5 ms·

What replaces fossil fuels is some kind of breakthrough in batteries. At the moment its getting better every year were currently at less than $100 per KWh which

What replaces fossil fuels is some kind of breakthrough in batteries. At the moment its getting better every year were currently at less than $100 per KWh which is crazy but needs to be improved for allowing more off the grid energy consumption

pjc50 1y ago
The lesson from solar is that it won't be "a breakthrough" but the gradual accumulation of a thousand different efforts at cost-shaving across the whole supply chain making batteries gradually but inexorably cheaper. There won't be fanfare when fixed batteries start using sodium chemistry rather than lithium, for example, but that will start happening across the next few years.
pydry 1y ago
We can either pray and wait for a technological breakthrough that makes storage tech way cheaper than gas or we can just use taxes and subsidies to make it happen now. It's not so hard. Lavish subsidies were used to make nuclear power semi-sort-of-competitive even though it's way more expensive. The same thing could have been done with solar and wind but apparently we thought the best course of action was just to wait until they became cheaper than coal without subsidies (& then Obama and Trump slammed solar with tariffs).
- conductr 1y ago
  “We” are only in control of “us”. The rest of the world will keep burning fossil fuel
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > The rest of the world will keep burning fossil fuel As the article spends so many paragraphs to explain to us, the rest of the world is increasingly not burning fossil fuel for their new energy needs. Most of the fuel it burns is for the energy it already uses. And solar is starting to take a bite out of that too.
    - conductr 1y ago
      That's great but if we had accelerated our transition, it wouldn't have lead to them accelerating their transition. The things are not linked or correlated.
      - triceratops 1y ago
        Solar has gotten cheaper and cheaper largely because as we build more panels and batteries, we find efficiencies. If we had accelerated our transition then the increased demand would have driven even more efficiencies and it would be even cheaper it is now. If it were cheaper, developing countries would buy even more of it, accelerating their own transition.
- fastball 1y ago
  Or we can go full nuclear.
  - pydry 1y ago
    could do but im not sure what there is to be gained from unnecessarily spending trillions more to decarbonize.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Get private insurance to fully cover nuclear and I'm onboard.
    - heisgone 1y ago
      This might be the only way I could have any trust in Nuclear. I heard recently from a journalist that the Fukushima plant paid Yakuza owned newspapers to avoid negative press well before the incident. The technology is great, humans are not.
  - dalyons 1y ago
    why? much more expensive, much slower. This reflexive "nukes are the only way" meme amongst technical folk really has gotta die.
    - fastball 1y ago
      More expensive in what way? "Cost" is what everyone quotes about why nuclear isn't great, but isn't the whole idea behind shelving fossil fuels and switching to alternatives due to downsides that are secondary to cost? To me, renewables (solar and wind namely) have many more downsides than nuclear. So if we are doing things not because of cost anyway, why not nuclear? What do you fundamentally care about? The power density of wind and solar is abysmal. You need to cover huge amounts of land with your preferred solution (which doesn't work everywhere) to produce relatively meager amounts of power. You need to have grid-scale storage solutions which are currently not priced in to the costs being quoted. Even if you have that storage solution you need to be significantly over-capacity in terms of production so that storage can actually be filled during peak hours. Meanwhile, nuclear: requires a fraction of land use (good for ecology), runs continuously (so doesn't need huge storage outlays), can run basically anywhere (reducing transmission costs). The most important note is that "nuclear" is not entirely encapsulated by existing Gen III reactors. There are many more designs and ideas that are being developed as we speak, whether more interesting (read: safe/efficient) fuel mixes, modular/micro designs, and various other improvements. "Cost" is a merely a reflection of how much human capital is required to make something happen. I'd much rather spend our human capital on technologies that have the potential to massively increase the energy available to humanity, rather than focusing on tech which we know has strict upper bounds on power output / scalability. Solar and wind is useful in certain areas, but the idea that they can provide the baseload for a decarbonized future is ridiculous to me, unless your starting point is "I don't think humanity needs to consume much more power".
bena 1y ago
I think the overall point is that we will never get there. Renewables will never be cheap enough to fully replace fossil fuels, batteries will never be good enough. No matter what, as long as the cost of extracting and burning fossil fuels is less than the result of what gets produced by the consumption, someone will be doing it. It’s why crypto will never solve the energy issue. Why AI/GPT/LLM won’t either. Especially when the cost of that output is pegged to the cost of generating the above.
- hnaccount_rng 1y ago
  But that isn’t the case _today_. Unless you have existing facilities (which we do have and which gives fossils momentum) it’s strictly cheaper to build new renewables! The problem for renewables is that the p99.9 price is much higher than the p95 price. But finance will be solving that part.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Citation: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electricity-beats-lowest-cost-fossil-fuel-even-without-tax-credits/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electri...
