703
consider the implications for a post scarcity future (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/8471507

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (22 children)

A $20k LiPo4 battery in every home can remove almost all base load needs and is available today.

Get to 100% solar, then figure out how much coal/gas/oil can slowly be removed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    Hard sell. Also, say through collective action we actually somehow get governments to pay for a $20,000 battery for every home. How will you make that many, who will install them, who will maintain and replace them? You need a very large number of trained electricians and manufacturing capacity to make that a reality. You also need to plan for and earmark funds for replacements to make it not a complete waste. Just throwing out batteries as a solution is way easier said than done. There are a lot of barriers. That is why things take time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Nuclear is about $6k per KWatt. Solar with battery is about $5k per KWatt.

    If it's cost effective to build and maintain a nuclear reactor for $6k per KWatt, then it can also be done with the cheaper solar.

    Yes it takes lots of money, people and planning. So does operating a coal mine. No one says, "We can't have coal power, where are all the trained miners going to come from? Someone will need to drive that coal to the powerplant and that power plant will need trained electricians. It's a huge problem!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Yes it takes lots of money, people and planning. So does operating a coal mine

    I think the problem from the capitalist standpoint is that its not a very profitable business model, well thats fine then the public sector should do it just like we do the roads and other essential services. But no politician in america would even have the balls to propose that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I hate to tell you, very few places are building new nuclear plants as well.

    The Fossil industries have lobbyists and money on their side yes, but their infrastructure also already exists. That's our biggest challenge. And it takes functional governments looking out for the interests of citizens to build and/or subsidize infrastructure. And functional government takes an educated and engaged electorate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    Genuine question out of curiosity, do people think it would be more efficient to have some sort of battery substation for a neighborhood that's funded publicly? I just think it would be really inefficient to have everyone fund their own private batteries. It'll be way easier to balance a neighborhood than each individual house.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    You start running into major issues with regulation and ownership of equipment that there isn't a vested interest in solving. If a local battery isn't owned by the utility company, who owns it? How do you track power input and use? Can one house use another house's power?

    It is a lot less complicated to keep things separated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not qualified to answer but I do know there are losses in transmission and ac/dc conversion for that transmission.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I'm by no means an expert just trying to think things through logically I could absolutely be incorrect in any of my assumptions.

    That being said I believe inverters go up in efficiency as their capacity increases, add this the fact that they need to be over provisioned to allow for peak draw times and it makes sense that a substation that averages a neighborhoods demand would be able to cut down on cost by averaging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The benefit of everyone having their own batteries is resiliency. If I have batteries I have power in an outage whether the downed wire is in my front yard or miles away.

    There’s probably also some free market benefit in purchasing decisions - some people will choose to spend for more capacity while others have an incentive to save money/power usage

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Redundancy could be achieved by multiple power stations run municipally, moreover buying in bulk gives the city more leverage to negotiate price than individuals.

    Also supposing that the cost of the battery was fielded by individuals it's just not feasible for the 65% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck to have an additional $20,000 expense and this is something that needs to happen now not down the road.

    If the municipal government is going to foot some of that cost it'd be really inefficient to do so in each individual's home as apposed to a centralized site and project

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    In addition to other comments here, I think that there’s added risk to having such a starkly segmented way of running things. Having neighborhood stations (publically owned/owned by the utility service provider) reduces a lot of redundancy and hedges some risk for families. If a battery fails and gets spicy it’s less likely to put a family out of their home, when a substation could be highly specialized for managing that kind of risk so that even if a battery or several batteries fail, it doesn’t impact the whole. There’s also some specialization that goes into handling them at end of life, and trusting normal every day laypeople to both maintain and manage them is a tall ask when most people find themselves in a position to be unable to do larger maintenance on their homes already (it cost me 20k to put in a sump pump and encapsulate my crawl space to treat and protect it from mold and pinhole beetles, which I could only do by taking out a loan that I’m still paying for).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    You are going to grow crops to feed a planet with oil burning power plants? Have you ever even seen a Midwestern farm?

    Besides, using solar now saves the oil for future global emergencies. Burning it all now, when it doesn't need to be burned up is stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent