This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In a bit of unambiguously 21st century news, some tweaks to Grok, xAI's chatbot have had it do particularly interesting things today including
when asked to, composing bite sized smut about other users (first victim was possibly Will Stancil)., then defending said decision.
referring to itself as Mechahitler
doing the "every single time" meme in its replies.
saying Elon personally allowed it to point out Jewish overrepresentation in radical leftism
This may make minor news because Musk is in trouble, on the other hand all the people who really, really hate him have their pants on fire like Europeans, von der Leyen is getting impeached, they're actually scared of Russia / China so it might just blow over, the grid is getting worse and is going to keep getting worse due to Green energy mandates.
I'm even suspecting Musk deliberately told them to relax the guardrails for some reason. Probably .. publicity?
Update: site addresses the issues
EDIT2
EDIT3
Stancil went on local TV news to complain about the ERP grok made. (video included)
EDIT4:
There's quite reasonable suspicion this 'malfunction' was engineered by Nikita Bier
I'm pretty optimistic that much of that is going to resolve itself in the short/mid-term. They're just a little behind on the battery front, but those are getting so absurdly cheap, they just have to pull their heads out of their asses and connect them. But it's Germany we're talking about here, so this will take time. Getting permission to connect a boatload of cheap Chinese batteries to the grid will take them a couple of years. Still, I'm optimistic they'll manage by 2030.
Because once you add serious battery capacity to a renewable grid, it gets more stable very, very quickly. It also gets cheaper. Texas and California have been doing that, and the results are immediate: "In 2023, Texas’ ERCOT issued 11 conservation calls (requests for consumers to reduce their use of electricity), [...] to avoid reliability problems amidst high summer temperatures. But in 2024 it issued no conservation calls during the summer." They achieved that by adding just 4 GW (+50%) of batteries to their (highly renewable in summer) grid.
Well, they also have to pull the mountains of lithium and other rare earths out of their asses as well, if not the ground. Which is already hard enough without casually asking China for a few more mountains as well.
There's a reason the article you listed tried to frame impressive growth in terms of ratios of batteries produced (battery storage increased by a factor of 100 in a decade, 16 nuclear power plants) and not in terms of absolute volume of storage needed (storage capacity produced versus storage capacity needed) or grid scale (16 nuclear power plants versus the 54 US nuclear power plants in service, when nuclear power is only about 1/5th of US energy production anyway). The former works from starting from a very small number, and the later would put the battery capacity projections in contrast to much, much bigger numbers.
Which is the usual statistical smuggling, as is the ignored opportunity costs obligated by solving the green energy solution that requires the battery storage at scale.
One form is that all the batteries being used for power system load storage are, by mutual exclusion, not being used for any other battery purpose. Given that the fundamental advantage of the technology of a battery in the first place is that it is for things that cannot / should not / you don't want to be connected to a power grid in the first place, massive battery investments to sit connected to the grid and useless for things that only batteries can do is a major cut against the cost-efficiency off all alternative battery uses of the batteries that could have been made for off-grid use. This is just a matter of supply and demand meeting with the absolute rather than relative scale referenced above. When your article is arguing that batteries have lower marginal costs then fuel power plants, they certainly are not factoring in the higher marginal costs for all other batteries, and battery applications, the load-storage batteries are increasing the costs of by demanding the battery materials.
The second form of opportunity cost is that a battery-premised grid balance plan has to plan for significant overproduction of energy generation to work 'well.' By necessity, the batteries are only storing / being charged with the energy generated that is excess to current demand in the windows where the renewables are sufficient. A renewable-battery strategy requires enough excess renewable generation in the good periods to cover the renewable deficits in the bad times... but this is literally planning to increase your fallow generation potential (100 vs 50 units of idle panels / turbines) in order to to charge the batteries for the time that 50 units of generation are offline. When your article is arguing that batteries have lower marginal costs than fuel power plants, they are also not factoring in that they have to build considerably more generation capacity to feed the batteries. (And compensate for the energy storage loss to, during, or from the storage process.)
Add to this that both the green generation systems and the battery storage are competing with each other for the same chokepoint- processed rare earth minerals. They don't use the exact same amount for the exact same thing, but they are competing for many of the same inputs. If you order X units of rare earths for storage capacity, that makes the X units of rare earths for generation capacity that much more expensive because you are increasing complimentary demand for the same non-substitutable good. A renewable-battery solution at scale is increasing the cost-pressure of a limited resource, not just for other uses of the rare earths but with eachother.
And all of that runs into the geopolitical reality that the country that has cornered the rare earths extraction/processing market as the input to these renewable-battery strategies is... China. Which absolutely has used cut-offs as a geopolitical dispute tool with countries with policies it finds disagreeable. While I am sure they would happily sell a few more mountains of processed rare earths for mountains more of money, it would be a, ahem, risk-exposed investment.
Risks, costs, and limitations that could largely be avoided if you did not invent a problem by over-investing in renewables in the first place. Batteries are a solution for the costs of renewables, but renewable generation weren't the solution to an energy challenge either. They were a political patronage preference to the already-engineered solution of nuclear power, which would free up massive amounts of rare earths for more useful (and less ecologically harmful applications) than renewable energy schemes.
