Solar is cool but solar that can make it through the night and a couple cloudy days is way cooler
[–] AnthonyMouse 3 days ago
[–] chii 3 days ago
only natural gas plants can do this. a coal plant cannot spin up just for the night and turn back off when the sun comes up - it's incredibly inefficient and probably causes more premature wear/tear too.
[–] Animats 3 days ago
The big issue is what's called "ramp rate" - how fast can output power be increased or decreased? This tends to be around 1% to 3% of capacity per minute. See Figure B-2 in [1], which is a detailed discussion of how to improve your coal-fired power plant's ramp rate.
Natural gas plants have much higher ramp rates, and for batteries, it's under a second. Nuclear plants can be ramped up and down, slowly, but since it's all capital cost, cutting output raises the price of the power.
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
Batteries are coming, and will solve it, but it will still take time for them to be come cheap enough.
Only once we have ~7 days of storage (~100 GWh of storage) will we be able to get rid of the last fossil plants.
[–] olegp 1 day ago
[–] pebbly_bread 2 days ago
How long is the hope those batteries will last? There's surely no way Finland can run off battery power for even one month, much less a whole winter.
edit: perhaps I misunderstood and your comment on batteries was more related to the reliability of wind?
[–] weberer 2 days ago
Finland's power grid stats are open to the public. You can click the month view to see how the different power sources fluctuate.
https://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-system/
Also fun fact: a lot of solar panels in Finland are mounted vertically to walls rather than rooftops. That's because we're so far north that the sun just hangs around the horizon rather than going directly overhead. You end up catching more sunlight pointing directly south.
[–] dns_snek 2 days ago
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
"Increased rates of component life consumption due to thermal fatigue, mechanical fatigue and wear caused by differential thermal expansion comprise the bulking of cycling (costs)," according to the International Energy Agency's Coal Industry Advisory Board.
"Every time a power plant is turned on and off, the boiler, steam lines, turbine and auxiliary components go through unavoidably large thermal and pressure stresses," the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wrote in a report on cycling costs published in April 2012.
"
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/to-survive-c...
[–] IX-103 2 days ago
[–] Ericson2314 2 days ago
[–] Havoc 3 days ago
Other countries are better positioned. e.g. UK has really spiky wind energy. Right this second more than half the grid is wind. Which is both cool and problematic for managing the grid.
Grid scale cheap storage would dramatic help manage that chaos
[–] rob74 3 days ago
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
For Europe to get rid of more fossils without putting the grid at risk we will need more storage.
[–] Lio 3 days ago
That and low energy density storage located at sea with the turbines.
[–] pyrale 2 days ago
[–] Ericson2314 2 days ago
Storage has been making impressive strides, but the cliff here (in storage and transmission, the latter of which we in the US still are sucking at) puts nuclear back in the running.
[–] AnthonyMouse 2 days ago
[–] HDThoreaun 3 days ago
[–] Panzer04 3 days ago
[–] shagie 3 days ago
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956
If you shut down by day, it can take multiple hours for it to be able to provide full load... and multiple hours for it to shut down cleanly. During this time it is producing power at less than optimal rates and/or using the fossil fuels to keep the wheels spinning and in sync with the grid so that they don't have to go through a phase matching period.
(aside for coal - note that it takes more than 12 hours for a coal plant to get running from a cold start)
[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
Wind also helps since wind makes more power at night, as does demand which is dramatically lower at night.
For coal, Great. Making coal economical is excellent. We should have banned it worldwide 20 years ago.
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
[–] traceroute66 2 days ago
It might help if the US wasn't so anti off-shore wind at the moment.
[–] shagie 2 days ago
[–] HDThoreaun 3 days ago
[–] pinkgolem 3 days ago
That makes 300B
Eu pricing
[–] GlibMonkeyDeath 2 days ago
And we can sure find those trillions when we want to: https://defensecommunities.org/2026/04/trump-requests-1-5-tr.... Or https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/extend.... Or...
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
[–] traceroute66 2 days ago
And if we subtract all those datacentres crammed with Nvidia GPUs ? ;)
If we're being honest here, the problem with the US is that it has always treated any sort of energy source as being infinite and has always been quite extravagant in its use of energy.
Whether a preponderance for gas-guzzling SUVs or datacentres the story is always the same. The US mentality is there will always be infinite oil in the pump and infinite electrons in the cable.
[–] jerven 2 days ago
I also think your trillion number is at least double the raw cell cost today.
