Electricity Is Becoming Unbelievably Expensive as the US Power Grid Decays Into Ruin

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, User said:

Yep. Many renewable energy providers also rely on natural gas turbines to supplement their grid commitments because they don't have anywhere near enough batteries to do so when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. 

 

And I know they're doing research into incredible new battery technologies that could be absolutely game-changing. Within the next 10 years we might see new forms of energy storage that allow for massive amounts of energy to be harvested and stored long-term and then suddenly solar becomes the only power that people will want. If you can harvest energy when the sun is out and store it easily and cheaply in large quantities you can spend all summer dumping surplus energy into storage and then having enough to last you all winter when the sun isn't out as much.

The current battery technology just doesn't really allow for that. Allows you to offset some of the peak load for that day or that week but as a long-term storage solution we just don't have that yet

[Deluge]

Looks like we'll have to shut more bullshit democrat programs down to get the funding to fix the problem.  

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And I know they're doing research into incredible new battery technologies that could be absolutely game-changing. Within the next 10 years we might see new forms of energy storage that allow for massive amounts of energy to be harvested and stored long-term and then suddenly solar becomes the only power that people will want. If you can harvest energy when the sun is out and store it easily and cheaply in large quantities you can spend all summer dumping surplus energy into storage and then having enough to last you all winter when the sun isn't out as much.

The current battery technology just doesn't really allow for that. Allows you to offset some of the peak load for that day or that week but as a long-term storage solution we just don't have that yet

I honestly dont think batteries are an answer. Energy...especially electricity has to be constant and on-demand. In other words...perpetually generated and fed to the system.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I honestly dont think batteries are an answer. Energy...especially electricity has to be constant and on-demand. In other words...perpetually generated and fed to the system.

Yeah and where that doesn't happen there has been severe problems. California Alberta other jurisdictions, you need to be able to tap into power when you need it where you need it which means the energy has to be able to be stored either in a chemical form or some other form where you can stockpile it and draw upon it as necessary

And every rational person can see that. Obviously we can't predict when the sun will be out so it's an unreliable power source on a day-to-day basis so without the ability to harvest and store that energy long term we can't rely on it as a primary energy source

But for some reason this goes over beaver fever's head

Edited June 12 by CdnFox

[User]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I honestly dont think batteries are an answer. Energy...especially electricity has to be constant and on-demand. In other words...perpetually generated and fed to the system.

Batteries are remarkably great at providing energy to the grid when needed; it is a constant and on-demand solution. The issue is cost and scale. 

This is nothing new as a concept, businesses and homes are doing this right now every day with UPS.

The issue here is the grid size scale. We are nowhere near close enough for that. 
 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Batteries are remarkably great at providing energy to the grid when needed; it is a constant and on-demand solution. The issue is cost and scale. 

This is nothing new as a concept, businesses and homes are doing this right now every day with UPS.

The issue here is the grid size scale. We are nowhere near close enough for that. 
 

The example. In my own home I have a number of critical components plugged in to batteries which remain charged for when the power goes out. I'm fairly remote so the power goes out several times a year and sometimes for more than 24 hours

But those batteries only last long enough for my emergency generator to turn on and begin supplying constant on demand power as well. The batteries collectively would only last about 10-15 minutes. But tank of fuel can run my generator for 9 days. And the cost of that fuel for 9 days is about half of what I spent on the batteries.

There's just no comparison, we can only hope that one day electrical storage will be as efficient and affordable as chemical storages now

[User]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

The example. In my own home I have a number of critical components plugged in to batteries which remain charged for when the power goes out. I'm fairly remote so the power goes out several times a year and sometimes for more than 24 hours

But those batteries only last long enough for my emergency generator to turn on and begin supplying constant on demand power as well. The batteries collectively would only last about 10-15 minutes. But tank of fuel can run my generator for 9 days. And the cost of that fuel for 9 days is about half of what I spent on the batteries.

There's just no comparison, we can only hope that one day electrical storage will be as efficient and affordable as chemical storages now

For sure, but some people buy stuff like a Tesla battery to go with their solar panels, and that can typically supply enough power for about a day, or maybe 2 if you are only running basic stuff. 

That battery is expensive though, and it only lasts for maybe 10-20 years. 

No way every home in America could have one... It's a luxury for people or a splurge for off-grid enthusiasts. 

To your point... it is VASTLY cheaper to just keep a generator on hand and fuel for it... OR to power your home with Propane. 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, User said:

For sure, but some people buy stuff like a Tesla battery to go with their solar panels, and that can typically supply enough power for about a day, or maybe 2 if you are only running basic stuff. 

That battery is expensive though, and it only lasts for maybe 10-20 years. 

No way every home in America could have one... It's a luxury for people or a splurge for off-grid enthusiasts. 