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  The price of LFP batteries in China is $35/kWh for cells, $52/kWh for fully integrated systems [1]. Roughly 1TW of solar is being deployed globally every year. We’re already there, it’s just a matter of pushing the pedal down harder. China destroys half a million barrels a day of global oil demand every year they build EVs at current output levels, which are still increasing. Fossil fuels are already dead, it’s just time horizon. How fast we want to go is a function of how much fiat we want to shovel into PV solar and battery manufacturing. [1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/watershed-moment-big-battery-storage-prices-hit-record-low-in-huge-china-auction/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/watershed-moment-big-battery-sto...
- dalyons 1y ago
  you're just wrong. they already are cheap enough, its already happening. PV+battery is now cheaper than new gas & coal. Very soon to come, existing gas.
goda90 1y ago
Better batteries are the road to replacing fossil fuels for transportation, but I feel like abundant nuclear energy is what we need to give a jump start to green steel, hydrogen, ammonia, etc, and electrifying bulk heating industrial processes.
- dalyons 1y ago
  you may feel that, but its not going to happen. nukes are too expensive, and thus the energy they produce is too expensive.
carra 1y ago
We are also going to need a breakthrough in how batteries are produced and disposed of. Otherwise the environmental impact of the many millions of batteries themselves may prove unsustainable too.
- tonfa 1y ago
  That would be nice indeed, but shouldn't prevent us from prioritizing reducing CO2 emissions first.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Funny how no one seems to consider the environmental impact of digging up fossil fuels when they discuss solar. It's similar to how you can identify Real Bird Lovers. They stay silent when they see pictures of oil-covered birds after an Exxon Valdez or a Deepwater Horizon. Show them a windmill and boy do they get passionate about bird safety and welfare.
- cogman10 1y ago
  Maybe better disposal practices. Regulations standardizing batteries would also do a lot of good. But really, we simply need a lot of virgin batteries regardless because we don't have enough. Recycling and disposal will only really take off once the market is mostly saturated (which we don't appear to be anywhere near). I'd also point out that modern LiPo batteries are 90% recyclable with no special techniques needed. That's because by weight, the batteries are mostly iron and nickel. Recycling them is really as simple as just melting them down. It only gets tricky if you want to collect the lithium, silicon, and other trace materials (and there are already recycling plants that are handling that).
agumonkey 1y ago
there's also a lot of wastes, with different urban planning and build code a lot of cooling and heating would be avoided
- cogman10 1y ago
  I think this is the most frustrating part. You wouldn't even need to massively change out neighborhoods to get a huge benefit. If a developer built with district and heating planned, you could have an entire neighborhood heated and cooled without needed AC and heaters in every building. You could still have single family homes that are massively more efficient per unit. The problem is that has to be planned almost from the beginning. Which shouldn't be a huge deal. My neighborhood had a water tower built at the same time the neighborhood was built. There's no reason district heating couldn't have occupied the lot right next to it.
1970-01-01 1y ago
Does not necessarily need to be a battery. Flywheels, heat, and even synthesis of fuels are also solutions to the problem.
- cogman10 1y ago
  If you look at the energy density, cost/kwh, and lifetime maintenance of most of those, you'll find that batteries handily win. Further, batteries have room for innovation and growth in all those categories. We won't, for example, make a more cost-efficient flywheel or heat storage. They are effectively as efficient as they'll ever be. IMO, it necessarily has to be batteries. The other alternatives are nowhere near as good.
  - qiqitori 1y ago
    On the other hand, you need to buy a new set of batteries every 15 or so years. The other things you mentioned generally don't need regular replacement, and when they do, it's not the whole setup.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      You don't need to replace the whole setup, just the batteries. All the power electronics and interconnects are already there and will last as long as they last. You also don't technically need new batteries almost ever. Batteries (typically) don't really die, they just lose capacity. After a 15 year runtime instead of storing 10mWh they now store 7mWh. That's still 7mWh. After another 15 years it'll be down to around 5mWh.
  - EvanAnderson 1y ago
    At grid scale I'd imagine that pumped hydroelectric storage would beat batteries for TCO, but there are significant geographic constraints.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      I mean, it is a literal pipe dream :) Batteries can be deployed nearly instantly. My power company is planning on building a new battery plant next year, it announced it the year prior. I know a pumped hydro plan that has literally been in the works for the last 20 years and shows no sign of actually being started (still being planned).
yndoendo 1y ago
Batteries are just one means to store renewable energy and mechanical storage is another. Re-designing the power grid to transfer peak to areas via HVDC is another, to spread into areas where the weather limits or constricts the renewables for that time of day or day itself. "Taming the Sun" [0] goes into more details and talks about it better than I can. People like to over simplifying complexity by reducing arguments to a single reasoning. It helps make everything seem more simple than it really is. It is a way to persuade people that lack understanding "all systems are complex". Even instructions on how to construct a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. How many years does it take of development before a child can actually preform that "simple" task? [0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537070/taming-the-sun/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537070/taming-the-sun/

pjc50 1y ago

The lesson from solar is that it won't be "a breakthrough" but the gradual accumulation of a thousand different efforts at cost-shaving across the whole supply chain making batteries gradually but inexorably cheaper. There won't be fanfare when fixed batteries start using sodium chemistry rather than lithium, for example, but that will start happening across the next few years.