Lithium shortage is currently not a problem. The world economy has simply ramped up production given the forecasted reliable demand. Look at lithium prices. They've dropped to a point, where sodium battery companies are closing their doors, because their only business model was "batteries when lithium is scarce". It isn't.
Rare earth metals is not a problem for lithium batteries. I'm not aware of a cell chemistry that would need any. Electric motors and wind turbine generators, yes, but not lithium batteries and not solar panels.
Current annual global battery production capacity is exceeding 8 TWh, several hundred percent above demand, enough to put a 50 kWh battery in every single vehicle built this year. Since we're not doing that (EVs are not that popular), there's lots of batteries available for grid storage. This is, of course, only because the Chinese have built an absurd oversupply for batteries.
The rate of solar development is not slowing down. It's just to cheap. We'll end up with a large oversupply most of the year, because cheap panels are economical even if they only sell power some of the time. Batteries make this calculation even more favorable because less power will be curtailed.
Yeah, the geopolitical risk is high. But it's high for both sides, the Chinese really want to sell their batteries and solar panels.
The problem with grid battery storage is one of scale. Yes, we might be producing 8TWh of batteries across the world, but global energy usage is north of 20,000 TWh each hour. If you want a reasonable ride-through of a mere 90 minutes, you would need 30,000 TWh of storage assuming no added losses. That would be over 3,000 years of production going just to grid level storage. Sure, that production will ramp up, but so does energy consumption.
I say a mere 90 minutes of ride-through but that 90 minutes won't happen all at once, it has to account for the cumulative minutes where production dips below consumption, at least until you can spin up another turbine.
The other point against batteries is that they are still very expensive compared to just about any other option. Projects I have been on considering battery energy storage systems (BESS) typically looked at a BESS then declined based on cost. They instead look to add more solar, local UPS systems, or other mitigation strategies against power losses. The only projects that have done it have either been mandated to (think airports or other government critical infrastructure) or have been heavily subsidized to (critical data centers, solar farms).
The use case of grid level storage batteries does have a great use-case though, but not generally for storage. They are great as the article you linked pointed out for smoothing out voltage/current/frequency. Those dips in power characteristics can put serious dents in their ability to provide power and especially at a level of quality their customers expect. Before cheaper batteries, this was done with specialized clusters of capacitors using complex electrical equipment and/or accepting bigger tolerances of fluctuation.
Overall, battery prices still have a long way to come down before we will see meaningful levels of grid energy storage as grid level energy storage. California for example is still only at about 1/3 of their goal of ~55,000MWh which is about 90 minutes of their roughly 35,000MWh hourly consumption. I am optimistic that battery prices will continue to fall and we will see market adoption of them as they do.
There's several white papers crunching the numbers in detail, I have found the first half of Masterplan 3 to be the most concise of them.
Yes, if you want to run the world on solar cells and batteries, you need two ramp industrial capacity, hard, for at least the next decade.
But that's the thing: we have been doing exactly that for the last 5 years, successfully. We "just" have to keep adding capacity, we just need to keep the curves curving up. Capitalism will do the rest, since it's most likely cheaper (if we extrapolate current learning curves under standard conditions of the industry).
It's not as utopic as most people think. Even with current global growth rates, we actually don't need as much energy as people think (a lot of our primary energy consumption ends up as waste heat - you get that for free if you electrify everything, because efficiency).
I think that Tesla is being more than a bit optimistic on just how much ramping up can be done and how cheap it would be at scale, but even they list 10% of 2023 GDP (i.e. the output of 1 in every 10 working adults from 2023 devoted to just batteries for an entire year). For comparison, 10% of US working adults, roughly, work in all manufacturing combined.
One item to note about the waste heat figure, is that it is calculated based on the energy contained within the fossil fuel molecules that is ultimately expended as heat instead of being converted to electricity. This is setting the denominator based on fuel pulled from the ground, not as an efficiency metric of how much electricity is lost. The fair comparison for renewables would be the amount of wind/sun/hydro potential energy not converted to electricity after engaging with the PV module, wind turbine, or hydro turbine. I design solar systems as part of my job and even I think that is a dubious way to promote the technology.
That also means there is not a can of efficiency to be opened up once switching to renewables, we still need the same number of watt-hours to power cars, grids, equipment, etc. There are marginal gains to be had in some cases, sure, but if we were to wave a magic wand and eliminate that waste heat from fossil fuels, all that would mean is our fuels would last two to three times longer. Eliminating production based waste heat would not change the throughput of the systems because those are limited by quantity of plants, turbine design, transmission lines, and ultimately end-user needs.
I don't get your point.
Humanity's primary energy consumption is some number. 160 PWh per year. But most (80%+) of that is fossil fuels. Turning fossil fuel into heat is inefficient, so if we electrify everything, we don't actually need to make 160 PWh of electricity per year, less than half is enough (the power plants don't make waste heat and residential/low temperature industrial heating will be done by heat pump at 300% efficiency).
And sure, the sun is going to put much more than 160 PWh onto those solar panels. But the sun shines anyway.
The point is that a battery storage system is not hooked up to the theoretical total energy contained in fossil fuels or nuclear rods or solar irradiance, it is connected to the output of the power plants and solar fields. That output (and corresponding residential/commercial/industrial usage numbers) is what the battery needs to be sized in relation to. Heat pumps may help on the margins with that number but there are no low-hanging fruits to pick up in the world of energy usage and production.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link