To your point... it is VASTLY cheaper to just keep a generator on hand and fuel for it... OR to power your home with Propane. 

Well there's the problem. I mean it's a perfect example, a Tesla battery bank cost about $21,000 and as you say my power at home for a day or so at the same power levels as my generator. My generator cost $6,000 installed including all of the wiring and automatic failover and start system and has a capacity To run for 9 days and be recharged in less than a minute from a fuel truck. And if I decided that wasn't good enough for about $1,000 I can double that capacity of fuel permanently

And I could have picked a bigger generator to generate even more power if I needed more on demand for only a small amount of additional money. Those Tesla batteries are fairly limited as to how much energy you can extract from them at any given point in time before you overload it.

 

[User]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Well there's the problem. I mean it's a perfect example, a Tesla battery bank cost about $21,000 and as you say my power at home for a day or so at the same power levels as my generator. My generator cost $6,000 installed including all of the wiring and automatic failover and start system and has a capacity To run for 9 days and be recharged in less than a minute from a fuel truck. And if I decided that wasn't good enough for about $1,000 I can double that capacity of fuel permanently

And I could have picked a bigger generator to generate even more power if I needed more on demand for only a small amount of additional money. Those Tesla batteries are fairly limited as to how much energy you can extract from them at any given point in time before you overload it.

 

Yep. 

I would love it, but the issue is that you really need to pair it up with solar power so you can have that battery only for night time but now we are talking $$$$$$... and even then, the folks I know who are really off grid, have propane to back it all up because when winter comes around or rain or you live in a climate that doesn't have enough sun, you still need some kind of supplimental power supply to get you through. 

At that point, the Tesla battery becomes a really expensive UPS.

[Nationalist]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah and where that doesn't happen there has been severe problems. California Alberta other jurisdictions, you need to be able to tap into power when you need it where you need it which means the energy has to be able to be stored either in a chemical form or some other form where you can stockpile it and draw upon it as necessary

And every rational person can see that. Obviously we can't predict when the sun will be out so it's an unreliable power source on a day-to-day basis so without the ability to harvest and store that energy long term we can't rely on it as a primary energy source

But for some reason this goes over beaver fever's head

Dude...Romper Room was above the Beave's head. Im quite sure he thinks it was racist.

I just see battery storage as the creation of a new problem.

[Nationalist]

53 minutes ago, User said:

Batteries are remarkably great at providing energy to the grid when needed; it is a constant and on-demand solution. The issue is cost and scale. 

This is nothing new as a concept, businesses and homes are doing this right now every day with UPS.

The issue here is the grid size scale. We are nowhere near close enough for that. 
 

True. The scale is immense. 

Although...it could elevate the popularity of the Energizer Bunny.

 

 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Dude...Romper Room was above the Beave's head. Im quite sure he thinks it was racist.

I just see battery storage as the creation of a new problem.

Well battery's the way that we know them would be problematic, but remember that at the end of the day a tank full of chemical fuel is basically just a battery as well. You stored chemical energy which you will convert into useful electrical energy.

If you think about it that way it changes things a little bit. What we need is essentially a container that holds electricity. What we have right now is a system that Inefficiently stores chemical energy to be converted into electrical energy.

You're looking at some really cool and interesting stuff using quantum technology and such that would allow for vastly more storage of energy at much lower rates in a much smaller size vessel that would be even remotely conceivable at the moment

We'll have to see how the technology progresses but at the end of the day for solar power to be a true replacement we have to take that energy and be able to contain it in some fashion or another so that we can store it in large volumes and then use it when we need it the same way that we store fuel in large volumes and use it when we need it

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well battery's the way that we know them would be problematic, but remember that at the end of the day a tank full of chemical fuel is basically just a battery as well. You stored chemical energy which you will convert into useful electrical energy.

If you think about it that way it changes things a little bit. What we need is essentially a container that holds electricity. What we have right now is a system that Inefficiently stores chemical energy to be converted into electrical energy.

You're looking at some really cool and interesting stuff using quantum technology and such that would allow for vastly more storage of energy at much lower rates in a much smaller size vessel that would be even remotely conceivable at the moment

We'll have to see how the technology progresses but at the end of the day for solar power to be a true replacement we have to take that energy and be able to contain it in some fashion or another so that we can store it in large volumes and then use it when we need it the same way that we store fuel in large volumes and use it when we need it

Im praying for fusion. 

I get what you're saying, it just sounds like replacing one issue with another.

And none of this addresses transport. Technically, its doable. But at what cost? 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Im praying for fusion. 

They're getting a lot closer on that front too

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I get what you're saying, it just sounds like replacing one issue with another.

And none of this addresses transport. Technically, its doable. But at what cost? 

