# Most efficient way to store excess energy **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434 "2014-06-09T21:16:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/41 "2014-06-11T03:12:05Z")
On sunny days, the solar panels are producing their maximum output and they combine with the micro hydro electric system output in the stream on our property to create excess power after the storage batteries have been fully charged Right now this excess is “dumped” into a 85 gallon hot water tank for showering and other hot water uses. The home is off grid some we can’t send the excess back to the local power company. At some point we may get a Nissan Leaf and charge it with this excess power. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/42 "2014-06-11T04:03:10Z")
> [@](#): > > What if the lid of the water storage tank was a float and you dribbled in water from the top that (eventually) floated the weight up to the roof, and then attached the weight to a cable, drained the water (making power) and then lowered the weight (making power). Would the power from the weight be “free” so to speak. No, the answer to this question is the same as the answer always is to “would this energy be ‘free’”. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. You’re using some power to raise the water, and you get that back when you drain the water, and you’re using some power to raise the float, and you get that back when you lower the float. All that you gain from splitting up the load that way is extra complexity, for no advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/43 "2014-06-11T04:13:56Z")
> [@curious11](#): > > What if the lid of the water storage tank was a float and you dribbled in water from the top that (eventually) floated the weight up to the roof, and then attached the weight to a cable, drained the water (making power) and then lowered the weight (making power). Would the power from the weight be “free” so to speak. Having the floater with the weight would cause the overall level of water (for the same volume of water) to be higher (proportionate to that weight), thus making the pump work harder to pump the water in. Yes, you would get back more energy, but you would also have to expend more to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/44 "2014-06-11T15:06:53Z")
Could we pull H2O and CO2 out of the air and make fuel out of them? Plants have been doing exactly that for millions of years. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/45 "2014-06-11T15:49:06Z")
I like the idea of using the electricity to generate other resources, if we don’t need it to power our TV sets: generate hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, run desalinization plants or build more of those water 'vaporator billboards to supply fresh water. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/46 "2014-06-11T15:55:23Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Could we pull H2O and CO2 out of the air and make fuel out of them? Plants have been doing exactly that for millions of years. Yes, but IIRC, it took them 200 million years to work out how to do it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/47 "2014-06-11T16:42:17Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Could we pull H2O and CO2 out of the air and make fuel out of them? Plants have been doing exactly that for millions of years. Yes, this is absolutely physically possible, the chemical pathways for doing this are well known and have been used for decades in various forms. ([http://www.patents.com/us-7420004.html](http://www.patents.com/us-7420004.html)) The problem is that it takes an immense amount of energy to synthesize liquid hydrocarbons out of thin air, and using liquid hydrocarbons in an IC engine is also pretty lossy. So this sort of thing will probably always only be a niche process, where the ability to synthesize liquid fuel on site with no need for other chemical feedstocks is important–such as, a nuclear aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean that can synthesize jet fuel rather than rely on a constant stream of tankers. You’d probably be better off just making hydrogen. The problem is storing all that gaseous hydrogen, which is a pain in the ass. A storage chemical that is liquid at shirt-sleeve temperatures is much easier to handle. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/48 "2014-06-11T21:15:54Z")
Your best bet would probably be making H2. Not the most efficient per se but it doesn’t run into obvious limitations and the byproduct is marketable in itself. ---
**Author:** ![j\_sum1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/49 "2014-06-14T12:57:13Z")
Relevant article on role of vanadium in flow batteries, as well as mentioning supply/demand issues for vanadium. > **[Vanadium: The metal that may soon be powering your neighbourhood](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27829874)** > > Hawaii has a problem storing solar power, and the solution could be a metal that you've probably never heard of - vanadium. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/50 "2014-06-14T18:45:56Z")
A few folks mentioned H[sub]2[/sub]. Some countries _are_ doing this and pumping the hydrogen into the existing natural gas infrastructure. There are huge inefficiencies here, and hydrogen leaks horribly, but it uses existing infrastructure and increases the heating value of the gas going to the existing NGCC power plants. Electrons are cheap, and it’s hard to make money by inefficiently storing something with little value to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![jiHymas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@jiHymas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jiHymas)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/51 "2014-06-14T19:28:21Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Could we pull H2O and CO2 out of the air and make fuel out of them? Plants have been doing exactly that for millions of years. One avenue is [catalyzed thermochemistry](https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/media-information/media-releases/2014/04/solarjet.html): > [@ETHzurich](#): > > The SOLAR-JET project demonstrated an innovative process technology using concentrated sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water to a so-called synthesis gas (syngas). This is accomplished by means of a redox cycle with metal-oxide based materials at high temperatures. The syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, is finally converted into kerosene by using commercial