Tony Seba’s Vision of “Super Power” // Analysis

[@gregselkirk4224]

RethinkX was wrong but in a good way - just come to Australia where Superpower is already here! Between 10am and 3pm on most days including winter, the National Electricity Market spot price for generators is NEGATIVE, in other words, baseload power costs the generator up to A$50 per MwH to put it into the national electricity grid. Renewables (mainly solar and wind farms) are being curtailed. In Victoria, retailers are offering FREE electricity between 12pm and 2pm and you can get 50% off standard full-day rates between 10am and 3pm. In South Australia those free windows are wider. The challenge has been a) getting consumers to soak up the excess in the short term and b) building storage and interconnect capacity in the medium to long term. Believe!

[@hal8683]

And batteries and storage will make BIG BIG improvements. Happening everyday NOW! Amazing energy future! Buy TSLA !!

[@charleslivingston2256]

My brother has been designing and installing solar for off-grid users for 30 years. About 15 years ago he was talking about how panels had dropped in price so much that the (lead acid car) batteries were more expensive than the panels. The result is they were designing larger solar output and smaller battery system. The result was that the batteries might be recharged by noon and they were just dumping excess power for the rest of the day. (Not actually dumping power, but pulling out less power than the panels were capable of producing.)

[@thelimitingfactor]

💯

[@bobwallace9753]

I'm off the grid, have been for about 30 years. Many days my batteries are full by lunchtime. But I need that extra panel input during cloudy periods. It's cheaper, at this point in time, to overbuild generation than to add more storage. BTW, solar panels have fallen in price from ~$100/watt to ~$0.20/watt over the last 40 years. And they should continue to get cheaper.

[@krossbolt4100]

@@bobwallace9753 Same here in Australia. Better to over supply with panels.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

10 years since I first heard the name Tony Seba, bearing in mind the 2 "Global Issues" we've seen, he is still pretty spot on.

[@Travlinmo]

I am not going to bet against Seba.

[@iareid8255]

@@Travlinmo You ought to as he hasn't got a clue. What he thinks and what is possible are as far removed from each other as is North and South. Renewables have none of the criteria essential; for a stable, economic and reliable grid. Just how can weather dependant and uncontrollable sources of generation feed a grid that has to be minutely controlled on an instantaneous basis, its just nonsense.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

@@Travlinmo I am - not enough copper.

[@Lindemalm]

@@iareid8255please dont tell the germans who have reached 66% from renewables, mostly from wind and Solar.

[@GntlTch]

@@iareid8255 Your conclusions are laughable but maybe you have been living under a rock for the last decade. Multiple BESSs (Battery Energy Storage Systems), have been in operation for years and have proven to be more efficient, more accurate and cheaper than conventional load balancing methods. They are being installed all over the world as fast as regulations and battery supplies allow.. And if we didn't have people proposing and attempting the "impossible" we wouldn't have orbital rockets landing on ocean barges, practical electric automobiles, transistors or DNA based vaccines - just to name a few.

[@video_head]

I'm always amazed by your deep analysis! Your breakdown was incredibly informative and gave me a new perspective.

[@danielking2944]

You made a good point about electric power needing less input because about 70% of the fossil fuel input is consumed by the process before it ever go to work. Two other factors will have a big impact. The second and third cars that we typically have sitting in the driveway at most homes not only might utilize the super power or even be charged with the super power we usually have with our solar panels at home in the day time. They might even feed the grid,in effect replacing some of the battery expansion for grid level backup. The other factor is that many of us are already weaning ourselves off the grid with home solar panels and batteries. When the sodium batteries get into mass production, price and availability of LFP should improve also. Even renewable energy has a big percentage of loss in transmission. Distributed generation and storage mitigates that.

[@phvaessen]

distributed intelligent electricity is what Jeremy Rifkin named" the internet of electricity" excellent points !

[@krakken-]

The "waiting 2-3 years until the incremental power has 0 marginal cost" makes sense in theory, but in practice, things get built when they are net positive or better. Waiting 2-3 years for lower costs only makes sense if the value generated during those 2-3 years would be net negative vs waiting.

[@eclecticcyclist]

And if a lot of people put off buying until the price drops that would mean that the price would drop more slowly anyway.

[@thelimitingfactor]

These projects are planned years out. That is, the 2-3 years I"m talking about will automatically occur. That is, the project costs will always lag the current market prices by 2-3 years at least.

[@krakken-]

@@thelimitingfactor I must have misunderstood your point. In any event, very interesting video.

[@lucadellasciucca967]

@@thelimitingfactor Exactly. If it automatically accurs then your point isn t invalid. If people wait, costs don t come down. I m confused.

[@ptviwatcher]

@@thelimitingfactor I believe you could get price reduction in batteries in those 2-3 years because they're also being increasingly implemented in cars, but you wouldn't get that in solar PV. Wright's Law applies for an increasing production (hence, increased market) but if you don't have an increasing demand there is no noticeable price reduction. Only triggering the transition in a short time frame (2030) would accelerate production & price reductions.

[@helmutshotthesheriff1942]

This channel is just getting better and better. ..❤👌👍

[@thelimitingfactor]

Thanks man 😊

[@peterjohn5834]

Excellent analysis. The real problem we have is our politicians acting on behalf of lobbyists and lobbyist industry that wants to maintain their current investments and returns. Carbon tax now. Cheers.

[@Mike-ry8uo]

Great video, There are two concepts that Rethink X talked about that you did not touch on: 1) Capacity Factor: Nuclear capacity factor will start dropping when solar saturates the market in autumn and spring. This will push up the cost of running existing nuclear and gas on a kWh basis. 2) Distribution Parity: It will be cheaper to go Solar, Wind and Battery for individual properties/communities than what it will cost to transmit power from central generation facilities. There are cases where the business case for grid connection failed vs on site solar and storage.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Both good points! Interestingly, more nuclear powerplants require more storage, lol

[@bobwallace9753]

The fuel cost for nuclear is pretty low. Nuclear is not very dispatchable, so unless there's going to be periods of weeks and months where the generation is needed it's likely they will stay in operation. Plus if reactors are curtailed for a significant period of time it spreads their fixed costs over far fewer MWh of electricity sales. It's likely the government will find a way to make sure reactors get to sell their goods. Coal and gas will get turned off.

[@fireofenergy]

We need to account for the EROEI for the overall systems, That is, solar, wind and battery, compared to mass produced advanced little nuclear reactors. Which requires more materials to generate a constant reliable watt? Which requires more land? And, on the plus or minus side (I'm not sure) which will _cost more energy to also_ recycle?

[@jamesowens7176]

@@fireofenergy Another consideration is that nuclear tech is also advancing, and molten salt reactors can use existing spent fuel AS fuel. Considering how much is currently being paid to store all that waste, it could conceivable cost negative money to operate these new reactors.

[@bobwallace9753]

@@fireofenergy First, we can't make a comparison with "advanced little nuclear reactors". They have not yet been built and evaluated. What we have is the nuclear industry telling us again that 'We have a new idea and this time it will make nuclear affordable". They've told us that over and over and over for more than 50 years and have yet to make it come true. Low credibility. Maybe this new design will be cheaper. The Union of Concerned Scientists did an analysis and found that smaller may be more expensive. Time will tell. But, remember, new nuclear is around $0.15/kWh and needs to come under $0.04/kWh to be acceptable to the grid. That's about a 3/4 cost drop. Pretty hard to imagine. We've been closing paid off reactors that need more than $0.04/kWh to stay in business. The market won't buy their power. Now, you talk about the overall system. Fine. Let's talk about the overall system for nuclear. First, like wind and solar, nuclear needs storage. Storage is used to move supply from low demand periods to high demand periods. Back when we were building nuclear we built a lot (over 100 just in the US) pump-up hydro energy storage plants. Add that cost in. Then, there's the need for backup generation for when reactors "break" and go offline. Happens and happens more than most think. When a reactor goes offline it can be off for days, weeks, and even more than a year. The grid has to have excess generation standing by to replace one or more reactors. When both SONGs reactors in SoCal went down the grid wasn't prepared for that large loss and had severe supply problems. That's another cost to be added into the overall nuclear system. Hint: A 100% 24/365 reliable wind, solar, and storage system is cheaper than nuclear, storage, and backup. Considerably cheaper.