[–] loomy7 2 days ago
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
[–] thelastgallon 2 days ago
Reserving 20% of that capacity to supply power back to the grid is 5TWh.
EVs can be charged for free during the day, ~20% of solar is lost due to curtailment. Even if a significant percentage (10 - 20%) of the people decide they are going on long drives from Florida to Vancouver and turn off supply-power-to-grid-for-money in the app, its fine, there are plenty of cars. It is the cheapest, most resilient, distributed and self-healing energy ecosystem. Only one problem, it won't make the super billionaires money. Unless it can be packaged in a way to make the super billionaires money, its a no go in US.
This infrastructure buildout costs nothing, people buy new cars all the time (~20M/year), just buy EVs instead. Because people are providing the capital and the storage infrastructure, they should be paid for it.
[–] bijowo1676 3 days ago
[–] buckle8017 2 days ago
It's also pretty old.
"USA should look into thing it practically invented" good meme
[–] bijowo1676 1 day ago
dont you see the problem with USA solving the problem and USA still having a lack of energy storage issue ???
[–] shagie 3 days ago
There's a good number of 'em: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pumped-storage_hydroe...
https://www.ferc.gov/media/licensed-pumped-storage-projects-...
You'll see that most of them are in the Appalachian mountains and in the Sierra mountain range.
The one in Missouri is one of the interesting ones that isn't in either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_...
> The Taum Sauk pumped storage plant is a power station in the St. Francois mountain region of Missouri, United States about 90 miles (140 km) south of St. Louis near Lesterville, Missouri, in Reynolds County.
It has a hydraulic head of 860 feet and that represents the challenge - you need to find places in the US where you can get several hundred feet of elevation in a short distance.
Hypothetically, lets build one in Minnesota... Taum Sauk Mountain is the highest point in Missouri. The highest point in Minnesota is Eagle Mountain (in the boundary waters - you can't build there, pretend we can) ... the elevation to the top os 550 feet (about half what Taum Sauk provides) over 3.5 miles (Taum Sauk is just over 1 mile). ( https://maps.app.goo.gl/vHfWarwubaLvsf5z7 )
Much of the US is too flat for it to be useful.
[–] justincormack 3 days ago
[–] rr808 3 days ago
[–] acdha 2 days ago
(That’s the answer for the northeast, too: New England has no shortage of wind all winter long and batteries don’t care where the electricity comes from)
[–] saltcured 3 days ago
[–] AnthonyMouse 2 days ago
Suppose that solar generates only during the day and only when it's not cloudy, and it's cloudy e.g. 10% of the time. Then you're using natural gas at night, but those natural gas plants still exist during the day, so you can also use them on the 10% of days that are cloudy and you're still replacing 90% of the daytime demand.
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
Even if we handwave all the science needed to build batteries big enough to power cities for days, I don't think it's realistic to handwave the science needed to power a city for weeks. We don't even have enough oil for that.
"Power when it is inconvenient" is pretty much the basis for a modern society.
[–] crote 3 days ago
Heavy clouds and zero wind, for weeks? That's a once-a-century freak event. Just build gas peaker plants if you are worried about it. You could even add carbon capture, but constructing it might emit more than it will ever capture...
[–] dgudkov 3 days ago
I assume you never tried measuring the output of a solar panel when it's cloudy. It's 10-15% of a sunny day. Closer to not working than working.
[–] bruce511 3 days ago
On a rainy day that drops closer to 20%.
As an aside - cloudy days avoid a problem I have with shade. In winter, at 3:30pm, the sun goes behind a tree and my production plummets to near zero. If there's cloud cover the sunlight is far more dispersed and there's no "shade".
[–] andsoitis 3 days ago
And you’re still able to power your entire home? What if the rain lasts for a few days, which is pretty common in many places.
[–] stephen_g 3 days ago
I did have one rainy day back in the middle of Winter that was 16% but that will end up being literally the worst day of the year.
[–] tialaramex 2 days ago
It also has relatively wealthy people, living in lots of individual housing units. If you wanted to design a country that's perfect for rooftop solar your imagination might come up with Australia.
That said, Australia ought to be able to run almost everything off solar given how sunny it is, and instead solar is a distant second behind coal for electricity production. So there's plenty of work left to do.
[–] zdragnar 3 days ago
[–] PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
Our energy grid can't currently handle the ability to charge electric haulers locally at any scale let alone to move an entire city's worth of energy, so the solution is not to 85x the national electric grid all at once.
