Clearly, storing steam in tanks for demand surges is the most efficient form of energy storage (as in Factorio)
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
65 points (68.2% liked)
Technology
60640 readers
3354 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would prefer to use energy rather than store it, but yes, pressure vessels are preferable to chemical batteries.
Yeah, that's probably true. I was mainly being silly and making a factorio reference. On the other hand, with the intermittent/cyclical nature of renewable energy, I don't think it's unreasonable to look into ways to store it for times when demand outstrips supply. Maybe there's something I'm missing? I'm not an expert in energy grids or anything.
Yours is the third reply to me that makes a Factorio reference over the past month. I didn't realize it was a game until yesterday. I guess I should give it a try.
You're correct that intermittent power from wind and photovoltaic solar needs to be managed somehow. There are certain energy intensive, productive processes that can be conveniently ramped up or slowed down to meet this requirement. I just think such a system would be more responsible and less exploitative than building these massive battery facilities for speculating on the electricity supply.
Your half-joking idea of converting excess electricity to steam makes sense because steam is itself a useful product that's needed for heating buildings as well as various industrial processes. Converting it back into electricity isn't ideal, but that's all you can do with a chemical battery in comparison.
This is a shitty Texas-based company cutting corners, who also had fires in 2021 and 2022. There are plenty of battery storage facilities operating safely.
As someone living in Texas presently: you could have saved yourself a full sentence:
This is a shitty Texas-based company cutting corners...
to
Texas company
or honestly:
Texas
Would be sufficient. Any Texan that doesn't own x texas-based-company is tired of that company's bullshit. It's one of the few things natives and transplants agree on.
This PSA brought to you by the makers of: y'all, you all, and all y'all.
You're right, but I think less dense but safer and more sustainable options are the better choice for this
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
So uh. I guess those coal and natural gas power plants would fare better in a fire. Something seems wrong there but OP clearly wouldn't possibly post something on the Internet that was utterly detached from reality.
Energy storage is just that. Fire is frequently quite good at releasing said energy.
Lithium? poof.
Oil? yup.
Nat gas? mmhmm.
wood? yup.
Coal? dang.
Guess all we got left is water - I'm sure that doesn't have any specific regional requirements...
So tell us champ: what energy storage you got all figured out from that armchair?
Nuclear though, never had a problem with excess heat at one of those. /s
Was gonna list it but I figured our energy-tzar OP would just complain about radioactive minerals being like batteries with more steps.
Nobody's ever died from a dam collapse.
Hey! It puts out fires so it's like... better!
load more comments
(14 replies)
Ever seen what happens when a coal mine catches fire? Link
I guess we should just go back to water mills right?
load more comments
(7 replies)
This is why you don't use battery chemistries that can ~~thermally run away~~ autoignite in grid storage. The plant was using LG JH4 batteries, which use an NMC chemistry. I don't think that LiFePO4 cells were as ubiquitous when this plant was first constructed, so the designers opted for something spicy instead.
This shit is why you use LiFePO4. It can't ~~thermally run away~~ autoignite, it lasts longer, and the reduced energy density doesn't really matter for grid storage. Plus, it doesn't use nickel or cobalt so the only conflict resource is lithium.
EDIT: LiFePO4 batteries can enter thermal runaway, but they can't autoignite.
load more comments
(6 replies)
What are the alternatives?
Mechanical energy storage, like pumped hydro or flywheel. Thermal energy storage, like molten salt.
Electrochemical isn't entirely off the table either: less-volatile chemistries are available, and better containment methods can reduce risks.
Non-electrical chemical storage methods are available: electrical energy can be used for hydrogen electrolysis, or Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon fuels. Fuel cells, and traditional ICE generators can recover the energy put into those (relatively) stable fuels, or we can export it from the electrical generation industry to the transportation industry.
There's also avoiding (or minimizing) the need for storage at all, with "demand shaping". Basically, we radically overbuild solar, wind, wave, tidal, etc. Normally, that would tank energy prices and be unprofitable, but we also build out some massive, flexible demand to buy this excess power. Because they are extremely overbuilt, the minimal output from these sources during suboptimal conditions is more than enough to meet normal demands; we just shut off the flexible additional demand we added. We "shape" our "demand" to match what we are able to supply.
load more comments
(9 replies)
A really strong elastic band.
load more comments
(30 replies)
... 3000-megawatt Moss Landing energy storage ...
"megawatt" is not a quantity of energy.
Also, are those battery fires more frequent // important than petrol ones ?
load more comments
(14 replies)
view more: next ›