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

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

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

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

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

  • Muad'DibberA
    1·
    2 years ago

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

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

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

    link

    You’re wrong about battery lifetime as well.

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

    Battery technology exists that doesn’t use Rare Earths …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • electrodynamica@mander.xyzOP
      1·
      2 years ago

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

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

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

      • Muad'DibberA
        1·
        2 years ago

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

            • electrodynamica@mander.xyzOP
              1·
              2 years ago

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

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

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

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

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