[–] hunter-gatherer 3 days ago
[–] saltcured 2 days ago
And, this gets even worse if you are also replacing baseload plants with solar, since the solar output is more variable than those old plants were, so now you need even more storage capacity to offset those dropouts at the same time you are handling demand peaks.
Sometimes, I think there is some magical thinking going on when people see solar panels work at a house without batteries, and they fail to recognize how much they depend on the grid for stability. If they ran in island mode, they'd quickly understand just how important storage is...
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
[–] ZeroGravitas 2 days ago
Anything below 800g of CO2 (which means basically every current grid) means electrifying is a net win. Even the famously coal heavy South African grid is already past that barrier and even if it wasn't all grids are getting cleaner over time.
A grid that has maxed out wind and solar and then used only coal for 2 weeks would be one of the cleanest grids in the world right now, on par with France or Sweden.
Chasing 100% on a grid to satisfy the complaints of people who are concern trolling isn't smart nor necessary. What you need is bulk cheap electricity to allow you to reduce your heating and transport costs and clean your air at the same time.
[–] adrianN 2 days ago
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
[–] awesome_dude 3 days ago
A common battery for grid level storage is pumped hydro - that is, use the peak power during the day(s) to push water from the bottom of an elevation to the top, and hold it there - bonus points if it captures water delivered from other solar processes (evaporation -> rain)
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
[–] acdha 2 days ago
When talking about cost, it’s important to remember that solar+batteries are already cheaper and, unlike nuclear, happen on much shorter timescales. I’m not opposed to some nuclear plant starts but those guarantee a couple decades of increased pollution before there’s any chance whatsoever for carbon reduction, whereas solar can come online in a year.
[–] kulahan 2 days ago
You’re right, though, that nuclear is ALSO only a part of the solution. One day, it will be a major and necessary component of our grid, but we need to start tackling this carbon problem harder, and like… yesterday.
[–] perilunar 2 days ago
That's its function, but that does not make any device that stores energy a 'battery'. An electric battery is specifically a battery of electrochemical cells — Franklin invented the term as analogous to an artillery battery (a collection of guns).
Calling every form of stored energy a 'battery' is just dumbing things down for the masses.
[–] awesome_dude 16 hours ago
Maybe I did need to dumb it down more if that was missed.
[–] johnea 3 days ago
The overwhelming majority of generation and storage is best deployed at the point of use.
Grid scale anything, is a massive inefficiency.
The only reason grid and city scale is so prevalent in public discourse is because this is the only electricity the utility is paid for, and they are very actively impeding any other solution.
In the US, there is a very large inventory of flat roof industrial buildings, in the industrial parks that are using huge amounts of electricity. Covering all of those roofs with solar (especially here in the west US) would prevent a tremendous amount of grid scale generation, and implementing storage there would eliminate a large part of the transmission line upgrades the utilities are calling for.
The biggest problem in the US isn't technical, it's the governments desire to primarily support the solutions that are best at serving utility shareholder returns, instead of the technically superior solutions.
[–] prawn 3 days ago
It's quite common in Australia for commercial and residential.
[–] footydude 2 days ago
One factor is weight - a lot of low-cost industrial units may well need modifications to the roof to strengthen them to be able to take the additional weight of solar panels.
Certainly where I work (science research facility in the UK) our business has only been able to install roof-top solar on a comparatively small proportion of our total roof space because a large amount of the seemingly viable space would require substantial works to make the roof strong enough for solar.
[–] kulahan 2 days ago
edit: I could see this working well in AUS and USA because we've got lots of space and sun. Might be harder in Europe and northern Asian regions
[–] acdha 2 days ago
[–] missinglugnut 2 days ago
If rooftop solar power were so economically efficient, the manufacturing companies would get far more shareholder money lobbying for rooftop solar than utilities can make lobbying against it. But your conspiracy thinking doesn't account for this.
Heavy machinery uses dramatically more power than the roof space above it can produce. And you can't shut the factory down every time there is a cloud in the sky, so you need a utility hookup that can power the whole factory anyway.
The grid is the technically superior solution. That's why megacorps with capital and lobbying might keep willingly connecting to it.
[–] IAmBroom 2 days ago
[–] jillesvangurp 3 days ago
In aggregate, grid operators have a lot of other tools at their disposal via flexible pricing, flexible demand, and automated systems that can adapt to this to e.g. charge cars when there is a surplus of energy, turn on/off water boilers, etc. There's a lot of innovation around this topic in this space. This by the way is as much as making sure generated power doesn't go to waste than it is about ensuring there is enough power. They use batteries to time shift excess power to when they can utilize it.