[@castletown999]

Another flaw in the analysis is that it assumes the old model of a few large generators feeding many (smaller) loads. The old utility model. But the system is now more like the internet: Millions of nodes generating and consuming power at random times.. So the economic choices are made not just by utility companies, but by millions of individual node owners. The grid is like a network not a distributorship.

[@bobwallace9753]

And we now have the ability for moment by moment pricing which can be used to move some demand off peak demand times, cutting the overall cost of electricity.

[@georgepelton5645]

Great point.

[@chriscounsell9818]

This is a great point and the power of rooftop solar and home storage is really underplayed. They don't need to be the cheapest form of energy for mass adoption, they just have to be cheaper than the market rate, to make sense for the consumer. This will then in turn completely change the form of the demand curve that the utilities have to cover.

[@tomconrad7091]

Yes but remember the new big loads are data centers that can be placed anywhere like next to a solar or wind farm. Power usage is decreasing out side data centers.

[@bobwallace9753]

@@tomconrad7091 We're watching an interesting development. Some of those new data centers are trying to reopen close nuclear facilities or even build new reactors. Expensive and long to bring online. Solar is quick to install, provides cheap electricity, and now much more affordable batteries can make wind and solar into reliable 24/365 electricity sources. Interesting how people smart enough to build massive AI facilities don't grasp rather simple electricity economics.

[@tr1stan92]

Looking forward to this. Thanks Jordan

[@thelimitingfactor]

Sure thing man!

[@marcusnichols5595]

The grid interconnector 'gridlock' issue is an interesting problem. In the UK, the backlog for an interconnector can be as much as a decade. This did not matter much when new FF thermal power plants took ~10 years to build, but is much more problematical when renewable generation can be built out much faster. My take is that shuttered (say) coal fired power stations (the last coal generator in the UK closes this year) represents significant value due to their existing redundant grid interconnector. Every retired power station had a grid interconnector. Now, wind or solar farms might not be co-located beside a decommissioned thermal power plant, but building transmission lines to that site might be quicker than waiting for a new interconnector. Separately, building out a grid scale battery farm on the site may be a profitable solution for buffering and grid stabilisation.

[@dominicgoodwin1147]

Also, the inverter based renewables (wind and solar) require stabilisation. Massive flywheels in the old turbine halls make a cheap and efficient way to stabilise the grid frequency.

[@bobwallace9753]

If you spread storage out around the grid, there's less peak demand on grid transmission. During lower demand periods, charge storage. Then use stored power locally. Abandoned fossil fuel and nuclear sites are likely great places for large scale storage installations. Not only are large transmission systems in place, the ground is often contaminated. Land used for storage, solar, or wind does not need to be cleaned up to residential standards.

[@georgepelton5645]

@@dominicgoodwin1147 Although this would be a low cost solution, I am not sure it will be needed. Batteries are capable of providing "virtual inertia" to replace generators and flywheels.

[@peteglass3496]

@@dominicgoodwin1147 a flywheel is happening at an old coal plant in County Clare, Ireland and I think another in East Anglia in Britain.

[@GruffSillyGoat]

@@dominicgoodwin1147 - The UK is using battery storage for renewable stabilisation (as well as curtailment mitigation) - with nearly 5GW installed already, a further 4GW due to come one stream shortly and 95GW in the pipeline for installation by 2030. There is one 400MW flywheel in the UK, but it serves a different role - as a massive peak power source for the JET fusion research facility near Oxford. Batteries are also being used to address the problem of grid congestion that in the past required gas peaker plants to switch on on the under supply of the congestion point and the power generators to be switched off on the over supply side. With both generating parties being paid higher spot rates to both generate and not generate power. Batteries provide an elegant and more cost effective solution than current apporach and mitigate the expensive cost of upgrading grid networks at congestion points that only periodically need to carry the extra power.

[@hansmuller3676]

Cool topic Following Tony since 2017

[@t.d.5804]

Solar (PV) modules are 6.1cent/W (€) right now, so a new 410W module is 25€, here at a local dealer, no taxes, only local shipping, amazing, 10 years ago I paid 36cents/W and that was considered cheap. Now, solar is nearly zero cost. Solar works for me at 53°N, >=75% of all electricity comes from my roof, all electric here of course. With a south facing solar array you can go 100% 24/7/365. Batteries are included :-) And that up here in the north

[@jamesengland7461]

HOW? I did an admittedly lazy and cursory search days ago and $1/W seems to be the price here. I need to shop further 😂

[@t.d.5804]

my country had tariffs on chinese modules 10 years ago, today no more, plus there is zero Vat this year (instead of 19%). That pushes solar and shows everybody here the true price. Solar rocks

[@beatreuteler]

Good for you. I think where I live we still pay some equivalent to €180.-- or so for a 410W module.

[@enzymeXfactor]

You nailed it, Jordan! Thanks for all you do.

[@cathyk9197]

Really enjoyed seeing Tony's recent work🥰and your perspective on it. Lots of new AI driven data centers are going to require lots more electricity....a great use for new renewable energy generation coming online before the US has time to mostly trade-up to EV's and home heat pumps.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Amen!

[@tomconrad7091]

Just remember that data centers can be placed anywhere if you get rid of politics. They are not like a factory, and require few people.

[@Alaris101]

Awesome video! - thanks for the reality check. I love what RethinkX are doing and your perspective is a step in making their high-concept view into a practical roadmap.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Good summary!

[@Ormusn2o]

You probably know this more than me, but from what I understand, cost of installation is higher than the cost of solar panels themselves, which means that timeline for replacing fossil fuels highly depends on cost of labor. If in next two years we will have automated robots for ~20k like most companies predict, it will likely decrease cost of solar by 2-3 times, which likely will very quickly outpace costs of burning fuel, as installation costs is big part of the capital expense needed for solar. This will also likely decrease cost of solar + batteries, which will increase demand for batteries and hopefully will allow for much faster ramp up of battery storage systems, especially if battery production will benefit from automated robots as well.

[@thelimitingfactor]

While true, not enough impact quickly enough to hit a 2030 target

[@modrus]

@@thelimitingfactor but by 2040.. ;)

[@mfb424]

@@thelimitingfactorand at the same time there’s 7-8 TWh/a overcapcity of LFP cell production in China. It might be all that capacity can be diverted to BESS deployments. Big news coming on that front quite soon 😁

[@beatreuteler]

Very much true. For example rooftop solar in Switzerland didn't become cheaper dunrig the past 4 years in spite of the panel prices dropping was visible even though not as dramatic as elsewhere. Rooftop solar booming anyway due to increased grid energy prices motivating potential owners to start a project.

[@JohnTovar-ks8dp]

I think Rethink main point is that things are changing much faster than people think, and it's going to be awdsome.

[@danielking2944]

You made a good point about electric power needing less input because about 70% of the fossil fuel input is consumed by the process before it ever go to work. Two other factors will have a big impact. The second and third cars that we typically have sitting in the driveway at most homes not only might utilize the super power or even be charged with the super power we usually have with our solar panels at home in the day time. They might even feed the grid,in effect replacing some of the battery expansion for grid level backup. The other factor is that many of us are already weaning ourselves off the grid with home solar panels and batteries. When the sodium batteries get into mass production, price and availability of LFP should improve also.

[@deanmcmanis9398]

I think that there are multiple standards for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) communication, including ISO 15118 and SAE J3068. Plus there are two UL standards that apply to V2G technologies: UL 1741 and UL 9741. The former applies to all types of generation equipment, while the latter applies only to vehicles and associated supply equipment. Someone needs to set out a universal V2G system standard, just as NACS is becoming a universal plug standard, accepted across America's charging network (including home and work charging and discharging). Battery chemistries continue to improve, and future EV owners won't be so concerned about battery degradation. An affordable, universal V2G standard needs to be developed and accepted, then the grid will be able to easily use BEVs themselves to become the buffer for renewable resources.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Amen!

