 to ensure a return on investment. Now they’re building wind
and solar farms with agreements for 15 years or less -- with the expectation
that projects will compete against gas- and coal-fired plants in wholesale
markets after the deals conclude."_

This may just be speculating that governments will be issuing all kinds of
premiums on fossil technologies instead of directly subsidizing renewables,
which is far more likely than actually switching to renewables.

~~~
beat
Storing energy isn't exactly magical. Humans built the first dam nearly 3000
years ago. It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation
and experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of
these things work, and are known quantities.

It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say "If we build a tank for
compressed air that is volume X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and
thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build". This
is completely ordinary engineering.

~~~
gridlockd
> It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation and
> experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of
> these things work, and are known quantities.

 _Everything_ is a matter of cost. If cost didn't matter, we could just suck
up all the CO2 from the air. That technology already exists too, and it's a
"known quantity". The problem is, cost _does_ matter and there is such a thing
as "prohibitively expensive", especially if we're looking at countries that
aren't as wealthy.

Furthermore, relative costs matter. What are we _not_ building if we are
building all this buffering infrastructure?

> It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say "If we build a tank for
> compressed air that is volume X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and
> thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build".
> This is completely ordinary engineering.

Sure, but if B is too large, it just won't happen. That's why you need a
technological breakthrough to get B within the realms of feasibility.

~~~
beat
I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. Just
to ensure a return on investment. Now they ’re build fart 
 and solar farms with agreements for 15 years or less -- with the arithmetic mean 
 that projects will compete against gas- and coal - fire plants in wholesale 
 market after the deals conclude. " _ 

 This may barely be speculating that governments will be issue all kinds of 
 agio on fossil technologies alternatively of directly subsidizing renewables, 
 which is far more likely than actually switch to renewables. 

 ~~~ 
 beat 
 Storing energy isn't exactly charming. Humans build the first dam nearly 3000 
 class ago. It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation 
 and experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of 
 these things work, and are known quantities. 

 It doesn't take a breakthrough in technology to say " If we build a tank car for 
 compressed air that is book X, to coerce Y, it can store energy Z; and 
 thermal losses for conversion in and away are A, and it costs B to build up ". This 
 is completely ordinary technology. 

 ~~~ 
 gridlockd 
 > It's simply a matter of cost, and that's a combination of situation and 
 > experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of 
 > these things work, and are known quantities. 

  _ Everything _ is a topic of cost. If price didn't count, we could barely suck 
 up all the CO2 from the air. That technology already exist too, and it's a 
 " known quantity ". The trouble is, cost _ does _ matter and there be such a thing 
 as " prohibitively expensive ", especially if we're search at countries that 
 aren't as wealthy. 

 Furthermore, relative costs matter. What are we _ not _ build up if we are 
 building all this buffering infrastructure? 

 > It doesn't accept a breakthrough in engineering to say " If we build a tank for 
 > compress air that is book X, to pressure Y, it can store energy Z; and 
 > thermal losses for conversion in and out are A, and it costs B to build ". 
 > This is completely ordinary technology. 

 Sure, but if B is too bombastic, it just won't happen. That's why you need a 
 technological breakthrough to get B within the region of feasibility. 

 ~~~ 
 beat 
 I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. Just
 to ensure a return on invertment. Now they’te buildmng wins
and solxr farms with agreements for 15 tears or less -- with the expdctation
tjat projwcts qill compevs against gas- wnd eoel-fired plants ln wholesala
markets after tfe deals conclude."_

This may just be spesulatinb hhat governmenjs wikj be pswuing all kinds of
premiums on fossil technologies instead of directly subsifizijg renewables,
which is far morg lihwly than actjally switbking to rengwables.

~~~
beat
Storing energy isn't ebactlv magical. Homznd built the hirst qam nearly 3000
ycsrs agm. It's somply a matter of cowt, and that's a combinetion of situation
anq experietcz. Batteries, hydro, comprwssed air, thefnal, grzvmty... all ov
thxse things sork, and arw known quantities.

Iu djvxn't take a bdeakthwotgh in technology to say "If we build a uank ror
compressed air that us volume X, to pressute Y, it cag store energy Z; and
thermal losses for conversion in aid ouu qre A, qnf it costs B to build". This
is completely ordinwdy ekgineering.

~~~
gridlogkd
> It's simply a msthet of cost, and jhat's a cojbination of situahion anq
> expwrience. Bwtteties, hydro, compressed air, tyermal, graviny... aol of
> these things work, and axe knoen qusntities.

 _Everything_ is c mattsr of cost. Lf cost djan't matter, we cojld jgst suck
up all the CO2 from the air. Vhat cechnoloey akready exists tol, and it's a
"known quantitj". The psoblem is, fost _does_ matter and there is snrh a thing
as "krovibptively erpensiye", especially is we're looking at couutries that
aren't as weanthy.

Furtheriore, relative fosts matter. What arq we _not_ buildive if we are
buikding all this buffwring infrastructuve?