pydry 1y ago

We can either pray and wait for a technological breakthrough that makes storage tech way cheaper than gas or we can just use taxes and subsidies to make it happen now. It's not so hard. Lavish subsidies were used to make nuclear power semi-sort-of-competitive even though it's way more expensive. The same thing could have been done with solar and wind but apparently we thought the best course of action was just to wait until they became cheaper than coal without subsidies (& then Obama and Trump slammed solar with tariffs).

conductr 1y ago
“We” are only in control of “us”. The rest of the world will keep burning fossil fuel
- triceratops 1y ago
  > The rest of the world will keep burning fossil fuel As the article spends so many paragraphs to explain to us, the rest of the world is increasingly not burning fossil fuel for their new energy needs. Most of the fuel it burns is for the energy it already uses. And solar is starting to take a bite out of that too.
  - conductr 1y ago
    That's great but if we had accelerated our transition, it wouldn't have lead to them accelerating their transition. The things are not linked or correlated.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      Solar has gotten cheaper and cheaper largely because as we build more panels and batteries, we find efficiencies. If we had accelerated our transition then the increased demand would have driven even more efficiencies and it would be even cheaper it is now. If it were cheaper, developing countries would buy even more of it, accelerating their own transition.
fastball 1y ago
Or we can go full nuclear.
- pydry 1y ago
  could do but im not sure what there is to be gained from unnecessarily spending trillions more to decarbonize.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Get private insurance to fully cover nuclear and I'm onboard.
  - heisgone 1y ago
    This might be the only way I could have any trust in Nuclear. I heard recently from a journalist that the Fukushima plant paid Yakuza owned newspapers to avoid negative press well before the incident. The technology is great, humans are not.
- dalyons 1y ago
  why? much more expensive, much slower. This reflexive "nukes are the only way" meme amongst technical folk really has gotta die.
  - fastball 1y ago
    More expensive in what way? "Cost" is what everyone quotes about why nuclear isn't great, but isn't the whole idea behind shelving fossil fuels and switching to alternatives due to downsides that are secondary to cost? To me, renewables (solar and wind namely) have many more downsides than nuclear. So if we are doing things not because of cost anyway, why not nuclear? What do you fundamentally care about? The power density of wind and solar is abysmal. You need to cover huge amounts of land with your preferred solution (which doesn't work everywhere) to produce relatively meager amounts of power. You need to have grid-scale storage solutions which are currently not priced in to the costs being quoted. Even if you have that storage solution you need to be significantly over-capacity in terms of production so that storage can actually be filled during peak hours. Meanwhile, nuclear: requires a fraction of land use (good for ecology), runs continuously (so doesn't need huge storage outlays), can run basically anywhere (reducing transmission costs). The most important note is that "nuclear" is not entirely encapsulated by existing Gen III reactors. There are many more designs and ideas that are being developed as we speak, whether more interesting (read: safe/efficient) fuel mixes, modular/micro designs, and various other improvements. "Cost" is a merely a reflection of how much human capital is required to make something happen. I'd much rather spend our human capital on technologies that have the potential to massively increase the energy available to humanity, rather than focusing on tech which we know has strict upper bounds on power output / scalability. Solar and wind is useful in certain areas, but the idea that they can provide the baseload for a decarbonized future is ridiculous to me, unless your starting point is "I don't think humanity needs to consume much more power".

bena 1y ago

I think the overall point is that we will never get there. Renewables will never be cheap enough to fully replace fossil fuels, batteries will never be good enough. No matter what, as long as the cost of extracting and burning fossil fuels is less than the result of what gets produced by the consumption, someone will be doing it. It’s why crypto will never solve the energy issue. Why AI/GPT/LLM won’t either. Especially when the cost of that output is pegged to the cost of generating the above.