[@GruffSillyGoat]

NACS itself isn't a universal standard, it's a design that is tied to the small number of countries that operate on split phase 110/120v domestic or combined single phase 240v electricity supplies. Whereas most of the world operates on 220/240V single and three phase supplies. This is why CCS2 (AC or AC/DC combo) is the standard in many parts of the world, plus China with its GB/T standard. The same applies to V2G as the electrical standards around the world differentiate the standards seeks to address these differences. Similarly, vehicles have a specific supply characterisitc of high power / short duration supply, whereas other techologies are addressing medium power / long duration needs that differing standards address. It is these differences in systems and uses that are driving supporting standards, as one size doesn't fit all in this case. What is positive is the small number of standards that apply meaning things are being tightly controlled to bring cost and implementation advantages that the alternative of a plethora of competing, often company/industry specific, standards would previal holding back adoption.

[@WizofOz65]

Thanks for the analysis - I agree with you that a longer timeframe is needed

[@jamesbruce1183]

I'm thinking that with the reduction in cost of panels and batteries and the steady move to EVs, residential customers will have little or no use for the electrical grid. So the grid may look substantially different than it does today.

[@christopherfry2844]

Already just 4 hours from posting the sheer quality of the comments is a tribute to the respect in which your work is held. Rockstar Gordon!

[@thelimitingfactor]

Thanks man! I agree, great viewers 😁

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

It took weeks for me to get around to a closer look at this very interesting video, and then offer some comments, but here I am. I have a few comments of a very general nature. Yes, I do think Tony Seba's timelines are unrealistically short, but not radically so. I expect these things to take maybe twice as long as he predicts. But they won't take five or ten times as long and, in the end, they will probably all occur just as completely as he says they will. I'm close enough to his view that the average person would probably wonder what I've been smoking. IAC hey, 2040 is still only 15 years away! I'm not that convinced there is going to be such an exploding electrical demand as some have predicted. There are factors pushing demand in that direction, but others push downward. Data centers are used more heavily all the time, but the cost of processing and transmitting information keeps dropping. Caching can reduce the need for long-distance transmission of information, especially for things like streaming media. Information is being digitized at an exploding pace, but parts of that process have natural completion points, and only a tiny portion of that vast archive is being accessed at any time. And so on. Looking at other things, going electric generates more electricity demand, but again, that shift eventually completes, and will cease to further raise demand. That's something that needs to be kept in mind with all kinds of claims of the "Jevons Paradox" sort. Things hit natural limits. If houses get cheaper to heat because of lower fuel costs, homeowners may build somewhat larger houses, and keep them more consistently comfortable, but they won't keep them at 30 C in the winter, or 10 C in the summer. If transportation cost goes down per mile, there will be more suburban sprawl, and some may travel more on vacations, but they will not want to travel all the time. There are countless things that will go on for a while, then hit natural boundaries. I'm also doubtful that as much overbuilding of capacity in renewables as this video suggests, and that Seba has in mind, will end up occurring. I have a lot of hope for how much good the Grid can do. All energy sources vary over time, and in different ways, in very different patterns, including for different locations. Sources of energy demand also vary according to time and place, on different scales. Solar has the special problem of disappearing once a day, and in some places, once a year, for months. Wind is available all year, and around the clock-except when it isn't. And so on. The Grid has the beautiful quality that it ties together all different producers and consumers, and makes no assumptions. It just ships electrons around as needed. What the Grid does not do, at least not much so far, is to store energy for later use. That must change, and already has begun to. There is not much doubt left that solar, and to a lesser extent wind, is going to be the dominant energy source in a couple of decades. These are very distributed energy sources, although both are also going to have important variations over long geographic distances. Fortunately, distributed energy storage is shaping up to be more and more feasible as well. That will hugely reduce the need for long-distance electricity transmission. Most mismatches will be handled over very short distances; mostly, perhaps, in the same building. Seasonal variations look like an especially stubborn problem for renewables. Fortunately, the percentage of the population living at high latitudes is small; in most cases they have other energy sources to help, such as hydro and geothermal; and the distances over which they might need to import electricity from lower latitudes are not that large. No one will need to freeze in the dark because of this. Solar is going to generate huge surges in generation in the middle of the day, and this will not match the demand peaks of a typical day in most places. However, the mismatch is usually a matter of a few hours. What will probably help hugely is the huge fleet of electric vehicles we will soon have, which can charge in the middle of the day to soak up excess generation, and discharge it back a little later. Elon Musk has quipped that a big problem with V2G is that if you unplug your car, your house goes dark. Yes, and no. If you have some stationary storage as well, your lights do not need to go out. If you're cooking a meal on your induction stove, that could be a problem, not so much because that needs so much energy, but it needs lots of power. But as long as you're on the Grid as well, you shouldn't even notice a problem. The Grid can smooth out all manner of complex interactions, with no human interaction. One more thing: Wright's Law is a wonderful principle, and ultimately may be crucial to the continuation of modern civilization. But one thing does need to be kept in mind. Prices of manufactured goods drop predictably as cumulative production increases. But beyond a certain point, a doubling of cumulative output represents huge numbers of products. At some point, demand must saturate. For some products, this may occur in only a tiny portion of the overall population. But even if almost everybody has one or more of the product in question, as with many very familiar things, at some point, even though annual production may be huge, the time required for a doubling of cumulative production will start getting quite long. So as Wright's Law runs its course, it must slow down. I hope this looks fairly coherent. I have a lot of thoughts in play regarding this subject area, and it's actually turned out to be quite a challenge to organize them and decide how to present them in the right order. I've only covered a tiny part of the relevant parts of the subject.

[@TedKidd]

Nicely composed Jordan

[@thelimitingfactor]

thanks man!

[@jonmichaelgalindo]

It also neglects the emerging exponential curve in demand for power.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Correct!

[@beatreuteler]

Yes. But partially this wil be compensated by savings thanks to efficiency gains in transition from fossil to electric.

[@scanspeak00]

Solar and wind require very large areas often at great distances from the end user. Hence their price advantage often gets lost.

[@beatreuteler]

Maybe that is true with Off Shore Wind, but definitely not woth solar, because solar can be built right on top of your house.

[@MrSteeDoo]

How far do you live from your roof?

[@yonseienglish]

I’ve been waiting for a video like this for a decade critiquing RethinkX et al. Thank you!

[@thelimitingfactor]

✊🏼🤠

[@solarguy4850]

Good job. I do this type of analysis myself and came to the same conclusion. In my models the cheapest energy today includes solar/wind/batteries/pumped hydro/hydro with gas peakers. As costs come down for batteries/solar, you can add more and more “super-power” to offset peaker use .. so these peakers get used less and less and less. In effect superpower is a type of “peaker” .. so IMHO that is how we can easily assess its cost effectiveness.

[@jamesengland7461]

See, now THAT makes sense. You could actually extend [I assume] the lives of peaker plants in this way, making the grid more robust as renewables come online.

[@mrleenudler]

Kind of, but the big difference is that peaker power is very expensive, while super power is practically free.

[@jamesengland7461]

@@mrleenudler only once that amount of capacity has actually been built, many years away.

[@mrleenudler]

@@jamesengland7461 Is kind of the definition of super power. And we already have some small measure of it. Renewable heavy regions sometimes go into negative power prices.

[@georgepelton5645]

Peakers need to be dispachable. I don't think superpower from excess wind and solar is suitable. Batteries can replace speakers at lower cost, so I expect that to happen instead.