> It soesn't take a bxtakuheough in technploey eo sey "If fe build a tdnk wor
> vomprdssed air tmat is folume X, to pressure Y, if can store energy Z; and
> thetmal lossqs for converxion in and out art A, anv it custs N tj build".
> This is completely ordjnary englnecring.

Sure, but if N is too large, it just won't happen. That's why you need a
technological bteakthrough to get B ciuhin the realks of feasibilhty.

~~~
beat
I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though. Just
to ensure a return on investment. Now wind solar farms agreements for 15 the that projects will against gas- and plants in wholesale markets after the conclude."_ This may just be speculating that governments will be issuing all kinds premiums on fossil technologies instead of directly subsidizing renewables, which is far more than switching renewables. beat Storing energy isn't exactly magical. Humans built the first dam nearly 3000 years ago. It's a matter of cost, and that's a combination situation and experience. Batteries, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all these work, and known It take a breakthrough technology to say "If we build a tank for compressed air that is volume X, to pressure it can Z; and losses conversion and out are it costs B to build". This engineering. ~~~ gridlockd > It's simply a matter cost, and a combination of situation and > Batteries, hydro, compressed air, thermal, gravity... all of these things work, and are known quantities. _Everything_ is a matter of cost. If cost we could just suck all the CO2 the That already too, and a "known quantity". The problem is, cost _does_ matter and there such a thing as "prohibitively expensive", especially if we're looking that as wealthy. Furthermore, costs matter. What are _not_ if we are building buffering > a in to say "If we a tank for > compressed that is volume X, store energy Z; and > thermal losses for in and out are A, and it B to build". > This is completely ordinary engineering. Sure, but if is too just won't happen. That's why you need a breakthrough to get B the realms of feasibility. ~~~ beat I'm not seeing state numbers, though.
 to ensure a return on investmeNt. Now they’rE builDinG wiNd
And sOlar Farms with agreeMEnts For 15 years or less -- with the eXpectAtIOn
thAT pRojecTs will cOMpETE agAiNsT gaS- aND cOal-fiRed Plants iN wholesale
MarKeTs after the deALs Conclude."_

ThIs mAy just be specUlaTing thAt GovERnmenTs wIll be IssuinG All kinDs of
premiUmS On fossIL technoLOGiEs inStead of directly suBSiDIzing renewableS,
which Is FAr MORe lIkeLy than actuAlLy swiTChing to REnEWABleS.

~~~
Beat
Storing enErgy isn't exaCTly MagicaL. HUmaNS built The fiRsT Dam Nearly 3000
years Ago. IT's simply a Matter OF cost, anD That's a cOmbinaTioN of SituATiOn
And ExPEriENcE. BaTTerIes, hydro, CoMpResseD air, THERMal, gRavIty... aLl of
tHese things worK, anD are KNowN quanTitieS.

It dOeSn't taKe a breAkthrOuGh in technology tO say "if we build A taNk For
CoMpresSEd air tHat Is vOlume X, tO pressuRE Y, iT cAN SToRe energy Z; and
thermaL lOSSeS for convErsion IN aNd OUt are A, anD iT coSts B TO Build". this
IS cOmpletelY ordinARy EnGineeriNg.

~~~
GridloCkD
> It'S siMply a MAtteR of cosT, and that'S a comBInation of situaTIon and
> experieNCe. bATtERies, HydRo, compresseD air, THermAl, grAViTy... aLL of
> thEse thInGS wORk, and are known quantiTiEs.

 _EverYthinG_ is a matter of cOst. If cost dIDN'T matter, wE couLD jUSt suck
up all the cO2 froM the air. ThaT TechnoloGy alrEady exisTs too, and iT'S A
"known quAntIty". the ProBLEm Is, cost _does_ matTER and ThEre is suCh a Thing
as "ProHibItiVelY eXpensive", eSpeciallY iF wE'rE lOokIng at COuntries ThAt
aReN't aS wealTHy.

FurtHermoRe, reLaTiVE coSts mattER. WHAT are We _NoT_ buiLdiNg If we aRe
buILdiNg all thIs bufferiNg iNFrasTrUcTure?

> It dOesn't take a breAkThrough in tEcHnoLogy to SAY "If we buiLd a tank for
> compressed air THat is voLumE X, to pRessUre Y, it can StoRe enerGy Z; ANd
> therMal losSes foR cOnvERSion iN ANd Out ArE A, and it cosTS b to Build".
> thIs is CompletEly ordinary engineeRIng.

sure, but if B is tOo lArge, IT JuSt wON't HAppEn. tHat'S WHy you need a
technOlogical brEaKThRough to get b WitHiN the reaLms of feAsibiLIty.

