“Dismantling a jet engine” check out ProEnergy this is their business model, rebuilding General Electric LM 6000 aircraft engines into stationary power plants generating 45 or so megawatts.
Big batteries may well be more immediate beneficiaries of inadequate long term planning and financing, but they do give good value - very reliable with versatility that no other energy has - sub-second switching from delivering energy to absorbing excess, providing system inertia, voltage and frequency regulation as well as time-shifting energy. Like solar and wind batteries have been underestimated over and over yet it is just 8 years since the first 'big battery' got installed in Australia and mega battery factories have been built and the batteries they've made installed and operational since then.
And the predicted soaring demand for gas as backup to RE has not been eventuating in Australia - I think there is one gas plant in construction, and that one was by decree of a pro fossil fuels government as a raised finger to climate concerns, renewable energy and emissions reductions. By any measure the advances in batteries is extraordinary - and not standing still (although remains to see if US policies will kill major sources of critical battery R&D).
Ultimately taking the science on climate seriously means gas has to be displaced by lower emissions energy, no matter the determined fanning of alarmist fears of zero emissions commitments and of RE. I expect hydro/pumped hydro will emerge as the deep, long storage, doing what RE with batteries, V2G, demand management, efficiency etc can't do. Nuclear will struggle to compete for what solar and wind miss in most places - no income every sunny day/windy night will eat away their income and their effective capacity factor.
I suspect gas will stick around to “fill in the gaps” long term—and the plants that stick around longest will be fast-responding aeroderivative and reciprocating engine “peaker” plants. A functional “green” approach would be to replace gas with intermittent renewables and storage…and replace coal and oil with gas
This could be the opening for fuel cells. The gas turbine folks could find themselves in a sort of reverse innovators dilemma, enabling a more expensive technology to build scale and move down the cost curve. See Bloom Energy. For full disclosure I have a small position in BE but, sadly, have not chased it to the upside. Would be happy to hear your thoughts.
Bloom is interesting, but my gut says they're like 20% overhyped. Since posting this, I've learned that aeroderivative gas turbines (literally new jet engines bolted to the ground) have a lot better turnaround times, and that's...exciting.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing! Beyond cost declines this may be the best argument for why solar’s momentum won’t stop
You can add this to your lineup (though note the “smaller units” mention, which might be re aeroderivatives even though it doesn’t mention the term):
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/georgia-power-natural-gas-turbine-delivery-delays-mitsubishi/758252/
“Dismantling a jet engine” check out ProEnergy this is their business model, rebuilding General Electric LM 6000 aircraft engines into stationary power plants generating 45 or so megawatts.
Big batteries may well be more immediate beneficiaries of inadequate long term planning and financing, but they do give good value - very reliable with versatility that no other energy has - sub-second switching from delivering energy to absorbing excess, providing system inertia, voltage and frequency regulation as well as time-shifting energy. Like solar and wind batteries have been underestimated over and over yet it is just 8 years since the first 'big battery' got installed in Australia and mega battery factories have been built and the batteries they've made installed and operational since then.
And the predicted soaring demand for gas as backup to RE has not been eventuating in Australia - I think there is one gas plant in construction, and that one was by decree of a pro fossil fuels government as a raised finger to climate concerns, renewable energy and emissions reductions. By any measure the advances in batteries is extraordinary - and not standing still (although remains to see if US policies will kill major sources of critical battery R&D).
Ultimately taking the science on climate seriously means gas has to be displaced by lower emissions energy, no matter the determined fanning of alarmist fears of zero emissions commitments and of RE. I expect hydro/pumped hydro will emerge as the deep, long storage, doing what RE with batteries, V2G, demand management, efficiency etc can't do. Nuclear will struggle to compete for what solar and wind miss in most places - no income every sunny day/windy night will eat away their income and their effective capacity factor.
I suspect gas will stick around to “fill in the gaps” long term—and the plants that stick around longest will be fast-responding aeroderivative and reciprocating engine “peaker” plants. A functional “green” approach would be to replace gas with intermittent renewables and storage…and replace coal and oil with gas
This could be the opening for fuel cells. The gas turbine folks could find themselves in a sort of reverse innovators dilemma, enabling a more expensive technology to build scale and move down the cost curve. See Bloom Energy. For full disclosure I have a small position in BE but, sadly, have not chased it to the upside. Would be happy to hear your thoughts.
I don’t disagree about Bloom being over hyped and overly promotional.
Bloom is interesting, but my gut says they're like 20% overhyped. Since posting this, I've learned that aeroderivative gas turbines (literally new jet engines bolted to the ground) have a lot better turnaround times, and that's...exciting.