[@jackinthebox301]

I've seen a couple comments miss the point of Superpower. It isn't about being able to do things with "extra" power*, it's about the marginal cost of the power being used. By pairing installed generation with the worst case generation scenarios, you will have insanely cheap energy the rest of the year. How much more affordable can consumer products, agricultural products, etc. be made with energy that is basically free for 9 months (depending on latitude) out of the year? *Practically speaking, there is no such thing as excess power. That is because excess power being used means it is no longer excess and would counteract the reduction in marginal energy cost. The moment you try to do something with the excess all the benefits of superpower disappear.

[@beatreuteler]

Maybe it sould have been called excess capacity. Becuase that is what it will be most of the year. Since not all the power it could generate will be needed, the plants will be partially curtailed most of the year.

[@swecreations]

0:12 This is already completely possible though. This is the case in Sweden and has been so for a while, during the nights we often see electricity prices of under a cent per kWh.

[@635574]

And on top of the generated power it avoids the probelm of 60% energy wasted as heat when using other methods.

[@kimobailey2926]

Excellent review ! Thanks for the deep insight !

[@martindbp]

Large AI model training is an interesting case for super power. Unlike many other use cases, interruptions are not a big deal, you just continue from the last checkpoint. The training runs are also reaching the point where they're talking about building nuclear reactors just to power them.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Super power doesn't really work for data centres because they need baseload, not intermittent to max out capital efficiency

[@johnthomas5806]

thanks again for putting out great thoughts

[@gary_sustainableplanet]

Another important RethinkX omission is lack of analysis on what industries can profitably use the excess power ("superpower") produced by overbuilding renewables. Industries that use lots of power like crypto mining, datacenters, and aluminum refining all use expensive capital assets that no company is going to be willing to have sitting idle half the time. I bet the capital equipment to produce hydrogen via electrolysis isn't cheap. And it's expensive to pay your workforce while your factory is shut down without power. With anything made by superpower, companies couldn't plan their production and promise delivery dates to customers. If there were good superpower industries waiting to go, why wouldn't we already be seeing them since solar in California and Australia already overproduce in the spring?

[@thelimitingfactor]

My thinking as well! There's only so much of a market for superpower

[@CiaranMcHale]

Some possibilities (not necessarily good possibilities, but possibilities nonetheless) that come to mind for intermittent excess power: (1) desalination of water; (2) produce green hydrogen, and then combine that green hydrogen with CO2 to produce methane to be used as fuel in SpaceX flights; (3) pump water uphill and back into a reservoir to be reused in hydroelectricity generation; (4) generate heat that is pumped back into the ground for later extraction via a ground-source heat pump; (5) extract CO2 from the atmosphere. The possibilities I suggest are wild guesses, but they have have something in common. They suggest that superpower may not be soaked up by already-existing-and-widespread uses, but rather that intermittent superpower may be soaked up by not-yet-widespread uses, simply because the benefits of superpower's low cost will outweigh the drawbacks of superpower's intermittent nature (in contrast, already large consumers of electricity typically would see intermittent power as being a deal breaker).

[@krakken-]

@@thelimitingfactor "There's only so much of a market for superpower"... today... When things get cheap, industries get founded to take advantage of low costs.

[@JoelSapp]

@@CiaranMcHale The last one is the best one. When power is free, convert CO2 to elemental carbon or some way to sequester it. The reality is when we get to zero emissions, we'll need to clean up some of the excess that we added.

[@JoelSapp]

@@thelimitingfactor Other possibilities, most metal plants could produce a good deal more and could go on overdrive when electricity pricing is lower. AI training centers and digital coin centers could boost computation during times when energy production is highest. They probably could do this now with a well coordinated grid. By the sounds of what OpenAI would like to do, they want 5-7 5 GW plants. they could soak up a lot of power during the day

[@johndonovan7897]

In addition to batteries, intermittency can be solved by hydro (as it is in Oregon) and also running a combination of wind and solar (sun shines during the day, and wind blows at night.

[@peteroffpist1621]

V2G will be a great part of balancing the grid. Over production will be stored in hydrogen and other similar storage options. A stable grid with great backup is the way to get low price. Small nuclear plants that easily can be turned off and on is another base production that needs to come in place.

[@markplott4820]

but NOT with vehicles. NCM too expensive for V2G you are better off w/ LFP home battery anyway.

[@peteroffpist1621]

@@markplott4820 My BEV has LFP batteries and rated for 6000 cycles compared to NCM that is rated 3000 cycles. But i do agree a small LFP home battery as a complete is also good when the BEV is not home. That is the setup I use here.

[@beatreuteler]

@@markplott4820 If it isnt w. vehicles, it's not VTG. And also vehicles are coming w. LFP these days.

[@markplott4820]

@@beatreuteler - V2H is a GREAT way to burn out your very EXPENSIVE vehicle battery. (+$30,000).....lol. you are BETTER of with a HOME battery like Powerwalls , even w/o Solar.

[@beatreuteler]

@@markplott4820 Home batteries are too expensive for the time being and it is quite well known that there is no detectable damage to a vehicles battery life when using VTH or even VTG. The only reason not to do it is if the benefit isn't there or if the manufacturer makes limitations through warranty clauses. Where I live, it doesn't make economic sense due to regulations causing extra cost. That's eating up all the possible benefits which makes it a nogo for a very long time. But in other countries that can do a good contribution to grid stability.

[@tomasnielsen5132]

Here in Sweden I get more or less 0 kWh solar for 4 months when it also is super cold. I would need a lot of super power batteries to cover 4 super cold months. We need to be nuanced, this is not a solution for all.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Bingo!

[@beatreuteler]

Of course. The closer you get to polar circle...

[@waltermcphee3787]

Is the wind not stronger during those 4 months.

[@beatreuteler]

@@waltermcphee3787 Very much true. It was a little bit narrow-eyed because focusing 100% on solar and batteries which is not at all the discussed concept. But I can understand anyway.

[@benlamprecht6414]

Thanks for yet another excellent video

[@johnsteele5836]

I would prefer to focus on achieving renewable/sustainable power by 2030 to decrease global warming. Hidden costs of pushing out to 2040 would be, for example, health care costs caused by pollution, increased immigration by population trying to escape unsustainable home lands, etc. Also, maintenance cost of non-renewable energy generating facilities increase over time and thus makes the change to renewables more logical. Great stuff. Keep up the great work.

[@sandervanhooft8665]

Tesla should produce magnesium in the Gulf of Mexico (sea water) using super power. Gigacastings out of cheap magnesium. See Jordans video about tixo moulding.

[@beatreuteler]

Capital intense equipment dosn't work very well if it isn't used most of the day if not 24/7. This said in many instances it will be most cost effective to curtail the superpower.

[@tamiti1669]

Texas is the largest energy-consuming state and is the largest net supplier of energy to other states. The industrial sector, including the state's refineries and petrochemical plants, accounts for more than half of the state's energy consumption and for 24% of the nation's total industrial sector energy use. Texas currently has 16GW of solar & Power plant developers are planning to add around 24 GW of solar power net summer capacity to the grid in 2024 and 2025, compared with only 3 GW of additional wind power nameplate capacity during the same period. Given these numbers and a decline in energy use from the state's refineries, Texas is well on its way to hitting assumptions by 2030.

[@tamiti1669]

credit EIA

[@hippie-io7225]

Excellent video! For a test, I put together a 3Kw $1,300 USD solar/battery system. I ran this system for 2 years, cutting my electricity cost by 50%. I am now in the process of upgrading to a 7Kwhr battery and 220 volt inverter system and using more panels.. Many homes in Australia are doing similar things. I would be interested in your predictions on how the "home made power" influences the global equation.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Cool! I love personal anecdotes

[@aussie405]

In Western Australia today, the South West Interconnected System (SWIS) which is the largest completely isolated grid in the world has spent about 6 hours running at 75% from individual rooftops. There is some large scale solar but it is curtailed for most of the day, as it isn't necessary. The grid doesn't need more power in the day, rather more at night, and some massaging to move it to the peak periods. I have a 15kWh battery. I start charging my EV at 3am. By 7am when my home battery is down to 10% the sun takes over. It will Granny charge my car, heat a small electric water heater and have my home battery back to 100% before midday, when I start sending power to the grid. We need more wind power for overnight, and more people like me, who have batteries and rarely use grid power. The amazing thing is, the electricity generation system didn't need to buy all the solar panels to make it happen. The people paid for it themselves. If the grid operator put free electricity at train station car parks, they could soak the excess in the middle of the day into EVs, and reduce the peak in the evening.