Fischer-Tropsch technology. > > “The solar reactor technology features enhanced radiative heat transfer and fast reaction kinetics, which are crucial for maximizing the solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency” said Professor Aldo Steinfeld, leading the fundamental research and development of the solar reactor at ETH Zürich. > > Although the solar-driven redox cycle for syngas production is still at an early stage of development, the processing of syngas to kerosene is already being deployed by companies, including Shell, on a global scale. This combined approach has the potential to provide a secure, sustainable and scalable supply of renewable aviation fuel and more generally for transport applications. Moreover, Fischer-Tropsch derived kerosene is already approved for commercial aviation. … and [bio-engineering of algae](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=an_jMkuLBE68&pos=13): > [@Bloomberg](#): > > Down the hall, past a rainbow of algae strains arrayed in Petri dishes, Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Wolfson shows off a gallon-size bottle of slightly viscous liquid. After drying the algae, wringing out the oil and shipping it to a refinery, this is the prize: diesel fuel that Wolfson says is chemically indistinguishable from its petroleum-based equivalent and which has already powered a Jeep Liberty and a Mercedes Benz sedan. > > “We’ve produced tens of thousands of gallons, and by the end of 2010, I hope I can say we’ve produced hundreds of thousands,” Wolfson, 39, says. “In the next two years, we should get the cost down to the $60 to $80-a-barrel range.” > > At that price, Solazyme’s algae fuel would compete with $80-a-barrel oil. … and [other methods](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/profit-motive-is-the-solution-to-co2-emissions/article4313698/) (might be a pay-wall on this one): > [@Globe and Mail](#): > > A Santa Barbara, Calif., company called Carbon Sciences Inc. provides a convenient prototype. The company announced last week that it has developed a “breakthrough technology” that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide into commercial-grade gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. Founded in 2006, Carbon Sciences had previously converted CO-2 into low-grade methanol using an enzyme-based technology. Now, it said, it has combined chemical and biological engineering in a bio-catalytic process that transforms carbon emissions into “a cost-efficient” energy resource. > > It is possible that this “breakthrough technology” won’t work out of the lab. But it is possible that it will. The basic science isn’t novel; a number of carbon conversion techniques have been proven in university laboratories. Big Oil is backing a lot of this research. Three cheers for Big Oil! I have often said that if we really cared about the environment we wouldn’t be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on not-ready-for-prime-time solar and wind technology … we would be spending tens of billions of dollars on research. But nobody ever listens to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/52 "2014-06-15T01:01:28Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > We now see smart financial companies starting to exploit this interest rate arbitrage opportunity between bank rates and the actual ROI of solar. The business borrows money at 2%, buys & installs solar panels that “pay” 10-15%, and gives the homeowner a smidgen of the margin for their trouble. I would like to learn about banks offering 2% loans and the companies that are using the quoted business model. Please tell us more. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Finally, as **j\_sum1** points out in his second post, for the particular economic situation of personal power generation vs. inelastic personal demand, there’s a further benefit in the difference between the cost avoided in not buying some power at retail prices vs. being able to sell any excess back at only wholesale prices. An economic analysis which ignores that cost avoidance is ignoring a hefty chunk of the benefit available. **j\_sum1** also mentions the value to power companies. I am not aware of any current opportunities that would allow a homeowner with modest storage capacity to participate in peak shaving, but keeping the grid balanced has a cost, and home storage could be an economical part of the solution. Just not yet. ---
**Author:** ![jiHymas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@jiHymas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jiHymas)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/53 "2014-06-15T03:20:11Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > > We now see smart financial companies starting to exploit this interest rate arbitrage opportunity between bank rates and the actual ROI of solar. The business borrows money at 2%, buys & installs solar panels that “pay” 10-15%, and gives the homeowner a smidgen of the margin for their trouble. > > I would like to learn about banks offering 2% loans and the companies that are using the quoted business model. Please tell us more. The business model certainly exists although I don’t believe it can possibly work at present without either a fat government subsidy for rooftop solar or coercion of the utilities to produce a minimum level of renewable. For instance, [in Ontario](http://www.solarlinepower.com/rooftop-leasing-for-solar-energy) > [@SolarLine](#): > > Through the Ontario FIT program, the government of Ontario is paying top dollar for energy produced from solar panel installations. Solarline Power will ascertain the eligibility of your property through satellite imagery. Your roof should not be obstructed by other buildings or trees and must be optimally orientated. The team from Solarline will inspect your roof to ensure that your building will not be damaged by the solar panel installation. > > Solarline will apply to the government for a FIT provisional acceptance before installing the solar panel array. The array will be tailored to your business so that it does not detract from the beauty of the building. Once the inspections are complete, your system will be connected to the grid and you can start earning income. You still get your electricity from the grid so that your business will not be affected in the unlikely event of a problem with the solar panel installation. Solarline power will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the system. I don’t know what kind of deal they’ll be offering now that the [MicroFIT price schedule has been drastically reduced](http://microfit.