5 ms·

But why bother storing the solar/wind excess, if storage costs exceed traditional generation costs? For a purely economical perspective, it does not make sense

by nordify 11y ago

But why bother storing the solar/wind excess, if storage costs exceed traditional generation costs? For a purely economical perspective, it does not make sense.

beat 11y ago
Because in the long run, storage costs will go down, and traditional generation costs will go up. At some point, there's a crossing where storage becomes cheaper. Much of that has to do with economies of scale and driving technological improvement with demand. Beyond that, there are externalized costs to continuing a system that depends on fossil fuels and complex/expensive nuclear plants. In a macro world, governments and public utilities should be taking the externalized costs into account.
- nordify 11y ago
  So the answer to my question is that the economics of energy storage do not work, but may at some point of the future? I get both the technical and ecological argument, my point is that the economics to drive the change aren't here (yet).
  - Retric 11y ago
    We already do large scale grid storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit... Flywheels are also used for short term demand spikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage PS: This is one of those problems that seems a lot more important than it actually is. The current state of the art is fairly cheap and reasonably efficient. Going from 90% to 99% efficiency really does not change much and is a far harder problem.
    - beat 11y ago
      Part of the problem is that natural gas and diesel peaking plants have historically been cheap enough that there hasn't been a demand for alternatives.
    - nordify 11y ago
      Hydro only works if you have geography on your side. Flywheels don't have the capacity to do utility scale demand shifting. So, excluding hydro, am I right in that the economics of energy storage do not work (yet)?
      - Retric 11y ago
        You can shift electricity 1,000 miles each way before losses stack up. So, geography is not really an issue. ED: Currently, ~4,300 mi is about the limit on economical power transmission. But, that's a long trip.
        nordify 11y ago
        So, can we build enough hydro to make a difference and how much will it cost to beef up the grid to handle all the power going into and out of pumped hydro?
        Retric 11y ago
        Depends on what you want to do, but overall not much. Standard lines hung on towers run from $1 million to $4 million a mile, depending on terrain and other factors. Though, we already have an electric grid and you can do a lot by simply shifting where each area's supply is coming from. AKA town A get's power from town B's power plant town B, get's power from town C's power plant etc. Also, a lot of this infrastructure is a ~20+ year problem. So, a 50 billion dollar bill spread over 20 years spread over the entire US is ~8.50$ per year per person.
        nordify 11y ago
        I want to replace peaker plants with storage. Somehow I don't think the economics work out. Do you disagree? Even if we rebuild the whole continental US power grid (that's a lot more than $50 billion) to cope with the demands of using storage, it is unclear to me if we can build enough hydro to replace peaker plants. Apparently all other storage technologies other than hydro are cost-ineffective and/or do not have enough scale to solve the problem. Do you know if there is enough geography to go around for all the hydro we need or if there really are any cost-efficient alternatives?
beat 11y ago
Consider the time frame for this, as well. Radical alteration of the power grid will take at least a decade, probably multiple decades. Weaning it off coal, gas, and diesel is an enormous undertaking, even if it's technically feasible. Pilot programs now, even if they aren't immediately cost-effective, greatly reduce the risks of future change, when the cost equation is different. They'll shorten the timeline, reducing the long-term costs.

by nordify 11y ago

But why bother storing the solar/wind excess, if storage costs exceed traditional generation costs? For a purely economical perspective, it does not make sense.

beat 11y ago

Because in the long run, storage costs will go down, and traditional generation costs will go up. At some point, there's a crossing where storage becomes cheaper. Much of that has to do with economies of scale and driving technological improvement with demand. Beyond that, there are externalized costs to continuing a system that depends on fossil fuels and complex/expensive nuclear plants. In a macro world, governments and public utilities should be taking the externalized costs into account.

nordify 11y ago
So the answer to my question is that the economics of energy storage do not work, but may at some point of the future? I get both the technical and ecological argument, my point is that the economics to drive the change aren't here (yet).
- Retric 11y ago
  We already do large scale grid storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit... Flywheels are also used for short term demand spikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage PS: This is one of those problems that seems a lot more important than it actually is. The current state of the art is fairly cheap and reasonably efficient. Going from 90% to 99% efficiency really does not change much and is a far harder problem.
  - beat 11y ago
    Part of the problem is that natural gas and diesel peaking plants have historically been cheap enough that there hasn't been a demand for alternatives.
  - nordify 11y ago
    Hydro only works if you have geography on your side. Flywheels don't have the capacity to do utility scale demand shifting. So, excluding hydro, am I right in that the economics of energy storage do not work (yet)?
    - Retric 11y ago
      You can shift electricity 1,000 miles each way before losses stack up. So, geography is not really an issue. ED: Currently, ~4,300 mi is about the limit on economical power transmission. But, that's a long trip.
      - nordify 11y ago
        So, can we build enough hydro to make a difference and how much will it cost to beef up the grid to handle all the power going into and out of pumped hydro?
        Retric 11y ago
        Depends on what you want to do, but overall not much. Standard lines hung on towers run from $1 million to $4 million a mile, depending on terrain and other factors. Though, we already have an electric grid and you can do a lot by simply shifting where each area's supply is coming from. AKA town A get's power from town B's power plant town B, get's power from town C's power plant etc. Also, a lot of this infrastructure is a ~20+ year problem. So, a 50 billion dollar bill spread over 20 years spread over the entire US is ~8.50$ per year per person.
        nordify 11y ago
        I want to replace peaker plants with storage. Somehow I don't think the economics work out. Do you disagree? Even if we rebuild the whole continental US power grid (that's a lot more than $50 billion) to cope with the demands of using storage, it is unclear to me if we can build enough hydro to replace peaker plants. Apparently all other storage technologies other than hydro are cost-ineffective and/or do not have enough scale to solve the problem. Do you know if there is enough geography to go around for all the hydro we need or if there really are any cost-efficient alternatives?

beat 11y ago

Consider the time frame for this, as well. Radical alteration of the power grid will take at least a decade, probably multiple decades. Weaning it off coal, gas, and diesel is an enormous undertaking, even if it's technically feasible. Pilot programs now, even if they aren't immediately cost-effective, greatly reduce the risks of future change, when the cost equation is different. They'll shorten the timeline, reducing the long-term costs.