[@hippie-io7225]

@@aussie405 Thanks for that insight. I try to talk with one of my Aussie friends (here in the US) about solar; but he prefers to talk about all the "wasted" coal in your neck of the woods.

[@beatreuteler]

@@aussie405 Sounds good. We run 25.2 KWp rooftop and a 14.3 KWh 2nd life battery. We make about 23 MWh a year and so far used less than 4, so the rest went to the grid. (6x) Now since a few weeks we have the heat pump to heat our home and I tend to expect it will use again this much, e.g we will drop to a 3x capacity. Nonetheless in the core of the winter we will need to buy some extra power from the grid to sustain.

[@aussie405]

@@beatreuteler I am now coming into the part of the year when I use most power, Summer. I will operate the air-conditioners (heat pumps) probably all the time the sun is up, and turn the building into a cold box. Between the longer daylight hours and usually cloudless days, I am hoping to not need much grid support. Now that my car is charging for free and my electricity bill is down to basically nothing, I am saving about $3500 per year in electricity and petrol (gas). Even if the grid never pays me a cent for the exports, it will pay for itself in less than seven years. And that assumes petrol prices stay the same. I bought the EV with this in mind, and so far it is working as planned.

[@GaneshNayak]

Excellent video.. Non market forces play important role.. For example, EVs have come down in price as per cost curve, thanks to China, but govts all over the world have put import duties, so markets are not seeing the cost reduction, which is slowing down EV adoption. Same is case with solar panels as well... Its mind blowing to think how much regulation and trade barriers are holding back energy transition

[@thelimitingfactor]

Thanks man!

[@phvaessen]

My understanding was: 1. existing traditional energy production is maintained until the cost of maintenance is lower than the new enegry provided from solar + battery 2. solar + battery absorb the increased demand for new energy production - avoiding the build of traditional energy power plants 3. the new installtions are built to create overcapacity in production of solar, stored in batteries to cover the intermittent production gap. 4. When there is no gap then batteries are full, the extra solar energy produced is used for new extra needs. In fact then energy has even a negative cost, ath could be used to produce for instance green hydrogen, or other intermittent industrial use. That overcapacity (excess energy) is then called superpower.

[@EwanM11]

Thanks, does your analysis consider domestic energy generation from residential rooftop solar? There is normally not much regulation stopping households installation a system which mostly covers there needs, which overtime could reduce the need for utility and grid build out?

[@thelimitingfactor]

Yes, because it's primarily about scaling

[@andreasherzog2222]

I have been a big fan of this concept for many years. It describes what *could* be done in 2030 by the engineers, if they were 'king of the world'. They focus on 2030 because we need decarbonization ASAP. Your take on the concept is correct, focusing on the practical issues in the making. And there is another issue: We don't have too many use cases for 'superpower' (yet). Our industrial processes are usually designed to run 24/7 and most of them do not like to be interrupted at all ;) So we will have to invent new processes that can be easily turned on/off.

[@beatreuteler]

The "superpower" does not need to be used all up. Wind power stations as well as PV arrays can temporary be disabled.

[@roxter299roxter7]

7:30 This mismash of operators and regulators only exists in the US. For many places in the world the electrical grid is government owned and operated. Like in Canada. Tony is not looking only at US power grids. Australia,for example,is already going through this transition from coal to solar. Skipping gas and nuclear completely.

[@jjackson3240]

One thing you touched on but didn't expand is the energy companies wanting to maintain their market shares. This pushes into the political arena such as the Ohio nuclear plant bribery of government officials. Depending on where you read, oil companies make up to 6 million dollars per hour. That's 24 hours/day year round. You can bet they will not die quietly. As to your point on waiting a couple years for prices to decrease even more, I believe that the sooner we can eliminate the need for fossil fuels the better even if it costs a few dollars more. However I do agree that it is unlikely that we will reach full decarbonization by 2030. There are too many obstacles and too many people who either are afraid of change or just flat don't want change in their lives even if it makes their lives better. Good job dissecting Mr. Seba's forecast.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Thanks man! I agree. I avoided getting into the weeds on what we should do because that's political 😁 I have thoughts

[@JM106Johnson]

Good analysis. I have a couple of thoughts. 1) I agree that the multitude of decision makers and entities in a market and regulated monopolistic market make super rapid change more difficult thus arguing for 2040 versus 2030 - at least from a directional perspective. 2) I think you second point regarding waiting for costs to drop further to lessen overall cost is weaker. It depends on how you factor the externality cost of the exponential impact of further GHG emissions and the potential for catastrophic non-reversible exponential climate change. There are solid scientific reasons to view a delay of even a decade as a real and potentially incalculably expensive risk. In that case, governments might take a more 'central planning' and less cost efficient approach just to avoid the existential risks of a delay in achieving net zero (and net negative because we need power to power the carbon sucking machines)....

[@thelimitingfactor]

Thanks man! As for #2, that's not a weakness in my analysis, that's an unpriced negative externality that I can't control for in my analysis I'm not here to tell society what it should do, only what the likely path is based on what we know right now

[@eyalteiger7019]

Much more important is the inflection point where it won't be fully renewable but very cheap. As usual it's helpful to apply the 80/20 rule here

[@thelimitingfactor]

VERY good point

[@DrPillePalle]

Excellent video! If Wright's law is any indication (20% cost reduction for each cumulative doubling of total battery production), cost will likely sink slower and slower in time.

[@johndonovan7897]

I don't think transport charging would be "catch as catch can" because if you charge during the day (say at work) you charge off excess solar, but if you charge at night (say at home) you're using excess battery storage.

[@andrewclark6394]

In Australia the electricity companies will soon be charging you to feed the power from your rooftop solar system into the grid. This will stop the domestic solar installation industry and lead to these systems being disconnected from the grid or redirected into domestic battery storage. Also if power is free or negatively priced during the solar generation peaks then just install batteries and charge them for free or even get paid to charge them, you don’t need a solar system.

[@slwiser1]

Has regulations changed from 2010 when solar and wind power were subsidized by nuclear, gas and coal power by requiring utilities to assume the green energy was being provided 24/7 everyday of the year in the balance books. This requires that the extra cost of going green would be shouldered by nuclear, gas and coal. The income from nuclear, gas and coal would have to have their cost increased to offset the difference in the real cost of green energy and the subsidized cost on the utilities books. This started in Europe and came to the US decades ago. Very few really understood this requirement for the utilities to do this off-setting of the true cost of green energy. I worked in the utility industry for the last 45 years. The more coal, nuclear and gas power plants are shut down due to the increasing off-set to dirty energy into a smaller and smaller amount will keep showing dirty energy is getting more and more expensive. This will essentially stop this off-setting cost burden since the less dirty energy is provided there will be less ability to subsidize green energy; the real cost of going green will appear.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Interesting!

[@charleslivingston2256]

Much of the real cost of going green will be realized when there is sufficient battery purchase to go along with the solar/wind generation

[@nicollo3672]

What about the external cost of co2 emissions and the disposal of radio active waste? Right. That’s the tax payers money

[@beatreuteler]

Provided the predictions regarding cost erosion are going to become a reality, then the true cost of renewables including storage will be even lower than today. Subsidies will not be required anymore, maybe with the exception of the last few plants to be built for the super power, when it needs to be financed in spite of the uncertainty how much in 1 year it will be used.