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/2014%20FIT%20Price%20Schedule_Final_20131107.pdf) - it is now [half the original rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroFIT) There were [similar opportunities in Germany and Spain](http://www.solaripedia.com/13/183/rooftop_rentals_soar_in_canada,_australia.html), but I understand that the subsidies have been sharply reduced since the Credit Crunch and assume - perhaps unwisely - that the gold rush has finished there as well. In the US, one such firm is [Duke Energy](http://www.duke-energy.com/north-carolina/renewable-energy/nc-solar-distributed-generation-program.asp), but in this case the impetus came from the stick, not the carrot: > [@Duke Energy](#): > > The solar program comprises 25 sites in North Carolina, including homes, schools, businesses and more. Each was selected based on the landowner’s interest in solar energy, the site’s proximity to the electrical grid and its solar potential. > > Duke Energy owns and maintains the solar components, as well as the electricity generated. In return, property owners receive annual rental fees for use of their roofs or land. > > Duke Energy developed its solar program in response to North Carolina’s renewable energy standard, which was adopted in 2007. The mandate requires utilities to meet at least 12.5 percent of its North Carolina customers’ electricity needs through new renewable energy sources or energy efficiency measures by 2021. … and their attempts to cash in on the programme themselves has been [fiercely criticized](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-smart/a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing_b_5077543.html): > [@Anne Smart](#): > > In South Carolina, solar advocates supported a bill that would allow third-party leasing for the first time in the state, and in doing so, promote competition. Duke Energy took the bill and added a clever poison pill: Now the bill allows for solar leasing, but stifles its chance to take root in the market by also allowing Duke and the other South Carolina monopoly utilities to own and control solar panel installations on homes and businesses. Monopoly ownership of rooftop solar allows utilities to secure profits by shutting down any potential private sector market before it starts. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/54 "2014-06-16T12:16:57Z")
> [@jiHymas](#): > > One avenue is [catalyzed thermochemistry](https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/media-information/media-releases/2014/04/solarjet.html): > > … and [bio-engineering of algae](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=an_jMkuLBE68&pos=13): > > … and [other methods](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/profit-motive-is-the-solution-to-co2-emissions/article4313698/) (might be a pay-wall on this one): > > Big Oil is backing a lot of this research. Three cheers for Big Oil! > > I have often said that if we really cared about the environment we wouldn’t be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on not-ready-for-prime-time solar and wind technology … we would be spending tens of billions of dollars on research. But nobody ever listens to me. It nearly always works like that though - a technology doesn’t have to be perfect to be rolled out, just _good enough_ - and current wind/solar technologies are _good enough_, for now. If we waited until technologies were mature before rolling them out, the world would be a very different, much less advanced place than it is today. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/55 "2014-06-16T13:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **jiHymas** : > > I have often said that if we really cared about the environment we wouldn’t be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on not-ready-for-prime-time solar and wind technology … we would be spending tens of billions of dollars on research. But nobody ever listens to me. And just where do you think those hundreds of billions of dollars are going? Research on alternative energy technologies (of all sorts) is done by the companies that make them. They get their funding for that research from the technologies they’re selling. Thus, “spending money on not-ready-for-prime-time technology” _is_ spending money on research. Plus you get the benefit of those almost-ready-for-prime-time windmills. ---
**Author:** ![jiHymas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@jiHymas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jiHymas)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/56 "2014-06-17T02:59:07Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > It nearly always works like that though - a technology doesn’t have to be perfect to be rolled out, just _good enough_ - and current wind/solar technologies are _good enough_, for now. > > If we waited until technologies were mature before rolling them out, the world would be a very different, much less advanced place than it is today. It is true that technologies don’t have to be perfect to be rolled out, largely because perfect technologies are hard to come by. Whether or not wind/solar technologies are good enough is an assertion that is open to dispute. As [the Master states](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3166/is-wind-power-cost-effective): > [@Cecil Adams](#): > > For 2040, the DOE projects that power-generation costs for natural gas will rise, while those for wind will drop (although offshore wind will still be among the costliest technologies). If so, wind power may make more economic sense. But from a strictly dollars-and-cents perspective, it doesn’t make a lot of sense right now. As for solar, even the [big boosters can’t make a case for it](http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/solar.asp): > [@Natural Resources Defence Council](#): > > Electricity from small or medium-scale solar installations, such as those on homes or businesses, costs around 12 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, but these prices should continue to drop thanks to falling installation costs, accessible, low-cost, long-term financing, and a healthy number of incentives and tax packages offered by nearly every state government. The current federal incentives include a 30 percent investment tax credit (ITC) and, for businesses and commercial units, a five-year modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS), which allows system owners to deduct federal taxes on an accelerated