Well it would depend a lot on the nature of the electrical container. Some of the quantum storage that they're talking about would be almost no different than transporting fuel now. Obviously it wouldn't be a liquid but it would be possible to charge a large container with energy exceptionally quickly, move that container to a new location, and then transfer that energy to a central storage unit if necessary much as we do today with petroleum products.

You're right, in some respects we're just upgrading our problems to a better version of problems but it would allow for much much less expensive energy production on a practical level, so if the storage solution was also affordable it would solve a lot of the world's energy problems and emission problems in the short term

Longer term we need a whole new way of generating power and as you say there are options on the table being considered such as fusion. But we may need a bridge technology until some of those more exotic solutions fully mature

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They're getting a lot closer on that front too

Well it would depend a lot on the nature of the electrical container. Some of the quantum storage that they're talking about would be almost no different than transporting fuel now. Obviously it wouldn't be a liquid but it would be possible to charge a large container with energy exceptionally quickly, move that container to a new location, and then transfer that energy to a central storage unit if necessary much as we do today with petroleum products.

You're right, in some respects we're just upgrading our problems to a better version of problems but it would allow for much much less expensive energy production on a practical level, so if the storage solution was also affordable it would solve a lot of the world's energy problems and emission problems in the short term

Longer term we need a whole new way of generating power and as you say there are options on the table being considered such as fusion. But we may need a bridge technology until some of those more exotic solutions fully mature

That we can...does not necessarily mean we should. Is there a reason to change the energy infrastructure? What would it cost?

On both counts, the answers do not support measures that come at enormous costs to the people. That would be just mean.

Use what there is, including mirrors and windmills, but understand the limits of the technology make it a supplemental source. In the meantime, bone up on global energy as cost effectively as possible, which would help solve a whole bunch of real crisis.

The answer will come. Batteries may play a part. But id caution against any sort of reliance.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

That we can...does not necessarily mean we should. Is there a reason to change the energy infrastructure? What would it cost?

Well answering that would require significant knowledge of a product that hasn't been invented yet  

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

On both counts, the answers do not support measures that come at enormous costs to the people. That would be just mean.

Well sure, if the cost is prohibitive then it's not worth it. But that was a caveat I already put in, I specifically said if we can store electricity in the same volume and price that we currently do petroleum products THEN it's exciting. 

Solar power is by far and away the cheapest form of electricity generation there is on the planet. The costs a lot of money to dig oil up and process it and send it places. So if it was possible to store solar electricity for about the same price and in the same density that we store petroleum products now then solar power would be insanely cheap and effective.

But I mean that technology definitely doesn't exist, so it would have to depend largely on what it actually looked like if it was invented. I mean in the long run miniature black holes sound ideal but were quite a few years away from that I suspect  

We will have to see. There's no point in arguing which solution is best before the solutions are invented and we can see with the pros and cons are. But there's no doubt that a cheap way to store large amounts of electricity would allow us to harness solar and wind power to actually consider the possibility of replacing existing non-renewable products at least theoretically

[Nationalist]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well answering that would require significant knowledge of a product that hasn't been invented yet  

Well sure, if the cost is prohibitive then it's not worth it. But that was a caveat I already put in, I specifically said if we can store electricity in the same volume and price that we currently do petroleum products THEN it's exciting. 

Solar power is by far and away the cheapest form of electricity generation there is on the planet. The costs a lot of money to dig oil up and process it and send it places. So if it was possible to store solar electricity for about the same price and in the same density that we store petroleum products now then solar power would be insanely cheap and effective.

But I mean that technology definitely doesn't exist, so it would have to depend largely on what it actually looked like if it was invented. I mean in the long run miniature black holes sound ideal but were quite a few years away from that I suspect  

We will have to see. There's no point in arguing which solution is best before the solutions are invented and we can see with the pros and cons are. But there's no doubt that a cheap way to store large amounts of electricity would allow us to harness solar and wind power to actually consider the possibility of replacing existing non-renewable products at least theoretically

Theoretically sure.

Come on fusion...

[WestCanMan]

1. Trump in 2026 isn't solely responsible for 50 years of decaying infrastructure, so grow up @BeaverFever, you fking child. Just start a legit topic like a grown up for once you worthless tw4t
2. Leftists are all about war on the energy sector.... "Let's stop making gas and coal and then spend millions on foreign aid BS and Somali scammers". 

Just imagine if the money wasted on scammers and foreign aid was spent on infrastructure... And the US was producing more energy at a lower cost....

But leftists are livid about the money saved by putting an end to scams in Minnesota and LA. And they are even mader about the money saved by DOGE.

Should America have powerlines, or give money to Djibouti for transgender surgeries? How would you prioritize those items?