[@bobwallace9753]

"The average useful life of a combined cycle natural gas plant is typically considered to be 25 to 30 years. However, with proper maintenance and potential component upgrades, some plants can operate for up to 40 years or even longer." The average useful life of US coal plants is 40 years. Almost all our coal plants are older than 30 years. Some of our CCNG plants are likely over 30 years old, the average age is about 20 years. All these plants will have to be replaced with something. Wind and solar have vastly lower installed cost per MWh generated than do coal, nuclear, and CCNG. Additionally, since wind and solar are cheaper than buying fuel for a paid off CCNG plant as more wind and solar are added they will be given priority over natural gas in order to enjoy fuel savings. That means that when CCNG plants have a serious repair issue a utility might decide it's time to retire that plant early and spend the money on more wind/solar or storage.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Yeah, it's very much situation and geographically determined

[@gdok6088]

Thee point of pursuing fusion power is for ultra-power hungry future applications which will metaphorically and literally power humanity onto the next stage in our advancement. Ultimately power is the limiting factor for all advances. For example we will need to have very compact high power production methods, like fusion, for use on the moon for mineral mining, extraction and processing before transport back to earth possibly on fusion powered rockets.

[@callmebigpapa]

Correct me if I am misremembering but didnt Tony say SWB is already below fuel cost only?Also his Video is already a year old how have things changed ie Sodium-ion battieries and the new super dense batteries? Also @8:54 is that scaling you are showing an S curve adoption?

[@thelimitingfactor]

1) If he did, that's incorect unless you leave out the cost of firming for SWB or unless you're cherry picking very specific sites 2) Sodium ion is currently more expensive than li-ion. It'll be probably 5 years before it makes a serious cost impacte 3) Not sure what you mean. That's exactly as the heading explains. 50% CAGR

[@allanpaulett5394]

We have a south facing farm in the UK, a large solar company wanted to cover the whole area but they gave up on it because it was impossible to get a grid connection before 2035, even though we have pylons and lines running through the farm already.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Damn! Great anecdote thanks!

[@JohnSanders1091]

I think a central ultra high voltage dc line should be ran coast to coast here in the US. For long distance, low loss energy transfer this is looking more ideal. The 4-5hr difference from one coast to another could allow sharing of peak energy production with the other part of the country that doesn’t have it available yet and vice versa as evening hits in one area(production starts falling) it is already night in the other and demand is very low. I think there would be a way to sync it up very well using this idea and battery storage with dc-dc conversion. This would also allow areas with poor weather for production to import electric from places that have ideal weather and high production.

[@beatreuteler]

Good idea I think.

[@rickrys2729]

Overbuilding solar and wind is the right idea and Toni's projection is likely to be close. China is doing this now and they are actively managing excess solar PV curtailment with grid interactive customers (demand response) i.e. the smart grid

[@bobwallace9753]

Overbuilding wind and solar saves on storage cost. And, to some extent, that extra generation can find a use. Charging EVs is an obvious use since EV charging is highly dispatchable. Another is desal. Lots of salt water could be turned into potable water during sunny mornings and windy nights with the fresh water stored in reservoirs for later use.

[@Danothebaldyheid]

Thanks for this. Good analysis..

[@thelimitingfactor]

You're most welcome!

[@steverichmond7142]

Grid scale battery prices are falling rapidly. I live in Scotland and we have excess wind energy from on-shore and off-shore wind farms. Smoothing the grid using batteries is relatively easy. We do not need nuclear - and having worked in that industry that is a god send.

[@JosueC730]

Solar, wind, energy storage (hydro, not only batteries) and nuclear would be a more accurate prediction, specially knowing how much nuclear energy China is constructing and planning to construct.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Depends on the country, the lattitude, and the nature of the energy need

[@keithv3767]

There are no “cheap” solutions for nuclear. I doubt it fits into solving the intermittency problem simply because it always costs more per unit of power. Whether you compare it to battery storage paired with renewables or continued use of natural gas, it’s more expensive.

[@andrewf67]

I think you made some good points that I appreciate because I've been trying to get my head around "super power" for awhile now. Currently there are economic and other benefits for grid scale as well as smaller scale solar, wind & storage installations. I don't see a business/economic case for "super power", meaning it will not be profitable for capital to add more power generation / storage once a certain point is reached. The case for super power is for governments to make the expenditures in order to provide low cost / virtually unlimited power for people to utilize for productivity and play. We don't live in that system. Centrally managed China might do it but most places won't without systemic change. I do wonder however what will be the impact of businesses and households adding more and more grid tied energy production and storage. I know I am very interested in adding solar and storage to my home in order to achieve greater energy security. That is becoming more appealing as the technology improves (rapidly) and the relative costs improve as well. Decentralization could create an economic model for energy that is hard to fully grasp and predict. What will the grid look like in a world where solar and storage are as common as HVAC for homes and businesses?

[@thelimitingfactor]

Amen! Some industries, even if you give them free power, will be uneconomic due to capital costs.

[@markplott4820]

It's quite simple 100% energy needs, 365 days year, for industry & consumer. Also ZERO cost energy.

[@edchandler9974]

Thank you for the thoughtful reflection on the RethinkX presentation. Two questions: 1) Do the energy demand assumptions used account for new high demand categories (eg. AI compute) that would scale demand above the current trend line? We’ve seen with computers that as processing speed, memory capacity, storage capacity, and connection bandwidth became cheaper and more available that demand for each was induced at a rate that many people found surprising. 2) In terms of rate of transition and buildout, is there any accounting of the coming reality check on deficits and debt loads? You can run cost benefit analyses till you’re blue in the face, but if you can’t finance the debt (eg. corporate or gov’t bonds) you don’t get to buy the equip or do the work.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Nuclear is the opposite of intermittent. Nuclear electricity's best economics is 247 cash-flow from the customer to the grid. Customer's best economics is NO cash-flow to the grid. Rooftop PV and BV's OVERSIZED BATTERY parked 23hrs every day and all night long. Selfparking selfplug-in V2G trickle currents all day long and all night long.

[@williambooth7512]

Could you comment on the requirement to replace capacity at the end of its useful life please? I do not know if Rethink X has included these costs including cost of disposal / re-use

[@nextechsolutions5955]

US Dollar value is no longer pegged to Gold, it’s currently pegged to the price of Oil. What happens to the Dollar when Oil is of little value? Does that make Lithium or Solar Panels the new Oil? There is no shortage of Lithium or the materials necessary to produce Photovoltaic Cells…

[@iandavies4853]

Purchase of oil must be in US dollars, according to Nixon. But it’s not pegged. Oil price fluctuates in US dollar terms.

[@markplott4820]

Limiting factor - no you want to charge grid battery & commercial & power walls @ peak solar, homes will need to charge overnight @ super off peak. they can still export to local grid , after battery is charged (4H), and discharge is up to (6H).

[@denyswoodroffe490]

I would go with Tony. He has the historical background.

[@sagecoach]

Thermal and battery storage in homes may be required in cold climates where gas and oil prevail and electric resistive heating is not as efficient. Electric power transmission efficiency losses and range limit access to remote locations.

[@philipdamask2279]

Don't forget you will have to install a lot of solar or wind to recharge the batteries to supply the electric loads when the wind or solar is not available. That is not free energy!

[@markplott4820]

think on this , entre USA can be SWB powered , with just 1% total land needed, size or Rhode island. but needs even distribution.

[@Thomas_Acharya]

15:40 the reason to work on and produce fusion power would be for interstellar travel, not for electricity on Earth's sake alone.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Correct

[@stijn2644]

Thank you, was thinking the same thing. Energy is not only electricity. Decoupling environmental damage from human activity is likely to be found in space applications. The only way to power heavy industry in space is nuclear(fission or fusion), there just isn't anything that comes close.

[@beatreuteler]

@@stijn2644 Industry in space is a giant leap.