Interconnected grids means that e.g. an operator in Denmark can import/export to and from the UK, Norway, Germany, etc. On a windy day they'll be exporting wind power. On a sunny day, they might add some solar to that mix. When there's no wind or sun in Denmark, they might pull in Scottish/German wind, Norwegian hydro, Swedish nuclear, etc. Batteries are being deployed all over the place at a pace that is only exceeded by the pace at which solar is being deployed. Whenever there's a surplus energy, batteries get charged up. It's very rare for all of the available generation to disappear all at the same time for long enough to drain all the batteries. And for those times of course fossil generation is still a thing as well, and will be for decades to come. There are a lot of gas based plants throughout Europe. As well as some nuclear plants of course. Singling out the EU market here but it's going to be similar elsewhere.
The point here is that there's no need to pair solar setups with days/weeks/months worth of storage. A few hours goes a long way.
[–] banktops 2 days ago
[–] nicoburns 3 days ago
[–] johnea 3 days ago
A decade or so behind, in the US.
If the US didn't block import of Chinese tech, we could have electrified a decade ago.
The tech available at the current moment, is even more capable of replacing petroleum based electricity.
But our government is banning Chinese tech to serve our outdated industries instead of importing it to serve the population.
As any wise country would do when faced with superior technology, we should import it with the condition of technology exchange. Chinese manufacturers should be training US workers and industrial ownership how to produce cheap, efficient, sodium batteries.
This benefits the populous immediately, and the industries are able to advance into the current century's tech.
[–] noduerme 3 days ago
If it were a matter of industrial protectionism against a country which was not hostile, not authoritarian, didn't rely on slave labor, etc., then I'd agree with you. Countries have other pressing reasons besides immediate economic advantage to prevent this sort of thing.
To greatly oversimplify: Japan fought against opening their markets, as did China, out of political and social concerns for the stability of their states, far more than economic ones.
[–] 0xbadcafebee 3 days ago
Doesn't matter though. The big mistake was allowing manufacturing to be exported from the US to begin with. Nearly any advanced technology we use or wish to produce is now dependent on China. They control not only the advanced manufacturing process, but also the refinement of rare earths (we can mine it but not refine it) and have cheaper labor. Not only can't we make tech without them, we can't sell it at competitive prices. Things will soon get worse as robotics and vertical integration makes Chinese products even cheaper and better quality. And we can't compete on robots because China controls that production chain too.
The smart play would be to build up our own green energy sector to gain cost savings, while investing in its manufacturing, so we can eventually compete and support ourselves (which Biden and Obama passed funding for). Trump eliminated all that when he came back, because the oil companies wanted more profits, they literally don't believe climate change is real, and they have no idea how diplomacy works. We could've had cheap battery, wind, and solar manufacturing in the US. Not anymore.
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
1. As a US citizen, you would probably not a get permit necessary for entering the Tibet region.
2. If you could get a permit for Tibet region and go there, you would be followed by police officers dressed in civilian clothing. The locals would be quite hesitant to speak to you.
(Source: been there long ago, seen it). China has many qualities, but freedom is not one of them.
[–] noduerme 3 days ago
I don't think the poster you're responding to is writing in good faith; they're either an agent of an authoritarian power, or blind to the difference of being one.
People in China can say anything the government approves of, but they can't say "long live freedom and democracy," unless they want to be executed.
Neither, I suspect, will Chinese AI models make any statement in sympathy with personal freedom, democracy, or human rights; it would come at the expense of the people who paid to train those models, and that can't be allowed.
[–] motionlessveloc 3 days ago
[–] noduerme 3 days ago
As a child of immigrants from the Soviet Union, and also as someone who knows people still resident in authoritarian dictatorships: This is patently ridiculous. Everything else in your post is a spray of nonsensical policy points and predictions. You led off with the tell. Frankly, it makes everything you say afterward sound like what an authoritarian enemy government would want people in the US to think about their own country.
What you wrote in your first sentence is either (a) wildly misinformed (like, you have no idea what life is like in an authoritarian country with actual slave labor, which is an insult to the people who do currently live there), or (b) intentionally nefarious (like, you work for such a country, in a capacity to minimize the distinction between their system of autocracy and the United States' democracy). If it's (a), study at least a little bit of the history of mass murder in the 20th Century. If (b), well, we live in a free country so you can spew whatever garbage you want. Interestingly, we have not been overtaken by any of the dictatorships that have sprung up in Eurasia over the past hundred years, and I don't think we will be soon.