timetable of system value depreciation. And those ‘falling installation costs’ … is that because of improved production technologoy and economies of scale? [Nope](http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/05/26/blinded-by-the-sun-how-much-do-solar-panels-really-cost/): > [@William Pentland](#): > > The full scale of financial subsidies the Chinese government has provided domestic solar manufacturers is stunning. > > In 2009, while testifying before the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2009, Ethan Zindler, the head of Bloomberg ’s New Energy Finance, suggested that these subsidies would result in a supply glut in the solar manufacturing sector. > > Citing a $5.3 billion loan Yingli Solar had secured in 2010 from the China Development Bank, Zindler said: “That loan alone, and several others like it from the bank, could help double the world’s solar manufacturing supply of solar modules in just the next several years.” > > Chinese manufacturers quadrupled production of solar panels between 2009 and 2011 and exported them at prices sufficiently low to expand China’s market share in the solar sector dramatically. > > Between 2009 and 2011, the price of modules decreased from $2.79 to $1.59 per watt. So Western subsidies for consumers are supplemented by Chinese subsidies for producers. The technology simply isn’t there yet. This is craziness. As far as other technologies are concerned … I have been unable to think of any other technology that has been introduced on a widespread basis through the use of government subsidies. Smart phones, cell phones, the Internet, computers, electric power, automobiles, air travel, telephones, telegraphs, railways … all these were became widespread through people trying to make a buck on the idea’s own merits. The only instance I could think of that is even remotely supportive of your case was emission controls and fuel economy standards for cars. Did you have any actual examples in mind? The best approach is research - the [DoE’s Sunshot project](http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/mission) is laudable: > [@DoE](#): > > The SunShot Initiative’s mission is to make solar energy fully cost-competitive with traditional energy sources before the end of this decade, making this clean renewable energy resource more affordable and accessible to Americans. > … > The SunShot Initiative aims to reduce the total installed cost of solar energy systems to $.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) by 2020. Today, SunShot is 60% of its way toward achieving the program’s goal, only three years into the program’s ten year timeline. Since SunShot’s launch in 2011, the average price per kWh of a utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) project has dropped from about $0.21 to $0.11. More of this and less feel-goodism in the renewable industry sector would get us a lot further ahead. > [@Chronos](#): > > Thus, “spending money on not-ready-for-prime-time technology” is spending money on research. According to the [Industrial Research and Development Information System](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/iris/search_hist.cfm?indx=7) ( a project of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) / The National Science Foundation), the “Funds for industrial R&D as a percent of net sales of companies performing industrial R&D in the United States, by industry and company size: 2007” comes to 3.8% across all industries; 4.1% if the sample is restricted to manufacturers. One will also remember that the manufacturer will only see a fraction of the total cost of the project - much will get soaked up by installation, distribution, transport and sales. It’s an incredibly wasteful way of funding research. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/57 "2014-06-17T16:23:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In fact, solar power itself is limited by Carnot’s theorem, although in that case the Carnot limit is high enough that some other limitation almost always becomes much more relevant. A solar panel is, after all, extracting energy from the temperature difference between the Sun and the Earth. It’s a form of heat engine, even though it may not look like it. I take it that Thot is the actual surface temperature of the sun? (and Tcold would be the air on earth around the panel location) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/58 "2014-06-17T16:43:01Z")
Yes on both counts. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/59 "2014-06-17T20:22:04Z")
> [@jiHymas](#): > > As far as other technologies are concerned … I have been unable to think of any other technology that has been introduced on a widespread basis through the use of government subsidies. Try fossil fuels. > **[Energy subsidy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies)** > > Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for customers below market levels, or for suppliers above market levels, or reduce costs for customers and suppliers. Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to suppliers, customers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. > During FY 2016–22, most US federal subsidies were for renewable energy producers (primarily biofuels,... ---
**Author:** ![jiHymas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@jiHymas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jiHymas)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434/60 "2014-06-17T20:35:54Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Try fossil fuels. > [Energy subsidy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies) I thought we were talking about the introduction of technologies. I have no desire to enter into a political debate; but I will sign off by pointing out the laughable reasoning of the quoted article: > [@Some guys with access to the internet](#): > > … oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines … The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were: > 1.Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion) > 2.Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion) > 3.Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion) Heaven forbid that oil companies be exempted from paying taxes twice on the same profits, expensing their expenses, or being exempt from price controls! I will point out the enormous subsidy granted to renewable energy by not taxing the producers at a rate 1,507,263% [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-efficient-way-to-store-excess-energy/690434.md?page=4)