night, meaning power companies need to buy less natural gas and coal powered electricity from producers.
They lose some solar generation during the day that is now going into charging the batteries, but they have too much of that already.
Net result a lower proportion of (more expensive) fossil fuels in the overall mix, meaning total cost of power generation comes down, and retail prices come down.
This is happening in the US too. We're creeping closer and closer to the day where just installing off-grid battery + PV is cheaper than dealing with regulations + politically inflated grid prices.
In most states, the power company cannot seize your home for cancelling your account + not paying your bill. Also, in most states, the power company gets to regulate the design of grid-attached solar. They're artificially driving installation costs up (building codes do too, and are a separate problem).
This means there's a big step function coming. The price of grids (which are subsidizing the AI data center boondoggle, and also legacy fossil fuel plutocrats) are currently a little higher than grid attached battery + PV. We're maybe one more price halving to the point where it makes sense to go off grid.
At that point, a market for off-grid (non-subsidizing) system installations will materialize. In distorted markets, this will drop prices non-linearly (2-4x), and then everyone will act surprised.
Yes, because solar is now the most cost-effective form of energy generation. That’s why grid-scale solar is being deployed on a massive scale world wide.
Yep. Traditionalists hate renewables and facts. Here in Texas, there's been an absolute boom in solar post snowpocalypse. I'd gladly vote for shifting corn and soy subsidies to renewables, especially as grants for 1-300 MW solar/wind facilities for municipal co-operatives. And for solid state and sodium municipal and infrastructure energy backup and v2g.
And, I think we should heavily tax data centers federally because they're electricity, water, and land extractive and sound pollution vampires hostile to communities they invade (often to the chagrin of locals because of NDA backroom deals with corrupt politicians).. they're tantamount to giant petrochem facilities in "sacrifice zones". The rich people can cry about leaving, as did FDR's friends did, but it's always an empty threat.
I'm not convinced the data center numbers, especially water, are meaningful compared to absurdly wasteful agriculture like the corn for ethanol mentioned here, almonds in California, and cattle.
Let alone the likes of Nestlé's water stealing and golf courses in hot, dry climates.
Happy to be proven wrong by someone who has the numbers. For now like what this comment section is about with "the space needed for solar is nothing compared to what we're already doing", it seems like the water needed for data centers is nothing compared to how much we're already throwing away.
I did a napkin calculation once for building wind turbines next to a city with a construction and a maintenance tax. A big initial bill (lone) and a sizable ration per citizen. In stead of a power bill you pay installments. When you sell the house the next owner will also have to pay for it.
Thinking about it now, i have one more stupid idea, people have no faith in government, perhaps it is possible to contract a private insurance company. They can get paid to keep an eye on our bureaucrats. Make it a contract with teeth.
Except transporting it over the grid usually doesn't make sense, and is neither easy nor simple nor cheap. So solar only really makes sense if you have a use for it nearby or even onsite. So for companies/factories/datacenters/... absolutely. To keep cities powered? Less so.
You just need ultra high voltage transition lines and a grid that can real-time redistribute load + generation.
Ultra high voltage towers are all over Texas. If they can make them work there (with the extreme heat, tornados and absurdly long distances involved in that state), they can work most places.
Companies want to shut down coal plants despite subsidies but are being forced to keep them running. The government forcing private businesses to keep running in a certain way, doesn't get more state-directed than that, straight out of communism.
It's really China with none of the upsides and all of the downsides.
If the goal is to make ethanol hemp would be a (considerably) better choice.
We know it is but with all the hysteria we have very little experience growing and processing it with modern equip. You should want to harvest seeds, fibers, make ethanol from biomass, and perhaps do biochar, concrete, textile, plastics etc etc
The hysteria is rather fascinating, I recently learn how the inquisition got rid of Amaranth.
If only we could figure out how to do something with water hyacinth. No one has ever complaint about not having enough yield of that. It grows preposterously.
We pretend the crop to be a huge problem, much like the giant lakes of poop we produce. Most of the energy in food comes out on the other end.
Still, what good is free energy to anyone if the retail price has only one trajectory.
If politics is a significant cost factor, no amount of technology is going to fix that.
Or, as Jimmy Carr put it: But you go, yeah, you can have net zero, as long as you don't give a fuck about poor people, right? If you don't give a fuck about poor people, of course we can do net zero. - https://youtu.be/H3FwqPkPSHE
> what good is free energy to anyone if the retail price has only one trajectory.
The underlying economics means someone is always paying for that, you can pay for more expensive fossil fuels in your taxes or on your electric bill but it’s going to happen either way.
Granted we have a legacy of fossil fuel, nuclear, and yes early renewable projects but if you have zero subsidies of any kind going forward we get to a 100% emissions free grid because today that’s the cheapest option,
Burning fossil fuels has had an over a century of technical development and global scale it isn’t getting dramatically better to catch up it just loses and renewables just keep getting more appealing over time.
I care less about poor people in poor countries in far away lands, and far away times, than I do my fellow citizens in my relatively wealthy country.
And my fellow citizens, especially the low income folk, are affected everyday by high energy costs. High energy costs result in higher costs of everything.
Whereas the effects of climate change, to the extent that they’re distinguishable from extreme weather events at all, are largely tolerated by even the poorest here in Australia.
High energy costs makes extreme weather events less tolerable.
It is good then that renewable energy is cheap. There are a million things countries can do to help poor people. Burning fossil fuels is very far down the list.
There is what? Approximately nowhere with high renewables penetration and cheap retail energy prices.
Australia has so much coal and gas we could have electricity plans similar to data plans: all you can reasonably consume for $80 a month, and it would still make approximately zero difference to global anthropogenic carbon emissions.
We’re plenty happy for everyone else to burn our LNG and coal. Our LNG is cheap the Japanese even resell it a profit.[1]
Instead, we have high renewables penetration and electricity prices that have increased at a rate three times higher than general inflation.
Do you accept that wholesale electricity prices in Australia can be wildly disconnected from residential retail prices?
Do you accept I am an Australian resident retail customer telling you I am not seeing any change in my $/kWh price, nor any offers from my any providers offering lower prices and higher solar input price than the plan I’m on now.
It doesn’t matter if wholesale prices are zero unless energy retailers are willing to compete to drive prices lower.
And they’re not. It’s a regulated market here in Australia.
Energy retailers in Australia are literally just a billing interface and a poor excuse for a call centre.
They’re not really adding value in the same way a farm & associated agribusiness > harvest > global storage and distribution > mill > commercial scale bakery > distribution > retail outlet does.
This reminds me of an amusing comment I read or heard the other day: eggs are now more expensive than chickens. Somethings not right there. And it’s mostly higher costs of energy, and extremely stupid egg production regulations.
What was his point? If he'd been more specific, his comment would be true:
"If you don't give a fuck about [extracting revenue from poor serfs], of course we can do net zero."
If we lived in a more just society, we'd mandate community net metering: This is the idea that (say) a city block can build a solar/wind farm anywhere within a few dozen miles of itself, and then have their bills proportionally reduced by the amount of power that farm produces.
It enables interesting economic models, like "the community takes out a 30 year mortgage to build + maintain the farm in exchange for an immediate halving of their electricity bills", or having trade schools offer free/cheap electrician programs that include apprenticeships building such farms. (See also: Habitat for Humanity.)
No residential retail customer in my country qualifies for any high-usage discount, as far as I’m aware.
Only big industrial users do, and even the largest industrial users I’ve worked for, or adjacent to, in my state don’t come close to amount of electricity used by the aluminium smelter.
Across the western world, elderly benefits increasingly outstrip the growth young workers paying taxes for their benefits are able to eke out. I do not think they need free taxis as well.
There's not many taxis in most places, I come from a town of 400 people it'd be a very uneconomical solution.
I'm not saying it's great for them to drive, I just doubt there's a way to fix it in these sort of places. My grandma cycles to the small store for most of her groceries everyday, it's only the big store she drives to bi-weekly. Honestly the cycling is probably more dangerous, and there's some elderly in my town who're pushing 100 cycling daily.
You can give your password, or part of it, to your estate lawyer to attach to your will.
This is obviously more cumbersome, and probably costly, if you intend on changing your password. I guess you could change the part of it you don’t store with them.
If this actually works, I'm going to be convinced that some alchemist overheard an alien dude talking about this but misinterpreted it in line with contemporary knowledge.
One acquaintance, after years of trying to work out what was wrong and believing EM missions may play a role turned out to have hemochromotosis (genetic disorder characterized by excessive intestinal absorption of dietary iron, resulting in a pathological increase in total body iron) which is fixed by regular blood donations.
You’re making an assumption here that it was not the increased iron in her body that made them more sensitive to electromagnetic fields. I mean, I’m not saying it’s true or not, but that’s the mistake you’re making in your argument.
I think many people who don’t have EMF sensitivity find EMFs something easy to say is the cause their health issues, but they approach how to figure it out if it is true with zero scientific thought.
> I don’t believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory of why eyes grow where eyes grow.