[–] 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago
[–] noduerme 2 days ago
[–] clarionbell 3 days ago
Europe tried doing that. And our green technology sector promptly collapsed, because it couldn't compete with Chinese undercutting our prices. The only thing left now are wind turbines, but Chinese are making inroads there too. In the meantime, the green transition barely moved a needle when energy shock arrived in 2022 or this year. Rendering rest of our industry, especially chemical industry, uncompetitive.
[–] WarmWash 3 days ago
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
[–] noduerme 3 days ago
Paranoid is me testing the plates I bought off amazon for lead, and throwing away the bathtub mat which smelled like petroleum waste. I'm fairly convinced that the goal of that ruthless dictatorship is to poison, degrade and infiltrate every single household abroad in every way possible. A fast attack might be to bring as many devices offline as possible, but the slow attack is simply to lower people's intelligence by hardware or software methods (e.g. TikTok, Qwen... or, let's say, not notifying anyone for a few months that a new SARS virus had escaped a lab). Everything that comes out of communist China is warfare, even if it looks like a plush toy.
[–] andsoitis 3 days ago
It protects American companies who operate in the green energy generation and storage arena from Chinese competition.
[–] reactordev 3 days ago
[–] andsoitis 3 days ago
Not only does Chinese competition get blocked, but governments are incentivizing green energy. For instance, just recently it was reported that Tesla’s $10B solar factory could get 35 years of tax breaks in Texas (Oil Capital!!!)
https://electrek.co/2026/10/23/tesla-solar-factory-texas-35-...
[–] noduerme 3 days ago
[–] banktops 2 days ago
[–] Schiendelman 3 days ago
[–] blitzar 3 days ago
Wont someone think of the big beautiful clean coal companies
[–] toss1 2 days ago
Access to US markets conditioned on full tech exchange with US battery and automakers would be a fair exchange (and would likely require some temporary support of US automakers so they survive the transition).
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
[–] ben_w 3 days ago
Then again, I'm basing this opinion on a recent-ish video from NightHawkInLight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq7fR9ISuCw
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
The technology I'm most excited about is ultra low capex thermal, as being done by Standard Thermal. Capital cost per unit of energy storage capacity as low as $0.10/kWh(th), so it can work with seasonal storage and just a few tens of charge/discharge cycles over its lifespan.
Standard Thermal has raised $11M and is building in Germany, where they say they can deliver 365/7/24 solar resistive heat (400 C or perhaps 600 C) for half the cost of heat from burning natural gas there.
[–] cyberax 3 days ago
A regular 18650 cell has about 0.1 square meters of electrode surface. And you have thousands of these cells in a car battery, resulting in literal football fields of electrode area.
[–] TheCoelacanth 2 days ago
[–] ben_w 2 days ago
[–] pfdietz 2 days ago
[–] rr808 3 days ago
[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago
We can get to 95% using just short term storage. I suspect that most jurisdictions will just say "95% is good enough" rather than paying for ridiculously expensive long term storage.
We've got the nat gas capability already; keeping it around for the 5% is quite inexpensive, making the massive investment in long term storage for marginal benefit hard to justify.
OTOH, while the premium for e-fuels seems excessive, if you're only running that nat gas plant 2 days a year that premium is not so scary.
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
For covering Dunkelflauten? Yes.
For seasonal storage with a prolonged discharge (so, low power/storage capacity ratio)? I think thermal storage wins there.
[–] cyberax 3 days ago
E.g. 100 GWh (4 days of 1GW thermal power) with a 100C temperature swing (you can't go down all the way to room temperature) will need around 3.6*10^4 tons of sand. That's a lot.
Honestly, power-to-gas sounds like the only reasonable way for now. In theory, with SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cells) for power generation, it can beat the steam cycle.
[–] Panzer04 3 days ago
But I have no reference for the cost of setting up such a storage and how it compares to battery or hydro.
[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
[–] cyberax 3 days ago
[–] PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
View another way: if we hook several piles in series, then lukewarm air from a first mostly discharged pile can be directed into later piles for more heating. In the continuous limit this is the concept I described above.
[–] cyberax 3 days ago
No, because your steam will be at a lower temperature as you draw down the heat, bringing down efficiency.