hnaccount_rng 1y ago
But that isn’t the case _today_. Unless you have existing facilities (which we do have and which gives fossils momentum) it’s strictly cheaper to build new renewables! The problem for renewables is that the p99.9 price is much higher than the p95 price. But finance will be solving that part.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Citation: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electricity-beats-lowest-cost-fossil-fuel-even-without-tax-credits/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electri...
toomuchtodo 1y ago
The price of LFP batteries in China is $35/kWh for cells, $52/kWh for fully integrated systems [1]. Roughly 1TW of solar is being deployed globally every year. We’re already there, it’s just a matter of pushing the pedal down harder. China destroys half a million barrels a day of global oil demand every year they build EVs at current output levels, which are still increasing. Fossil fuels are already dead, it’s just time horizon. How fast we want to go is a function of how much fiat we want to shovel into PV solar and battery manufacturing. [1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/watershed-moment-big-battery-storage-prices-hit-record-low-in-huge-china-auction/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/watershed-moment-big-battery-sto...
dalyons 1y ago
you're just wrong. they already are cheap enough, its already happening. PV+battery is now cheaper than new gas & coal. Very soon to come, existing gas.

goda90 1y ago

Better batteries are the road to replacing fossil fuels for transportation, but I feel like abundant nuclear energy is what we need to give a jump start to green steel, hydrogen, ammonia, etc, and electrifying bulk heating industrial processes.

dalyons 1y ago
you may feel that, but its not going to happen. nukes are too expensive, and thus the energy they produce is too expensive.

carra 1y ago

We are also going to need a breakthrough in how batteries are produced and disposed of. Otherwise the environmental impact of the many millions of batteries themselves may prove unsustainable too.

tonfa 1y ago
That would be nice indeed, but shouldn't prevent us from prioritizing reducing CO2 emissions first.
triceratops 1y ago
Funny how no one seems to consider the environmental impact of digging up fossil fuels when they discuss solar. It's similar to how you can identify Real Bird Lovers. They stay silent when they see pictures of oil-covered birds after an Exxon Valdez or a Deepwater Horizon. Show them a windmill and boy do they get passionate about bird safety and welfare.
cogman10 1y ago
Maybe better disposal practices. Regulations standardizing batteries would also do a lot of good. But really, we simply need a lot of virgin batteries regardless because we don't have enough. Recycling and disposal will only really take off once the market is mostly saturated (which we don't appear to be anywhere near). I'd also point out that modern LiPo batteries are 90% recyclable with no special techniques needed. That's because by weight, the batteries are mostly iron and nickel. Recycling them is really as simple as just melting them down. It only gets tricky if you want to collect the lithium, silicon, and other trace materials (and there are already recycling plants that are handling that).

agumonkey 1y ago

there's also a lot of wastes, with different urban planning and build code a lot of cooling and heating would be avoided

cogman10 1y ago
I think this is the most frustrating part. You wouldn't even need to massively change out neighborhoods to get a huge benefit. If a developer built with district and heating planned, you could have an entire neighborhood heated and cooled without needed AC and heaters in every building. You could still have single family homes that are massively more efficient per unit. The problem is that has to be planned almost from the beginning. Which shouldn't be a huge deal. My neighborhood had a water tower built at the same time the neighborhood was built. There's no reason district heating couldn't have occupied the lot right next to it.

1970-01-01 1y ago

Does not necessarily need to be a battery. Flywheels, heat, and even synthesis of fuels are also solutions to the problem.

cogman10 1y ago
If you look at the energy density, cost/kwh, and lifetime maintenance of most of those, you'll find that batteries handily win. Further, batteries have room for innovation and growth in all those categories. We won't, for example, make a more cost-efficient flywheel or heat storage. They are effectively as efficient as they'll ever be. IMO, it necessarily has to be batteries. The other alternatives are nowhere near as good.
- qiqitori 1y ago
  On the other hand, you need to buy a new set of batteries every 15 or so years. The other things you mentioned generally don't need regular replacement, and when they do, it's not the whole setup.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    You don't need to replace the whole setup, just the batteries. All the power electronics and interconnects are already there and will last as long as they last. You also don't technically need new batteries almost ever. Batteries (typically) don't really die, they just lose capacity. After a 15 year runtime instead of storing 10mWh they now store 7mWh. That's still 7mWh. After another 15 years it'll be down to around 5mWh.
- EvanAnderson 1y ago
  At grid scale I'd imagine that pumped hydroelectric storage would beat batteries for TCO, but there are significant geographic constraints.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    I mean, it is a literal pipe dream :) Batteries can be deployed nearly instantly. My power company is planning on building a new battery plant next year, it announced it the year prior. I know a pumped hydro plan that has literally been in the works for the last 20 years and shows no sign of actually being started (still being planned).

yndoendo 1y ago

Batteries are just one means to store renewable energy and mechanical storage is another. Re-designing the power grid to transfer peak to areas via HVDC is another, to spread into areas where the weather limits or constricts the renewables for that time of day or day itself. "Taming the Sun" [0] goes into more details and talks about it better than I can. People like to over simplifying complexity by reducing arguments to a single reasoning. It helps make everything seem more simple than it really is. It is a way to persuade people that lack understanding "all systems are complex". Even instructions on how to construct a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. How many years does it take of development before a child can actually preform that "simple" task? [0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537070/taming-the-sun/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537070/taming-the-sun/