That’s the whole point of developmental biology, to show how features of the human body form and develop based on gene expression, the timing of which during embryonic and fetal development itself is dictated by your genes.
If not your genes, what else would determine why you have eyes in about the same place in your head as every other human?
> The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot be explained with DNA alone.
Sure it can, because while every cell has essentially the same DNA, the expression of genes differs between cells, which is what causes cells to differentiate. And this differentiation also controls development; look up the Hox genes as an example.
He's changed wild-type planarians to grow the heads of other species. It reverts after a few weeks, because the system has error-correcting mechanisms, but the DNA of these worms is unchanged.
He once compared tinkering with DNA as pulling out a soldering iron to fix a software bug.
In the case of morphology, DNA may not be the best level of abstraction. It's certainly possible, just as one can use chemistry for social problems, but for some problems, affecting cell-to-cell communication may be a more direct path.
> If not your genes, what else would determine why you have eyes in about the same place in your head as every other human?
Theoretically, it could be second or much higher order effects that result from genes. It could be a combination of complex factors - the environment in the womb, nutrition, behavior by the mother, etc. - that eventually trace back to DNA.
Also, is it literally true that DNA is the only thing that's consistent (in these respects) between all generations of Homo sapiens?
Your last paragraph is their point: genes are regulated to produce that effect. The genes themselves aren’t doing it, but eg diffusion of chemical signals to inactivate genes.
Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies.
> Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies.
For the consistent parts - eyes may be different colors but are overwhelmingly consistent - what else could be the ultimate cause but DNA? For example, if those chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals produce the same results billions of times over 200,000 years, then they must function the same overall. How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA?
Your eyes would be misplaced if the process from cell clump to mat to tubule failed due to chemical signaling failure, but the whole embryo tends to be spontaneously aborted when gestation fails so catastrophically.
And despite genitalia being roughly one of two forms and similarly positioned, chemical signals can disrupt their formation.
> How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA?
They don’t produce the same results with perfect accuracy — 75% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, at least in part due to developmental failures.
But the problem with this argument is simple: you have a human cell everywhere you have human DNA, so those correlations with DNA are also correlations with cellular machinery and with particular chemical signals from the mother. There was no point in those 200,000 years where DNA operated independently of those other mechanisms — we can only say the system as a whole reliably creates those features.
Interesting points, especially about the challenge of correlation. I guess we could remove DNA and see what happens ...
Somehow the machinary is passed down: Do we know of another mechanism besides DNA that is self-perpetuating? Is there any living creature without it? Prokaryotes (bacteria) even have DNA.
Or is there a way to do it without self-perpetuating mechanisms? Is that logically possible? Some machinary might be perpetuated by other machinary, e.g. the chemical might recreate the electrical, meaning it's not self-perpetuating. But that's not different than DNA: DNA itself isn't the machinary, but its self-perpetuation is what recreates other parts.
I suppose some parts of the environment are consistent, such as sunlight, air, water, and heat, but the environmental stimuli must trigger something that is already there.
> I guess we could remove DNA and see what happens ...
If I have a stool with three legs, and remove one leg causing it to fall, can I conclude that removed leg is what made it stand?
You’re making the same mistake as before in reverse: DNA would do nothing without a host cell or chemical signals, either.
> Somehow the machinary is passed down: Do we know of another mechanism besides DNA that is self-perpetuating?
The system as a whole is self-perpetuating, but DNA is not self-perpetuating: without a host cell and without ambient chemical signals, it cannot propagate. That’s in contrast to ribozymes which can be self-catalyzing RNA, ie, truly self-propagating chemicals.
In the RNA world hypothesis, such self-catalyzation was the origin of life; and by the time DNA evolved, it did so within a running biological system and as merely one component of cellular replication.
As a whole the system of chemical signals, DNA, and cellular machinery propagates; but just like our stool example, removing any of the factors causes that to fail.
The DNA removal comment was as joke; sorry if that wasn't clear.
No system is self-perpetuating, per the Second Law; all need other inputs. What makes the machinary yield the ~same results ~every time is DNA.
> In the RNA world hypothesis, such self-catalyzation was the origin of life; and by the time DNA evolved, it did so within a running biological system and as merely one component of cellular replication.
Is there evidence of that? Afaik the earliest evidence is prokaryotes ~~3.5 billion years ago, and prokaryotes generally have DNA.
> The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe
Is that true?
I know that cells in the brain have significant variability in DNA, but not really aware of what non-neuronal and non-brain cells in general typically have.
How do domestic battery installations help with the retail price of electricity?
reply