Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Agreed, e-fuels seem to be far and ahead the front-runner.

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.

> Agreed, e-fuels seem to be far and ahead the front-runner.

For covering Dunkelflauten? Yes.

For seasonal storage with a prolonged discharge (so, low power/storage capacity ratio)? I think thermal storage wins there.

loading story #50248183
I just don't see it with thermal. You have to pay the Carnot tax, and you also need humongous amounts of material.

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.

loading story #50253563
loading story #50253463