U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

[Bonam]

Yeah... storing large ammounts of electricity would be... a miracle

Not a miracle, but as far off technologically as energy sources that would essentially make it unnecessary anyway, as I explained earlier.

[dre]

Not a miracle, but as far off technologically as energy sources that would essentially make it unnecessary anyway, as I explained earlier.

I disagree. The cost of storage is coming down dramatically and theres lots of options to look at, and theres also a pile of money going into it. We also dont need storage on the scale youre thinking about. Storage could be relatively small units at the point of consumption. Thats already possible with todays technology, in fact Iv built two of them now for residential lowrise buildings where the grid is not available.

Even with TODAYS technology NOW... YOu can easily build a lowrise building that powers itself with intermittent sources, and smooths over fluxuations in availability with a storage system. The problem is the generation not the storage.

Youre still thinking in terms of megaprojects, but thats not what the smart/distributed grid is about. Both storage and generation will happen at or near the point of consumption, or even on individual appliances. And all the storage capacity on those devices because part of the grid when the items are plugged in.

[Oleg Bach]

Not a miracle, but as far off technologically as energy sources that would essentially make it unnecessary anyway, as I explained earlier.

The battery is and always will be a defective device. Storing power this way is like looking for a perpetual motion machine - that does not exist. 76 trillion bucks to save the world - at least the UN has put a number on the cost...well - if 76 tillion is the second comming of the new Messiah - we had better start saving...lol.

[Bonam]

I disagree. The cost of storage is coming down dramatically and theres lots of options to look at, and theres also a pile of money going into it. We also dont need storage on the scale youre thinking about. Storage could be relatively small units at the point of consumption. Thats already possible with todays technology, in fact Iv built two of them now for residential lowrise buildings where the grid is not available.

Even with TODAYS technology NOW... YOu can easily build a lowrise building that powers itself with intermittent sources, and smooths over fluxuations in availability with a storage system. The problem is the generation not the storage.

Youre still thinking in terms of megaprojects, but thats not what the smart/distributed grid is about. Both storage and generation will happen at or near the point of consumption, or even on individual appliances. And all the storage capacity on those devices because part of the grid when the items are plugged in.

Whether you do it centrally or at the point of consumption, the total amount of energy storage required to make feasible converting to a primarily solar/wind powered energy infrastructure is the same. Like I said before, it's about $14 billion worth of batteries that need to be produced and set up for every 1 GW power plant you want to shut down and replace with renewables, and whether that's ten million little batteries on people's toasters and microwaves or one gigantic energy storage station doesn't change that fact (except the giant one would probably have a somewhat lower total cost due to scale).

Edited July 17, 2011 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

Heard a rumor that the sun is a source of energy..From what I understand everything on earth originates from that energy source. It artifical energy that we are talking about here. Energy to power things invented by man that are not that efficient. There is no energy shortage - just a shortage of ways to trasphere existing energy into useable artifical energy - arifical is not green.

[Bonam]

Heard a rumor that the sun is a source of energy..From what I understand everything on earth originates from that energy source.

Almost. Geothermal energy and nuclear energy are not reliant on the Sun, they are available by virtue of the Earth itself and would still exist even if the Earth was a starless planet.

[dre]

Whether you do it centrally or at the point of consumption, the total amount of energy storage required to make feasible converting to a primarily solar/wind powered energy infrastructure is the same. Like I said before, it's about $14 billion worth of batteries that need to be produced and set up for every 1 GW power plant you want to shut down and replace with renewables, and whether that's ten million little batteries on people's toasters and microwaves or one gigantic energy storage station doesn't change that fact (except the giant one would probably have a somewhat lower total cost due to scale).

Like I said... with todays technology most of the lowrise buildings on the planet could generate their own power, and install enough storage to smooth over fluxuations in availability. The storage isnt even the hard or expensive part. The problem is generation costs.

And battery technology is advancing rapidly and coming down in price fast. Once it hits about $100 dollars per kwh it will be more economical to use wind and solar than it is to build a convention coal plant in a lot of places around the world. The trick is to build much smaller cells and way more of them, so that they can be built in foreign megafactories by people who dont get paid.

THAT is the real key to bringing down costs... you need to fire as many North Americans as possible. Thats why you can buy a dvd player for 15 bux, and the exact same idea will work for pretty much anything else. And thats why decentralization is inevitable.

[Bonam]

Like I said... with todays technology most of the lowrise buildings on the planet could generate their own power, and install enough storage to smooth over fluxuations in availability. The storage isnt even the hard or expensive part. The problem is generation costs.

You've said it, but you haven't backed it up with numbers. How much does it cost in PV cells for this low rise building of yours, and how much in batteries? And after how many years does it have to be replaced due to degradation of the batteries?

I looked up a few basic numbers and made an estimate of the costs for replacing large scale infrastructure, and to me, it doesn't look economically feasible or anywhere close. Whether you split it up into a lot of little costs or leave it as one big cost doesn't change that. If you want to argue to the contrary show some numbers.

[dre]

You've said it, but you haven't backed it up with numbers. How much does it cost in PV cells for this low rise building of yours, and how much in batteries? And after how many years does it have to be replaced due to degradation of the batteries?

I looked up a few basic numbers and made an estimate of the costs for replacing large scale infrastructure, and to me, it doesn't look economically feasible or anywhere close. Whether you split it up into a lot of little costs or leave it as one big cost doesn't change that. If you want to argue to the contrary show some numbers.

Sorry you misunderstood what I was claiming, or I wasnt clear. The projects I worked on were not even close to being economical. One was a pretty normal sized house, and the system cost more than $70 000 dollars. Thats about 10 times what It cost me to wire the on-grid home I live in now. This was more than 5 years ago and the panels were extremely expensive. I dont remember the specs on the batteries, but they were junk by todays standards.

My point though is that the economics are changing very quickly. Power from large grid utilities is going up in price fairly quickly, and the cost of these other technologies is coming down fast. A few years ago battery based storage cost more than $2000 dollars per installed KW, today were are getting down towards $500, and theres literally hundreds of companies working on the problem and the market is growing fast.

There there will be no silver bullet in a distributed grid system. What makes sense varies dramatically from one geographical area to another. Its getting a lot more expensive to move coal around for even short distances and more expensive to mine it as well. If the price of gasoline doubles again in the next 10 years (and it will) then coal fired plants will only be economic if they are built very close to the mines. Some places have lots of natural gas, and some dont. Some places are sunny year round, some arent. Some places are windy year round, some arent. And as far as mass storage goes, most areas in North America DO have a pretty strong hydroelectric component, so pumped storage is an option.

And plant construction prices are going through the roof as well. My quasi public utility is already looking to decentralize and move generation into the private sector... theres about 30 private micro generation projects already in the works already, and IPP's are springing up all over the place.

[Oleg Bach]

The UN should dismantel and do their bit in getting green

[TimG]

A few years ago battery based storage cost more than $2000 dollars per installed KW, today were are getting down towards $500, and theres literally hundreds of companies working on the problem and the market is growing fast.

Even if batteries are $100/KWh we are still talking about a $5000 device per household that has to be replaced every 8-10 years. I see nothing on the horizon that will bring battery costs down to something that would make large scale deployment economic. And if a miracle happens, wide spread deployment of batteries would simply allow people to purchase cheap power off peak. There would be no economic incentive to buy solar panels that could never replace grid power.

Sure. That is why it is economic to build a nuclear plant in South Carolina but not in Wisconsin. And if it is economic solar panels and whatnot may get used. I don't believe that is going to happen any time soon because the capital costs and the unreliability.