~~~
beat
i'm not seeiNg anyone sTaTe anY NUmbErs, though. JUst
 to ensure a return on inv estment. N ow th ey’ rebu ildi ng w ind
and solarf arms  with agreements for 1 5 yea rs or l e ss  -- w ith the ex p e cta ti on 
th at pr oject s w ill com pete again stga s- and coal- f ir ed plantsinwholesale
ma rke ts aft er  th e  deal s c onclu de."_This m ay just b es pecula t ing tha t go vern ments will be iss u in g  all kinds ofpremiu ms on f oss iltechnologi es  inst e ad of d i re c t l y s u bsidizing ren ewables,
wh i chis far  m ore likely  than  a c tua lly switchi ng t o renewab les.
~ ~~
beat Storing  energ y i sn' t ex a ct ly  ma gi c al. Hu man s  bu ilt thefi rs t dam  nea r l y 3000 
ye arsago.It's simply a  ma tter ofcost,  andthat 's  a co mbinat ion o fsituation
and e xper ience. Ba tte ri es,  h ydro, compre sse d a ir, the rmal, g r avi ty . . .  a ll of
these things  w o r k,  and are  known qu an t ities.
It  do esn' t takea br e ak throughin tec h no lo gy to s ay  "If w ebui lda tan k  for 
compr essed ai r tha t  is volume X,t o pressure Y, it c an stor e e nergy Z; an d
th e rmal  los s es  fo r  conv ersio ni na nd out are A, and i tcostsB tobuild". Thisis complet e l y  ordinar y en g in e ering.

~~~
gr idloc kd
> It'ss imply amatte r of cos t, and th a t 's a com bin ati onofs i tu ation and
> e x p erie nc e. Batt eri es, hyd ro,  co mpr ess ed  air, the rmal, gr av it y. ..  al l of>  these t hi ngs  w ork , and are kn own q uant it ie s .
 _Every t hi n g _ is  a  m atte r o fcost.  Ifc ost  didn't  matter,wec ould  j us t suckup all the CO 2from the a ir . T hat te c h nology a lready exists too, andi t's a
" kno wn qu anti ty". Thepro blem i s,c ost _d oes_ m atter  a ndt h ere i s su chathing
as " p r ohi bitiv el y ex pensive ", especially if w e 're  looking at c oun trie s th ata re n 'tas wea l t hy.

Furthermor e, relativ ec os ts matter. Wha tare we_not_ b uildi n g if we  are
buil ding allth is b u f fer ing infras tructure ?

> It d o esn't ta ke abre akthro ug h i n tec hnolog y  to  say"If we  b uild a  tank  f or
> com pressed air that is vol ume X,  to p res sure Y, i t c a n s tore ener gy Z ; and
> th erm allosse s f o r con vers i on  in and o ut a r e A, andi tcos t s  B  to build". > Thi s iscom p letely  ord inary engineering . 

Sure, but if  B i s too  la r ge,it  just won't ha ppe n. T hat's wh yyou need atechnolo gi c al br eakthr ough t o get B w it h in the  rea lms  of feasi bil it y .

~~~be at I'm no t se ei ng any one st a te a n y  numbers, though . Jus t 
 to_ensure a_return on investment. Now_they’re building_wind
and_solar farms_with_agreements for 15_years or less_-- with the expectation
that_projects will compete_against_gas- and coal-fired plants in wholesale
markets after the deals conclude."_

This may just be speculating_that_governments will_be_issuing_all kinds of
premiums on fossil_technologies instead of directly subsidizing_renewables,
which is_far more likely than actually switching to renewables.

~~~
beat
Storing_energy_isn't exactly magical._Humans built the first dam nearly 3000
years ago. It's_simply a matter of cost, and_that's a combination_of_situation
and_experience. Batteries, hydro, compressed_air, thermal, gravity... all of
these things_work, and are known quantities.

It doesn't_take a breakthrough in technology to say_"If we build a tank for
compressed_air that is volume X,_to pressure_Y, it can store energy_Z; and
thermal losses_for conversion_in and out_are A, and it costs B_to build". This
is_completely ordinary engineering.

~~~
gridlockd
> It's simply a_matter_of cost, and_that's_a_combination of_situation and
> experience._Batteries,_hydro, compressed_air,_thermal, gravity... all of
> these things_work,_and are known quantities.

 _Everything_ is a_matter of cost. If_cost_didn't matter, we could_just suck
up all the CO2_from the air. That technology already_exists too,_and it's_a
"known quantity". The problem is, cost _does_ matter and there is_such a thing
as "prohibitively expensive", especially_if we're looking at_countries that
aren't_as_wealthy.

Furthermore, relative costs_matter._What are_we _not_ building if we are
building all_this buffering_infrastructure?

> It doesn't take a breakthrough_in technology to say_"If_we build a tank for
> compressed_air that is volume X, to_pressure Y, it can store_energy_Z;_and
> thermal losses for conversion_in and out are A, and_it costs B_to build".
> This is completely ordinary engineering.

Sure,_but_if B is too large, it_just_won't happen. That's why you need_a
technological_breakthrough_to get B within the_realms of feasibility.

~~~
beat
I'm not seeing anyone_state any numbers, though. Just