Solar panel the country?
Discussion
This week's New Scientist has a short article on the issue of storage. Current battery technology simply isn't up to the job because of the limited life constant charge/discharge causes. It's only cost-effective with huge subsidies.
They also mention a site in the States that uses surplus power to heat rocksalt, then uses that to boil water for steam turbines when demand peaks. That can be done indefinitely with very low maintenance costs.
They also mention a site in the States that uses surplus power to heat rocksalt, then uses that to boil water for steam turbines when demand peaks. That can be done indefinitely with very low maintenance costs.
I think that using excess electricity to generate hydrogen is probably the most effective method at the moment. You can either use it as is for cars or combine it with carbon dioxide to form natural gas that can be stored and then used in a gas turbine to generate electricity when needed.
Bit of an inefficient loop to generate hydrogen then turn it back into methane - presume you mean the Sabatier reaction which would require a lot of engine input to produce the methane as well as loads of energy to make the hydrogen in the first place. Might as well just burn the hydrogen directly in a power plant.
Not sure what cars are around that can burn hydrogen, I have a vague recollection BMW built one in the 1980s but that's it to my knowledge.
I think the Germans are quite keen on power-to-gas, as they used to run a lot of hydrogen through their mains gas system I believe?
Not sure what cars are around that can burn hydrogen, I have a vague recollection BMW built one in the 1980s but that's it to my knowledge.
I think the Germans are quite keen on power-to-gas, as they used to run a lot of hydrogen through their mains gas system I believe?
Flooble said:
Bit of an inefficient loop to generate hydrogen then turn it back into methane - presume you mean the Sabatier reaction which would require a lot of engine input to produce the methane as well as loads of energy to make the hydrogen in the first place. Might as well just burn the hydrogen directly in a power plant.
Not sure what cars are around that can burn hydrogen, I have a vague recollection BMW built one in the 1980s but that's it to my knowledge.
I think the Germans are quite keen on power-to-gas, as they used to run a lot of hydrogen through their mains gas system I believe?
The whole cycle will require trade-offs - pump-storage is the most efficient way at the moment but not really applicable if there's no high ground around. Not sure what cars are around that can burn hydrogen, I have a vague recollection BMW built one in the 1980s but that's it to my knowledge.
I think the Germans are quite keen on power-to-gas, as they used to run a lot of hydrogen through their mains gas system I believe?
Honda FCX Clarity, Hyundai ix35, Toyota Mirai all use hydrogen. Unfortunately, there is virtually no infrastructure for refilling.
Oh, you were talking about the fuel-cell cars, sorry. Can't see that being a solution, since the fuel cell cars are all £100K+ when unsubsidised - be cheaper to buy multiple banks of batteries that you can swap in as they wear out (given that when I looked the fuel cells only last 60-100,000 miles anyway).
I wonder how much it would cost to build a tidal lagoon.
I wonder how much it would cost to build a tidal lagoon.
From a theoretical point of view, and from a partial practical one, this idea for energy storage isn't quite as crazy as it sounds:
RockPistonEnergyStorage
RockPistonEnergyStorage
seeourex said:
It's the same story as Germany being powered by wind/Solar for a few hours or tiny central American countries running of renewables for a week.Wind and solar are useful when applied correctly. But without storage (battery, hydro) or baseline (nuclear, coal) they cannot stand alone.
If the UK government brought back the solar subsidy, or allowed Chinese imports without tariff, we'd be in a somewhat better position.
ked than we already are. 
durbster said:
To my simple brain solar must surely be the energy source of the future considering the planet is bombarded with limitless amounts of the stuff, and we know how to convert it into useful energy.
However, it seems today's technology is some way off being a viable solution for the UK unless we can find a way to store it or transport it. It's probably quite unlikely we'll be using today's energy technology in 50 years time so it would be risky to commit to one particular solution.
It looks like what'll happen is there will be all sorts of different energy sources for different parts of the planet. A lot of Australia could use solar while Iceland uses geothermal, for example.
The best thing about that is that by looking at multiple, local solutions for the short term, we're far more likely to figure out a global long-term solution. It's a hell of a challenge for the STEM folk.
...and herein lies the problem, the Media & population at large follow a similar thought pattern. Namely; ''imagine how much solar/wind farms we could produce for the cost of Hinkley''. The issue is we have no decent form of energy storage to make either even vaguely worth serious additional investment in. However, it seems today's technology is some way off being a viable solution for the UK unless we can find a way to store it or transport it. It's probably quite unlikely we'll be using today's energy technology in 50 years time so it would be risky to commit to one particular solution.
It looks like what'll happen is there will be all sorts of different energy sources for different parts of the planet. A lot of Australia could use solar while Iceland uses geothermal, for example.
The best thing about that is that by looking at multiple, local solutions for the short term, we're far more likely to figure out a global long-term solution. It's a hell of a challenge for the STEM folk.
People knock on about the new Tesla Walls and ''battery technology improvements'' but no one seems to appreciate how flipping expensive either will be,or how limited they will be when you want to cook for Sunday roast in November whilst heating your hot water.
Nuclear is the medium term bulk energy producer. There is no argument to be had on the issue. It is expensive, but then for a controlled, carbon neutral, safe, guaranteed production resource it is necessary.
Us dicking around with Hinkley will just end up making it more expensive, and stretch us even further when the current plants start being decommissioned & we are only half way through building the next gens
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff