this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
763 points (98.4% liked)
Climate
8420 readers
1187 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know, man. What if its cloudy?
Look at flowers and talk to people until it's sunny?
Me shouting the answer, but you can't hear it over the bombs exploding across the Straight of Hormuz
You can use batterys
I mean yes, but also then the investment gets a lot bigger too.
In my country (Estonia), if we did solar + batteries only, the batteries would have to be large enough to withstand electricity consumption being smaller than production for the entire summer (which at its peak has 18 or 19 hours of sunlight per day and most people don't have AC so our summer electricity usage is smaller than winter).
And also from about october to march, there's almost no sunlight, and electricity consumption is through the roof because heat pumps have been pretty common in new builds and renovations for like 2 decades now, replacing mostly solid fuel furnaces rather than resistive electric heaters.
Which is not to say we should abandon solar, but it'd be incredibly cost-prohibitive to go renewables-only here. In the summer our electricity prices often go negative already (still zero + network fees for consumers, not really negative prices -.-), but in winter I've seen 5 euros per kilowatthour at peak times.
Now I googled the cost of a terawatt hour of battery capacity and Google's AI was happy to report to me that a terawatthour is a million kilowatt hours and thus at ~80€/kWh it would be 80 million euros. That's peanuts! Just 640 million would get us enough battery capacity to store a year's worth of energy, that should surely get through a winter!
Trouble is, I was taught slightly different values for the SI prefixes and back when I went to school, tera was a billion kilos. So if it still functions that way, we're talking hundreds of billions instead. Our national budget for the year is 20 billion. But if every person with a job paid just a million extra euros in tax, we could afford to do it!
So obviously, solar alone + batteries won't do it at such a high latitude. Wind power helps a ton, but that's still unpredictable. And after everyone on a flexible-price plan saw a 5x increase on their power bill for january (1000+ euros being pretty common), I don't think the people will settle for "works most of the time". We actually need a nuclear power plant and we need it to be built before December 2025.
Till then we'll continue burning dirty ass coal and (yay, even worse) shale. Which I fucking hate, but the economic reality of our country is that this is what we can afford right now, with a gradual buildout of solar + wind.
But funnily enough, if we got the hundreds of billions worth of batteries magically out of thin air, the cost of buying enough solar panels to produce the entire country's annual electricity consumption every year... Would be in the hundreds of millions range or a bit over a billion at most if this meme/infographic is to be believed, even if adjusting the capacity factor, which is more like 10-15% here due to our nasty winter. Chump change pretty much for a country like ours.
analysis for Nebraska that would apply for Estonia or Canada as well with only a few parameters changed. Free 24/7 baseload solar electricity if Hydrogen can be sold for $2/kg (equivalent to 25c/liter gasoline in range). https://lemmy.ca/post/59615631
Nebraska actually gets like 5-10x the useable solar power in the winter months compared to Estonia. We essentially don't see the sun from about nov to mid feb.
All of the H2 would have to be generated between spring and fall and stored for winter. Selling it and then buying it on-demand in the winter wouldn't work because fuels shoot up in price come winter. Cost of my wood briquettes tripled between July last year and February this year for an example, usually it at least doubles... And once I've seen them quadruple. Luckily it's a single house worth of solid fuel, it's easy to stockpile. I'm wondering how a couple of terawatthours worth of H2 storage would work.
To be clear, I'm not at all against solar or renewables in general, I just don't see any energy storage solutions that would work for my country if we tried to fix our shit as a nation. On an individual level it's doable, but payoff period is so long that it makes more sense to just keep using grid power.
analysis I replied with didn't require a separate heating solution, though heating 1000l or 2 of hot water in fall would be a great strategy for every home heating system. The reason H2 electrolysis (just sell it instead of using it for heat in winter, though that is also a solution) works even for "your solar shithole country" is the massive summer daylight. No H2 produced outside of the good months.
This is the funny AI response that says both millions and billions for the cost of a terawatt hour of battery capacity. For my own calculations I actually went to the source at Bloomberg and took a number that was on the lower side, but not the minimum, of the range they provided for 2024.
I don't think we have to worry about AI developing the I part of AI anytime soon.
Also, in 2024 we roughly doubled our peak solar output from 600 MW to 1300 MW! (2025 unfortunately saw a LOT less new solar installation).
But our winter peak consumption is 1600 GW, so this is still a bit under 0.1% of that. And peak production is in the summer :/
You don't need 1twh of batteries to support 1gw of solar you need 2-4gwh depending on wanting 2 or 4 hours of overnight storage. Prices are dropping so fast, or so low now, that 6 hours is an easy option to choose. But for winter, see my other post on H2, or just don't nuke your legacy power from orbit, and keep them as backup/battery equivalent.
At the present state of things, you're definitely right.
I'm talking about winter, where you can count on solar panels producing... nearly nothing.
This is a company here in Estonia sharing customers' monthly production numbers. This is a company trying to sell you solar installations, so they have no reason to show any numbers as lower than reality. I clicked through several customer experience pages, and most have ~30x less energy generated in December vs May.
The Nebraska comparison in your other reply to me doesn't work out because Nebraska is way further south. In December, the sun doesn't "rise" here as much as it "drags its' rotting carcass across the horizon". Okay, we're not as far north as something like Svalbard, but the angle of the sun during solar noon on December 21 (shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere) is around 7 degrees. In Nebraska it stays around 25 degrees. While we technically get up to 6 hours of daytime even in December, it's usually overcast so average sunshine per day is about 30 minutes over the winter. And if it's not overcast, you can expect it to get cold fast, driving up usage.