[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
Over the season, your sand drops from ~1000 to ~600 (which is fine since your power needs drop in the spring)
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago
Those are 2 very different use cases.
Thermal is low rate extraction. It's 1 cycle per year, but the extraction is performed over months so is low rate.
Electricity long term storage is high rate extraction. It's only used a few times a year, but when it is used it needs to cover roughly 100% of the entire grid's needs. I doubt thermal storage is suitable for high rate extraction, but I'd love to be wrong.
Edit: rereading your parent comment you seem to think thermal is suitable for a different use case? Could you elaborate further? When is "prolonged discharge" useful?
[–] pfdietz 3 days ago
https://www.orcasciences.com/articles/standard-thermal
https://austinvernon.substack.com/p/building-ultra-cheap-ene...
They talk about temperature up to ~600 C, which I believe is limited by the desire to use cheap steal (much hotter and creep becomes a problem). This is also perhaps not coincidentally about the temperature of steam from a coal fired boiler, so one of the eventual goals is to repower retired coal fired power plants with this storage providing the heat instead of coal combustion.
You're right this is not good for something needed "a few times a year" for relatively short periods, for example to cover Dunkelflauten. Combustion of an e-fuel is better for that. But it's well suited to seasonal storage of solar energy, as that would be extracted over months, more or less continuously. The resistive heaters should also be much cheaper per W than electrolyzers.
[–] anakaine 3 days ago
It produces enough on cloudy days to still.top the batteries up to full.
I had a day recently where production topped 80kW and was exporting bulk before late afternoon grid production limiting kicked in. That's a lot of juice, and Ive basically not touched the grid in 7 months.
[–] kleiba2 2 days ago
[–] losvedir 2 days ago
[–] jauntywundrkind 3 days ago
Ideally we see people like Form Energies, using iron-air (rust) batteries, for much easier to scale storage. https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/10/06/1145020/2026-cli...
[–] dieselgate 3 days ago
[–] rcxdude 3 days ago
LiFePO4 is probably the chemistry best suited to it ATM. Lasts a long time, more stable, pretty cheap, and just a bit less energy density than other lithium ion options. Sodium-ion is looking promising but only just entering the market AFAIK.
[–] mnw21cam 2 days ago
A lead-acid battery mainly ages by cycle count. If you keep a decent quality battery charged up, and don't regularly discharge it too much, then there are claims they will last ten years. If you discharge them excessively each day, then you'll kill them really quickly.
A LiFePO4 battery has a quoted cycle count. But really what matters is simply elapsed time - the battery will last about ten years if it isn't abused, and you'll be hard-pressed to actually do that many cycles in that ten years. It ages mainly by elapsed time, not cycle count.
I used to argue that for an off-grid solar solution, you should get lead-acid batteries with capacity so that you are normally never discharging below 70%, and that this was still cheaper than getting LiFePO4 batteries with smaller capacity that you would discharge down to 20% each night. The lead-acid would then give you a larger reserve capacity for those instances where the weather is foul for a bit longer than normal and you don't get meaningful charging.
However, since then LiFePO4 batteries have continued to decrease in price, there are new Sodium batteries available now, and I haven't done the calculations again - the best option may have switched over, or it may be so close that it doesn't really matter which one you choose.
[–] foobarian 2 days ago
[–] ElevenLathe 3 days ago
[–] rcxdude 3 days ago
[–] adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago
[–] Schiendelman 3 days ago
[–] sieve 3 days ago
I have a 5 kWp solar plant that produces ~25kWh per day, but it is grid-tied. I considered a hybrid setup with LFP battery back up, but decided to separate the two systems to avoid a single point of failure.
[–] literalAardvark 3 days ago
LiFePo4 however is excellent and reasonably low cost these days
[–] thiht 3 days ago
[–] saltcured 3 days ago
[–] adjejmxbdjdn 3 days ago
Fortunately that doesn’t seem like it will be an issue since battery storage costs are also seeing an exponential reduction.
[–] dominicrose 3 days ago
I guess using electricity to heat during the night could be an issue, but we could also accept to let the temperature drop.
[–] masklinn 3 days ago
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
Solar is never gonna be a complete solution. At the end of the day, we could do it more efficiently by just building suns here on earth for the panels, but of course then you've achieved fusion and you're already generating more than solar could ever hope to. We shouldn't hinge our future on half of a technology.
