this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2022
14 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

35663 readers
228 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
14
Puerto Rico - a case study of terrible energy policy (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Recently the US government has announced that 12 billion in funds will be used to "modernize Puerto Rico's grid" with special attention to "their local economy", and complete with a promise of 100% renewable sources by 2050.

Previously, due to provisions in disaster relief funding, they had said that they would only repair the existing coal and petroleum based grid and not allow funds to be used for any changes or upgrades.

They also promise that somehow this "modern" grid magically won't go down with the next weather event or earthquake.

So this is a win, right? Not so fast. Let's take a look at a different way for a moment. There are 1.44 million households in PR. A 1500 watt solar and wind hybrid energy system complete with battery and inverter is available on Amazon for $2000 retail. This is enough to power any home less than 1200 square feet, even if they aren't insulated. So for only about $3 billion, every single home can have their own individual "100% renewable" power system that can't be interrupted due to a weather event or earthquake. That's based on retail and not bulk pricing. For another $2 billion, every single house can be insulated, assuming none are currently, reducing the energy needs. For another $1 billion, each household can be provided with a heat pump, assuming none have air conditioning or heating currently. So for a total of $6 billion, half of what the grid would cost, every single home in PR can be retrofitted to be energy efficient and use 100% renewable energy. Tomorrow, not by 2050.

Let's assume we can do the same for commerce and industry with the remaining $6 billion. Hell, even if it costs $20 billion, wouldn't that be better than another stupid grid?

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Since the AAA was recently replaced with Luma (a private company from Canada) I don't see us getting our own solar panels ever.

I do have higher electric bills and the same amount (often longer - have to throw out food longer) power outages.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@[email protected] does this help clarify things for you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Absolutely not. I'll focus on storage.

  • Individualist energy storage for every single person on the planet is infeasable for several reasons:
    • There isn't enough rare earth minerals to produce the deep-cycle batteries for everyone on the planet.
    • Mining for these for even a miniscule amount of the population would wreck the environment.
    • The lifetime of batteries is < 10 years usually, a recurring cost, and most importantly an unimaginable environmental burden to dispose of.
    • That's why energy storage in every country is done collectively: the largest energy storage "battery" on the planet is pumped water storage. Every country must use this, and it only works collectively: hydro -> electric re-conversion and the massive lakes required aren't feasible for every individual, or even community.
  • 1500W, with a capacity factor of probably 30% max, means max ˜ 450W. The average US household uses about 1200W consistently. 450W is not going to cover heating, AC, cooking, and refridgeration for most of the world.
  • Massive waste of your most important resource: labor time. Maintenance and setup? With a centralized power grid, you have techs and people that setup and maintain the systems of generation and distribution. With individualized setups, now every single person has to learn how to install, maintain, troubleshoot, and care for their setup. This multiplies the overall labor time required from a small number of dedicated people, to now every single household. Who's going to train them?
  • The average monthly salary of most 3rd world countries is < $300 / month. So 6 months of salary would be required just for this initial setup, and that doesn't include maintenance. The lifetime of batteries is usually < 10 years also, and they are by far the most expensive part of this.
  • Every energy system is susceptible to the weather, individualist solutions are no better.

Individualist solutions to energy are not the solution. We need collective power generation, storage, and distribution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The kit from Amazon was merely used to illustrate how much money was being misallocated and all of the numbers were rounded way up. In actuality the cost would be much much lower. Also, you would want to use much newer technology and not the capitalist crap from Amazon.

Battery technology exists that doesn't use Rare Earths and even wind turbines exist that use only ferrites on the order of 100s of grams and Iron is quite readily available.

You're just plain wrong about pumped water storage. Not sure what convinced you of that but it's just not true.

It's also preposterous that every person has to figure out how to install and maintain it.

Average household usage doesn't apply because the average house isn't insulated and I already addressed that.

You're wrong about battery lifetime as well.

Power poles can be toppled very easily and only one pole needs to go down for a whole region to be affected. Compare that to how hard it is to destroy a solar panel. To say "nothing is immune to weather" is just more bad faith arguing.

Talking about salaries is again more bad faith arguing because I was illustrating a less costly way, specifically.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You're just plain wrong about pumped water storage. Not sure what convinced you of that but it's just not true.

What do you think is the largest form of energy storage then?

Pumped storage is by far the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2020, the United States Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for around 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed throughput capacity of over 181 GW, of which about 29 GW are in the United States, and a total installed storage capacity of over 1.6 TWh, of which about 250 GWh are in the United States.

link

You're wrong about battery lifetime as well.

Deep cycle battery lifetime: 3-8 years. source.

Battery technology exists that doesn't use Rare Earths ...

Such as? Deep cycle batteries are mostly lead-acid, and lithium-ion is lithium, which there is a minimum amount of. I've never heard of a single off-grid setup that doesn't use deep-cycle batteries.

wind turbines exist that use only ferrites on the order of 100s of grams and Iron is quite readily available.

Of course, wind turbines don't store electricity, they generate it. But also, solar panels do use a lot of rare earth metals.

It's also preposterous that every person has to figure out how to install and maintain it

So how do you propose maintaining a "decentralized energy grid"? Have technicians going to every house every few months to check on their setups?

Power poles can be toppled very easily and only one pole needs to go down for a whole region to be affected. Compare that to how hard it is to destroy a solar panel.

You think you've "reduced" labor here, but actually you've increased it. Weather can absolutely mess up solar panels and wind turbines, and now instead of fixing a single power line when a storm hits, you have to fix hundreds of tiny power stations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What do you think is the largest form of energy storage then?

WTF does that have to do with anything? You sound like an American capitalist with your BiGgEsT nUmBeR iS bEsTeSt. Oh sorry. GOAT is what it's called. Did you really just GOAT me on energy technology?

I study and implement technology as a profession. It's what I've done all day every day for almost 2 decades. I'd like to help you broaden your understanding, but you seem closed to that. You just seem to want to be right on the internet, and not actually examine things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I really don't care what your profession is. If you think thousands of deep cycle batteries and individualist libertarian solutions to an energy crisis are going to work, you should at least address how a world where every house owns their own deep-cycle batteries would be feasible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You say deep cycle like a republican days deep state, what does that even mean to you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

The term is traditionally mainly used for lead–acid batteries in the same form factor as automotive batteries; and contrasted with starter or 'cranking' automotive batteries designed to deliver only a small part of their capacity in a short, high-current burst for cranking the engine.

The term literally has no meaning outside of ancient internal combustion engines (not even modern ones). All batteries are presumed to be full discharge in modern times.

There's aluminum air batteries, there's solid state batteries, etc

Doesn't have to be batteries either. In around 2017 a really promising flywheel was on the market, then suddenly disappeared, but not before data was published on the dark web. Most likely killed by a capitalist with competing battery investments.

There's myriad of energy storage options. For you to focus on this one thing and think it means that sustainable tech is impossible is just illogical.