So to go full solar (which I'm discussing as a thought experiment, I don't actually know anyone who wants to go FULL solar), essentially all the energy needs to be generated in about 7-8 months each year, because once the days start getting shorter, they go short REALLY fast. That's going to be a lot of H2 to store.
That's a reasonable suggestion, it's just that we're not burning anything clean like coal here, we're burning shale. It's comparable to lignite (if not worse) in CO2, but way more ash. Yes, shale the actual rock, not shale gas.
It's super frustrating.
Believable for shallow roof angles. Steep angles make a large difference, but it's still definitely a challenge for winter peak demand, and huge summer surpluses.
In Estonia vs Nebraska, 1000 wh/watt/year vs 1800 is a signficant disadvantage, and as you say, December averages 15 minutes/day of solar energy.
I did pick Nebraska for relatively north and sunny location, with ethanol substitute land use. It has 9-10x Estonia's winter production, and so Estonia definitely seems like a shithole solar location.
The H2 system still works for Estonia. I made this for you:
This report outlines the technical and financial feasibility of a self-sustaining
125 kW Solar / 90 kW Electrolysis microgrid in Estonia. Optimized for the high-latitude constraints of the Baltics, this system leverages a summer hydrogen surplus to subsidize a 24/7/365 1 kW baseload datacenter requirement.
1. Core System Configuration
2. Financial & Cost Assumptions
3. Annual Capital & Operating Expense
| Expense Category | Amount (USD) | |
|
| | Total System CapEx | $139,792 | | Annual Debt Service (5%) | $12,383 | | Annual O&M (1%) | $1,397 | | Total Annual Cost (A) | $13,780 |
4. Energy Production & Hydrogen Revenue
Estonia receives ~950 Peak Sun Hours (PSH) annually. The 125 kW array generates ~118,750 kWh/year. After accounting for the 1 kW baseload (8,760 kWh), the remaining ~110,000 kWh is directed to the 90 kW electrolyzer.
5. Winter Reliability Analysis (The "Dark-Month" Stress Test)
Unlike the Nebraska model, the Estonia configuration faces extreme seasonal variance.
Average December Yield: ~30–35 kWh/day (Enough to cover the 24 kWh/day baseload).
Worst-Case "Deep Cloud" Day: ~6–8 kWh/day (
).
The Survival Buffer:
Operational Status: The 90 kW electrolyzer will be completely offline from late October to early March, as all available photons are prioritized for battery health and the 1 kW load.
6. Conclusion: The "Latitude Tax" Equilibrium
This system represents the Saturation Point for Estonia at $2/kg Hydrogen.
Does the wind not blow in Estonia?
Not sure if you were taught wrong or misremembering, but giga is the standard notation for billion, and tera is trillion. Kilo, mega, giga, tera, quad, quin.... They go on much farther than that, but at that point, just use exponential notation.
You can generate hydrogen from electrolysis.
Electrolysis efficiency is about 70% and you can store the hydrogen in pressurized underground caverns for a year or longer using another 0.12 kWh per kWh of hydrogen stored, which makes a total efficiency of around 0.6 kWh of hydrogen generation and storage for every kWh of electricity that you put in. (Source)
So if your electricity costs 6 ct/kWh (current LCOE of solar in many places), then hydrogen is gonna cost 10 ct/kWh to generate and store with current technology.
Currently, natural gas is around 5 ct/kWh, so solar would have to become a little bit cheaper to make it economically competitive.
Edit: to clarify, the 5 ct/kWh for natural gas is the gas alone; electricity from natural gas is more expensive than that (around 12 ct/kWh) and more expensive than solar.
What are you going to store hydrogen in to make this remotely viable? You lose like 60% of hydrogen within 7 days with current tanks and seals.
The new sodium batteries make this completely pointless from a cost and efficiency context
is home hydrogen a thing? i was wondering before, if it works in cars, why is it not in houses?
There's a engineer that did it in his backyard. I'll see if I can find it when I get home.
Technically it could work. However, traditional batteries make a lot more sense. Hydrogen makes some sense for a vehicle because it can be more energy dense (it actually only makes sense for large trucks). However, it has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures. In a place where you probably don't care about mass or space much, other battery technologies are far better, without the added cost of cryogenic cooling and having to deal with hydrogen, which leaks through anything.
hydrogen scales well if you use big industrial setups, both for generation and for storage.
basically, bigger tanks are cheaper (consider higher volume/surface area ratio) and in fact the best tanks might simply be naturally occurring underground caverns. you can't have these at home.
That sounds cheaper than battery storage (which at latitudes bigger than yours can get very expensive since there's little to no sun in the winter), and I'd assume more environmentally friendly than mining all that lithium as well.
How expensive is it to build out said caverns for this use, particularly if there aren't many natural ones available?
basically the caverns that are being considered/used for this are the same caverns that natural gas was extracted out of in the first place ... they clearly held some sort of gas fine for millions of years, so certainly they're gonna store a bit of hydrogen too.
Not to rain on your parade, but hydrogen and natural gas aren't really comparable for storage. The natgas molecule is 8x heavier and MUCH larger than a molecule of hydrogen. Just on the size alone, hydrogen can slip through just about everything and needs to be stored at cryogenic temperatures. I don't think rock is going to be as good of a storage media as you'd assume.
Oh that makes sense.
We just don't have any natural gas production in Estonia lol. Perhaps the shale mines could be used. Unfortunately the biggest one had its permit extended till 2049 recently. Also I think they get filled with water naturally (they pump out a lot of dirty water), so I suppose the walls aren't actually completely sealed naturally.
yeah, geological availability might vary