[–] TheCoelacanth 3 days ago
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
My larger point is that solar is only ever going to be a piece of the puzzle at best. In space it might be quite nice, but otherwise it's kinda goofy to invest too much in.
[–] lostlogin 3 days ago
Doesn’t that apply to any power source?
[–] kulahan 2 days ago
[–] TheCoelacanth 3 days ago
[–] kulahan 2 days ago
[–] TheCoelacanth 2 days ago
[–] Maxion 3 days ago
[–] jmyeet 3 days ago
Stars don't have this problem because they're very large so there's only so far neutrons can go.
[–] kulahan 3 days ago
[–] jmyeet 3 days ago
1. Stars do it. Yes. But stars also have size and gravity, something no nuclear plant will ever have; and
2. "People once said X was impossible" ie the Galileo Gambit. Just because Galileo was mocked for his heliocentric model but was later proven right does not mean everything is possible.
Thing is, I'm not even talking about physics. I'm talking about engineering. Something not only has to be possible but it has to be technically viable and sufficiently cheap. Put it this way: would you pay $60 billion for a 1GW power reactor with a lifespan of 30 years and an annual maintenance cost of $2B? Even if the fuel was completely free the wholesale cost per MWh would be ~$600. Nobody would build that.
Fusion research has been going on for decades and the best we've done thus far is fire a laser for about a second to induce a fusion reaction and also spend billions building magnets to try and contain a turbulent fluid at 100 million degrees, which, again, will do nothing about the neutrons that will destroy that vessel.
The joke is that fusion is always 50 years away and always will be. If you're an optimist it's always 30 years away and always will be.
[–] kulahan 2 days ago
You should inform nuclear physicists and engineers of your new-to-mankind knowledge.
Did you know we once argued over whether or not to close the patent office because “everything had already been invented”? This isn’t the Galileo concept, it’s recognizing we’ve only been doing global hard science as a species for like 50 years.
[–] garbagewoman 3 days ago
[–] kulahan 1 day ago
[–] garbagewoman 1 day ago
[–] breakyerself 3 days ago
[–] boringg 3 days ago
I think solar is amazing and we need more of it - but I can't stand this solar and storage go at it alone mentality. It's pretty thickheaded to discount the other forms of energy that we can use and will need.
[–] rgmerk 3 days ago
There are legit reasons to push back against “solar and batteries everywhere” but I find it hard to credit resilience in a conflict situation as one of them.
[–] boringg 2 days ago
This isn't a reason not to go with solar+batteries everywhere. This is an observations of the product weak points and why it isn't the only solution in the chain.
[–] Gigachad 3 days ago
Solar has the advantage that it can be widely distributed on buildings rather than in just a few centralized locations.
[–] viktorcode 2 days ago
(Diesel power generators also work, but they require constant fuel supply, which can be complicated in a war zone)
[–] zardo 3 days ago
[–] daveevad 3 days ago
[–] epistasis 3 days ago
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205
But for the most part it will trail solar, because the first chunk of the solar doesn't really need storage. But once there's a healthy percentage of solar, all new solar will have storage or it won't get paid.
[–] cavoirom 2 days ago
- Solar.
- Wind.
- Nuclear.
- Pumped hydro.
- Battery.
[–] killingtime74 2 days ago
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
[–] ericd 2 days ago
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
The costs of large number long distance HVDC lines with accompaning invertor stations would be as expensive as a electric generation based on nuclear power.
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
[–] leonidasrup 3 days ago
https://blog.sintef.com/energy/future-hvdc-grids-yes-please-...
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
[–] leonidasrup 2 days ago
Those links and the associated large costs, were not necessary in the past. I would like to note that, the amounts of electricity produced each year in Europe didn't change much for the past 40 years.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-mix?tab=line&...
I understand the low production costs of solar power, but in many discussions the associated costs of upgrading electric grid and building large scale electric energy storage systems are swept under the rug and not assigned to a electric grid dominated by solar power.
Like this BBC article, which compares costs of solar vs. nuclear, when the comparison should be costs of solar+HVDC+storage vs. nuclear.
[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
[–] JumpCrisscross 3 days ago
Batteries have use in war and power. It will likely scale faster than PV. What we need is the second derivative, so production of the latter can be turbocharged just before battery production is about to break through.