[@fireofenergy]

At 3:14... The battery is at "4x", which makes sense because PV only generates _1/4th_ of the whole day/night cycle. However, they imply, by projecting less batteries needed (with more PV), that more energy is used during the day, than at night, otherwise it would be impossible to project that, unless of course, wind is included over a vast _geopolitical_ area 😁

[@fireofenergy]

Actually, we would need, in a perfect world, 4x the rated PV power, where 1 part of that is powering the 6 hours that the average sun shines, and 3 parts of that (PV generated electricity) to be stored into _18 hours_ of LFP or other cheap and efficient battery storage. The wind and the nuclear really messes up this equation, though, and boy do we need lots of _advanced little nuclear reactors_ just to make and recycle all this "stuff", or a lot more oil!

[@markplott4820]

Kauai & now Hawaii are 100% SWB , and ZERO coal. some Ng used.

[@beatreuteler]

@@fireofenergy I don't see what you need these nuclear plants for in this scenario. Nor oil.

[@fireofenergy]

@@beatreuteler As long as the energy returned on energy invested is great enough to power humanity AND to make the PV/LFP and to recycle EVERYTHING using energy intensive plasma gasification AND to power thousands of mass produced desalination facilities, AND to quintuple its growth rate (because we didn't want to wait thirty years just to double the output)... Then, yes, we wouldn't need the super high energy densities of whatever optimized, efficient and mass produced advanced little nuclear reactors. 😉

[@beatreuteler]

@@fireofenergy Unfortunately for the super reactors they come too late to cover what you think they will cover.

[@paulwujek5208]

Does this estimate of available power take into account the power draw of AI models which are scheduled to require 100s of GW in the near future?

[@thelimitingfactor]

Nope. Another reason why it'll take longer than 2030

[@NoName-ep2xp]

I wonder whether individual residential or commercial action to fit solar will overtake grid generation and thereby bypass much of the grid access constraints?

[@thelimitingfactor]

It'll certainly help!

[@beatreuteler]

Overtaking is hard to do as the individual power rating is typically low so it takes hundreds of thousands doing it, but overtaking is not needed.

[@scooterrosie4649]

JG, does this take personal Solar installation that reduces the grid need?

[@thelimitingfactor]

Installation of any kind. It's simply a matter of manufacturing scale, regardless of implementation

[@johnsteele5836]

Wow! Lots of factors affecting existing energy grids. I see it as a dynamic energy ecosystem. 1. Some assumptions in Wrights rule regarding a fixed decrease in cost over time deploying sustainble energy. Perhaps a greater cost decline would occur beyond the typical 'cost of material and production volume/scale' due to improved battery design (increase in storage capacity) and (ongoing) decrease in mining costs (supported by recycling battery materials, etc) 2. California building codes for new homes require solar panels. Say this transition takes place in other states over a few years. While adopting this new building code (along with battery cost improvements), it would be cost affective to have the federal government to provide financing to home owners to install battery storage devices. Battery storage in homes would provide a primary layer of energy source to buffer any major power outage that would be eventually covered by the local energy utility's storage system. 3. Meanwhile, continued conversions of existing homes to (newer) heat pump technology reducing energy consumption and costs.

[@enoch1680]

Jordan, thanks for this thought provoking piece. I agree with your conclusion that Seba is overly optimistic in terms of getting to 100%. That said, Seba has continued to surprise and I think we will do better than your at projecting. Here are some things that push the timeline in his favor. 1) Grid upgrades and interconnecting the three US grids would lower the curve by aggregating the variable renewables making their aggregate output smoother. The SEIA timeline plot you showed was from beginning to end. But there are a number of transmission line projects that are far along in their timelines so could be built much more quickly. 2) The old model is to provide all power requested WHEN it is requested. Many customers would happily alter their demand curves if they could recoup the economic benefits of that. This requires time of use metering. Tesla is addressing this on the supply side with power walls being aggregated into virtual utilities to arbitrage power. But that is the Seba model. It can also be done on the demand side and BEVs provide an excellent way for the grid to gain storage essentially for free. I, and many others already do this by charging at night when the grid in my area has more power available. 3) You use an example of solar only being available in the daytime. Aggregating the grid would increase solar availability by about 3 hours (3 time zones) and wind peaks at night making the window of low production much smaller and requiring less battery capacity. Further, wind turbines have continued to grow in height, this increases capacity factor (on time). Massive wind farms being built of the eastern seaboard are looking like 50% - 60% CF which is far in excess of what most aggregate models have utilized. I agree with your overall premise that there are constraints that make 2030 impossible, I think the middle of next decade will see us at least 90% of the way there for transportation and electric with the exception being HVAC which will take considerably longer. I did a deep dive into this stuff about 10 years ago. My conclusions were pretty radical with prognostication that we could get to zero carbon by 2050. I couple of years later I stumbled onto Seba's book, and agreed with his methodology but thought he was over optimistic by decades. NOBODY thought he was even close on BEVs. Here we are 10 years later and his estimates were closest to correct. I still don't think 5 years, but 10, I won't bet against that. PS - Most of my modeling is conceptually similar for Europe as they have access to massive solar in Spain and across the Mediteranian, lots of hydro storage in Norway and massive wind power off shore - Transmission lines the access to wind power handlemanpost.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/compare-maps-of-the-grid-and-renewables/ - Wind Power CF for onshore and off shore is even better handlemanpost.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/new-nrel-numbers-game-changer-for-wind-power/

[@wlhgmk]

I think we all would agree that long term energy storage is the key to this revolution. As you imply, we have already pretty well solved the generation problem and just have to spread the joy to when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. But you have missed the real work horse of energy storage. The system that can store masses of energy over any period you care to name. It is off-river pumped storage and according to recent analysis, there are lots and lots of suitable sites. The technology is off the shelf and with a massive increase in developed sites, the price will come down even further. Payback time is a tad long so this is an ideal place for governments to step in.

[@williamwoo866]

besides using electric to heat your water at home, we can use solar convection to heat the water thus reducing the high use of electric.

[@rtfunn]

The biggest difference and more important difference, and frankly, the metric that would prove you wrong or Rethink X wrong is the growth rate. They have 100%, and you have 50%. That is worlds apart. I would like to see a deeper dive into that, projections of how things would change as you model based on 50% towards 100%. Maybe chat it as a graph so we can try to predict how things will go based on the actual cost curves and utility transition rates

[@beatreuteler]

I think in many countries, licensing for new mines is very time consuming. In some places it takes 20 years to open a new mine. It is +/- transparent how many and how big of the new mines are in the pipeline and where they stand. I believe the materials to be mined do not support the 100% growth path rethinkX sketched and it might be even critical if it is capable to support the 50% rate. While I wouldn't like to make the judgment on either of the 2 who is right, to me at least it looks of the 50% rate is closer to reality.

[@JT_771]

Bumping the time seems to make sense. All the more with the expected heavy ramp in power needs for AI in the coming years.

[@G11713]

There's a feed back loop. Bumping the time will reduce the rate of increase in economics of scale, likely making it necessary to bump it further... and so on.

[@johndavidjudeii]

I believe that Rethink went with the current electrical power because it is not dependent on any hardware changes, meaning no one has to change their gas stoves, hot water heaters, furnaces, cars, semi trucks, industrial furnaces, and any other hardware which uses direct fossil fuels and has a long lifespan. Changing from fossil fuel hardware to electric hardware will take place gradually overtime as people and businesses need to replace the appliance or machine. Even if Texas did wait for 2040 to replace the entire grid because it would be so cheap, many people could not use this power because there has not been the gradual change I spoke of above. In addition, the projected increase in energy demand needs to be met in the moment, not years later. So its either build more fossil fueled energy plants which are expensive to build and operate and would be a poor long term investment over its multi-decade life or go forward building the solar and battery capacity as electrical energy demand incrementally increases.

[@hansmuller3676]

Include the fact that SWB will drop below the cost of transmission power costs - so Not so much big Utilities will be needed

[@thelimitingfactor]

We'll still need them for stability

[@carbonstar9091]

You still need utilities for very densely consuming areas like cities and industrial centers.

