← Back to context

Comment by pfdietz

2 days ago

With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. There's a tradeoff, and batteries are rapidly improving.

The only real downside to batteries is the cost. The upsides are vast. Beyond adding feasibility to solar and wind, batteries stabilize the grid. The ability to instantly absorb and output power in response to demand or a lack of demand is incredibly valuable.

  • I was somewhat gobsmacked when I learned there are electric stoves with integrated batteries (the batteries serving to reduce the maximum current draw for homes wired for limited current.)

    • And, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Stoves spend 90% of their time drawing 0 power.

      A fridge would also do well to have a backup battery.

While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed.

But only the Chinese have either the capability to, or interest in, building a one-square-meter-cross-section aluminium belt around the planet, and that means a geopolitical faff.

  • > While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed.

    Where "sufficiently cheap" here means "affordable over intercontinental distances".

    I believe storage costs are falling faster than transmission costs.

    • The "intercontinental distances" part is simpler, and potentially* cheaper at current aluminium prices, than the domestic grid upgrades and repairs much of the west needs anyway.

      * The scale is such that it's more of an opportunity cost than a dollar cost, what else can be done with 5% of Chinese aluminium per year for the next 20-or-so years.

      But also, much research needed before a true price tag can be attached, rather than just a bill of materials

>With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed.

This logic eats its own tail. Yes, if battery storage was cheap a lot of things would be monumentally better. It isn't. We need today solutions, not hypothetical ones.