[–] fpoling 3 days ago
[–] holgerschurig 2 days ago
This is because people that bring that argument act like every house is it's own electric island. But that's far from the truth. In developed countries the electric grid is HIGHLY interconnected. Look at this beautiful map: https://www.entsoe.eu/data/map/
So, how likely is it that it's cloudy in Bulgaria and Spain and Germany and UK and Hungary and and and ...
(It's only the US that decided to mis-design their grid. Instead of one united, where each one can help the others, they have 4 different grid. That is also one of the reason why the SAIDI --- duration of power interruptions per customer and year --- is so terribly bad).
Also, if you buy your solar cells to work with ambient light, put them into east-west (instead of south) and use an inverter that doesn't use 50W just for itself --- then you can also get power WHEN it it cloudy. Enough to sustain e.g. your router, fridge etc. Not enough to charge an EV.
But... for a day-night-cycle we have local batteries. They got cheap in the last 5 years. I mean, the cheaper ones arrive at 100 €/ kWh.
And finally: no one every proposed that "a single solution is all we need". We don't need just Ford passenger cars. We also need vans. And trucks. And buses.
By limiting your thinking artificially to "How can I oppose a situation where ONLY solar panels provide power" you're doing your own reasoning power no favor. The starting premises is already faulty, almost like a strawman attack (invent some bogus scenario, attack that scenario, hope that others that can't think sharp fail for this bad reasoning).
The fun thing is that people like you post this again and again, in every discussion. Since years. As if you're unable to learn that the world isn't only "one solar island next to another solar island". Why is it so hard to understand that a grid is inherently connected? And that we have a multitude of ways to generate electric power?
[–] eriktrautman 2 days ago
[–] d3rockk 3 days ago
[–] toomuchtodo 3 days ago
- Battery energy storage has grown at an exceptional pace, with global installations increasing more than 20-fold in storage capacity over the past five years. This growth has been driven by falling battery prices, abundant supply and relatively short project lead times. As variable renewable generation expands in many markets, battery storage is becoming an important source of flexibility and resilience for power systems, while also representing a growing commercial opportunity for battery manufacturers.
- However, more than 90% of battery storage applications rely on LFP batteries that are almost exclusively supplied from China, which accounts for almost all global manufacturing capacity and the associated technical expertise. Korean producers are investing to scale up LFP battery production that can offer an alternative, but they face intense competition from established, lower-cost Chinese producers in an oversupplied market.
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/battery-storage-is-scaling-...
- Battery storage now accounts for around 18% of installed dispatchable capacity in Australia, compared with 7% in China, 5% in the United States and 4% in Europe – underlining how rapidly batteries are becoming an important part of the electricity systems in some regions.
https://www.ess-news.com/2026/06/02/global-battery-additions...
Battery storage is right behind the solar adoption curve. Net zero in five years? Probably not. Ten to fifteen years? Almost assured considering rate of change and the overall economics (assuming ~1TW/year of solar PV deployment and enough battery storage to soak up that low carbon generation while also providing grid services to replace thermal generation grid support [voltage, frequency, etc]).
(China is curtailing renewables equal to the annual combined generation of Spain and the Philippines every six months, and India about ~100-120GW/month due to not enough battery storage, for example)
[–] theoreticalmal 3 days ago
[–] toomuchtodo 3 days ago
My recommendation would be to see if Ecopower storage and inverters are a good fit for your use case. If you're feeling adventurous, you could build your own battery pack, but I only recommend if you are knowledgeable and confident. This comes with substantial property and life safety risk, only proceed if you know what you're doing and understand the risk (I'll work on my high voltage EV battery packs, but only with a helper nearby holding a 2x4, for example).
[–] _carbyau_ 3 days ago
Not sure whether other brands could be better but there seem to be various options that would suit. If you are in 120v land you may need to check if there are models to suit.
Its largely modular, inverter sits on top of modular batteries in 8-9kw chunks.
But they are app-infested. IE wants a wifi connection, app on your phone to their servers... etc etc.
I hate it, but the wife likes it. This is a recent thing so I am still working out if there are possible solutions for privacy and control over my own objects.
[0]https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sigenergy-ba...
[–] lostlogin 3 days ago
Their car charger was doing my head in.
I pulled it apart and found an Ethernet plug and it was a complete game changer.
But: the app and their servers remain.
The fun part is that we're still well before the point when this even matters.
Almost 60% of the US grid is still fossil fuels, with around half of that still happening during the day. Which means you can get down to ~30% fossil fuels without any storage at all because all you do is go from burning fossil fuels during the day and at night to burning fossil fuels only at night.