[@darianhobo8838]

Critically the Lazard report also shows the very high cost of power firming. Casio has much higher electrical costs despite higher renewable penetration and lower generation cost. Transmission, capacity firming, and distribution are all large costs than generation. Overhauling the grid to hand intermittent load and moving that power is costly. The power queue as you mentioned is already extreme. More than 8 fold increase in the last 10 years to more than double current generation is in the power queue and time delay has almost tripled. Also the cost for energy storage assumes 4hr of capacity. With grid connection and lots of base load supply this works, but multi day let alone multi week storage is highly cost prohibitive to say nothing of seasonal variation. My current project is on evaluation of space solar power which can provide highly competitive generation, transformative logistics, and 24/7 renewable base load. It serves as a perfect complement to variable renewable sources with the capture to beam power to multiple different ground locations as needed.

[@jburdman7]

What I say to bring the problem home is that no one is giving power away on winter solstice- when solar days are short.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Amen

[@oldtimer7979]

limiting factor is the time it takes to permit and construct the lithium supply chain, from mines to chemical LCE plants to Cathode manufacturing plants.. 2040 is likely the earliest the buildout can be achieved.

[@sahanda2000]

by the way solar cell prices (not panels) fallen down to single digit cents... makes 10 usd for a 2 m2 panel which gives out 400 to 420 w/hrs... for meeting a household's electricity need, let's say 10 kw/hrs capacity, core tech just costs less then 300 usd of investment... rest of the cost are cables, glass, films, frame, and workmanship... there are design options to squeeze those down too and it will eventually get down...

[@fuzzymonkey777]

I just bought solar panels through ebay for less than half what i paid almost 2 years ago. How cheap can they get?

[@tasoskar9693]

Very very interesting points that I never thought of. It’s really great to see people make well thought analysis. Nevertheless I think you made some mistakes in your thinking. Firstly I think batteries will scale more than 100% in the next 6 years. Will it grow to a point like rethinkx is saying? That I don’t know but the guys were spot on until now so their research is quite accurate

[@cflynn-b8d]

If you were to do the same kind of analysis on Tony Seba’s predictions from 2013 -2024, would the same pragmatic approach have led us to where we are today? Would we have looked at 2013 and said it was even possible we could do it in 10 years? It would be great to see your breakdown, as you do an absolutely transcendent job at explaining this stuff.

[@thelimitingfactor]

I already answered this below. I'm just repeating what their analysis says, but highlighting the caveats that they didn't or people missed.

[@kevinmerrell9952]

Mass energy storage should be distributed. Individual homes and businesses need the power/energy they need no matter the state of generation.

[@dominicgoodwin1147]

Intelligent control systems allow demand management, so meeting the energy they need should be an interaction between producers, grids and consumers. Octopus Energy in the uk is already doing this with intelligent tariffs, as is Tesla of course.

[@iandavies4853]

Advantages both ways. Scale economics of utility production & storage is obvious, more so as panels drop to almost free while re-wiring the house costs. Present use case is immense GWh scale battery farms in outer suburbs.

[@dmeisler1]

At some point solar or wind (probably solar first) become so cheap such that synthesizing hydrocarbons becomes economically competitive with fossil hydrocarbons. This basically solves the intermittency and need for quick electrification.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Yes and no, I'll be doing a video on this

[@woof059]

The reason RethinkX focuses on 2030 is that most scientists say that we have until 2030 to make drastic reductions in carbon emissions to prevent the worst issues projected to happen due to anthropogenic global warming. (I drive a Tesla not because it’s cheaper or more convenient; I drive it because I can power it with rooftop solar to prevent carbon emissions.) Doing all this by 2040 may be cheaper, but if you are trying to prevent disaster, what is that money going to do for you? The point isn’t to maximize money savings, it’s to prevent disaster. The fact that it does save money is a bonus. Now, please look at whether those scientists are right. If they are, then the economics of it will become more clear.

[@thelimitingfactor]

Most scientists don't say that. They something more like the following: If we remain on the current trajectory, as we move deeper into the future, we see increasing risks of catastrophic climate change. They don't give a cut-off. Some organizations, media, and politicians do for dramatic effect, but most climate scientists know how nuanced things are. Additionaly, climate scientists realize how important societal stability is. You can't just jack up prices, force a segment of the population into poverty, and not expect upheavel and war to result - which slows the transition to sustainable energy and can even reverse the progress.

[@woof059]

@@thelimitingfactor After reading your post, I did a review of where my impression came from. I ran into several articles starting from 2019 using 2030 as a date that cited their data from research published in Nature and other research publications. I then reviewed those… and things became murky. While the papers cited by the articles did warn of the risks of global temperatures rising above 1.5 C by 2032 as being rather high, there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty about what would actually happen and what that would mean long term. I began to scratch my head. Would you at some point be able to look into this and apply your ability to sift through data and understand processes to clear up what we know factually about anthropogenic climate change and what we can actually expect, and what we can do about it? I know this is a bit tangential to what you normally do, and is a big ask. That, and there are plenty of good reasons to move off of fossil fuels (I drive a car for which that I make my own energy for example). Perhaps a clear picture presented in a video will point out what we do know and where uncertainty exists on this issue. Thanks!

[@michaelclement1337]

While delaying renewables to 2040 would reduce cost it means more carbon output than would happen if renewables are implemented earlier

[@thelimitingfactor]

I'm showing the reality fo the situation, not what I'd like reality to be.

[@klauszinser]

As a general question. Are Tony Seba and Adam .. talking about Texas (or maybe the US) or about the whole world? On whats defined as intermittency challenge, for South Germany you have around 2-3 months where there is not enough solar power produced. Thats for 48th parallel north. I am sure its similar in the US and other places. Well there is wind energy. But they have higher running expenses (higher marginal costs) and because you can't plaster the whole country but also environmental issues (there is more and more microplastic in the air, birds, microclimate changes) it won't help that much. Australia could make it mainly through solar. Looking to places like Canada and Scandiavia its more realistic that there are 3-5 months where there is a problem. It would be interesting to see whats going on on Denmark. So the intermittency problem can only go away when having fossil plants (nuclear is not enough) running for 1-4 months. It must not be bad. Having a battery storage for 30-100 hours makes sense. But as you demonstrated, its not even possible for Texas. Also i expect worldwide in 2030 maybe in average 4-8 hours can be stored. We will be surprised how quick the capitalistic world can increase the capacity but thats an extremely high demand. Whats missed (but right now i don't see much activities) is high-voltage direct current (HVDC) between continents. From north to south (solves the summer winter issue) and from west to east (solves the daytime issue). Through the Atlantic yes. But the Pacific seems to large. It case it is economically feasable it will take min 10-20 years. Also several nations will keep their (nuclear) power plants running for the coming 20 years. You can't easily regulate or switch them off for a few days. I agree on your points that a lot will be possible until 2035 or 2040. But it will mean at this time nearly all the current fossil power plants will be worthless. Maybe i have some errors. Later i will look again on the video. And the Tesla presentation you mentioned. Its good to think about these questions.

[@thelimitingfactor]

They use several case studies from different markets 🤠 The result is slightly different for different markets, but the overall gist is the same. But, there are wildcards here such as the massive increase in demand from AI, etc.

[@charleslivingston2256]

Master Plan part 3 has underground cavern hydrogen storage from summer excess to winter shortage.

[@AWildBard]

Another person who has modeled 100% renewables is Mark Jacobson of Stanford University. Here is a pdf for Germany Completion for 100% is 2050, but 80% by 2030 web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/143Country/20-WWS-Germany.pdf

[@georgepelton5645]

As I understand Tony Seba's vision, installing 2x-3x the solar PV required in summer will provide the needed power output in winter. In summer the extra capacity can be curtailed. This is really no different than how fossil power plants are curtailed when demand is not there to use their full capacity. Batteries can cover nighttime demand, and cloudy days are covered by a combination of excess PV capacity and batteries.

[@AWildBard]

@@georgepelton5645 It's really more like 4-7X capacity