5 ms·

Battery storage is not an option for large scale. Battery technology is good for bridging gaps measured in minutes while larger power plants spin up and react t

Battery storage is not an option for large scale. Battery technology is good for bridging gaps measured in minutes while larger power plants spin up and react to demand. That's a real benefit, and helps to eliminate some expensive peaker power plants, but the technology is simply not even close to being able to fill in the gaps needed for a grid where large percentages of the energy is wind or solar. Nuclear is currently the only technology that exists that can do this.

cygx 7y ago
Power-to-gas technology can possibly fill that niche.
- readams 7y ago
  Power-to-gas would be a cool technology if we could figure it out, though honestly if we did it would make the argument for nuclear even stronger. Whatever the technology ends up being, it will benefit from large, efficient facilities fed by large amounts of clean, steady power. That means nuclear if you want the overall cycle to be carbon neutral.
unchocked 7y ago
The back of my envelope disagrees. I'm distracted so LMK if there's a major flaw in this analysis. Nuclear power generation costs ~$6k per kW(1) Solar power generation costs ~$1k per kW(2) Solar capacity factor is ~25%, so ~4k/kW to compare with 24 hour baseload power. Storing 3 kW for ~12hrs requires ~36kW-h storage. Li-ion battery packs are getting to ~$100/kW-h (3) 36 kW-h storage is ~$3.6k Nuclear cost: ~6k per kW baseload Solar + battery cost: ~7.6k per kW baseload (~4k/kW generation, ~3.6k/kW storage) (1) https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a... (2) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72133.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72133.pdf (3) https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-cells-this-year-100-kwh-tesla-battery-packs-in-2020/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-c...
- sovnade 7y ago
  Don't forget LiIon batteries only get a few hundred recharge cycles. Is that calculated in this kw-h figure?
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Nuclear cost: ~6k per kW baseload > Solar + battery cost: ~7.6k per kW baseload (~4k/kW generation, ~3.6k/kW storage) So nuclear is cheaper than solar + storage?
  - briwang2050 7y ago
    China, South Korea are $2K-2.5K per kilowatt of baseload. A Nuclear kilowatt generates 70-95% of the time. A solar kilowatt generates 10-20% of the time. A Gigawatt of solar generates 1 Terawatt hour per year. A gigawatt of nuclear generates 6 to 8 terawatt hours per year. So nuclear generates an average of 7 times more. Solar lasts 15 years. Nuclear lasts 40-80 years. Solar needs to be rebuilt 3 to 5 times versus nuclear. There is no supply chain for matching battery storage at scale. They are just starting to build batteries for cars at the 200 gigawatt-hour levels. Solar and wind in California and many other places has only 10% of the generation during winter. There is no 90-day power storage and building one would be insanely expensive. You pay for electricity by the kilowatt-hour.
- retrac 7y ago
  Lithium deposits are already facing depletion and the price has been steadily rising for a decade now with the new demand for li-ion batteries. Building enough battery capacity for the grid would be far more than current world demand for Li-ion cells. I imagine prices would skyrocket, throwing off your calculations.
  - audunw 7y ago
    Grid level battery storage is very likely moving to other chemistries. The only reason to use lithium is that it's the chemistry that's the most developed right now, but lithium-ion batteries do not fundamentally speaking have the best properties for grid storage. Lithium-ion is great for energy density, but that's not a critical requirement for the grid. For grid storage I think molten metal makes the most sense. It's a technology that was developed to be ideal for grid storage from the start. Flow cell batteries might also make sense. And then there's other storage technologies like compressed air, pumped hydro, storing kinetic energy, storing thermal energy, etc. http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112 http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiRrvxjrJ1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiRrvxjrJ1U
beat 7y ago
Everyone says that, but no one who says that shows us their math or cites any sources. Show your work. Don't just say "can't". Consider variations in both output and load, both of which are well documented. Consider cost, which is also documented. Consider change in cost, which has been considerable. Don't just say "can't" without any justification except your sense of certainty.

cygx 7y ago

Power-to-gas technology can possibly fill that niche.

readams 7y ago
Power-to-gas would be a cool technology if we could figure it out, though honestly if we did it would make the argument for nuclear even stronger. Whatever the technology ends up being, it will benefit from large, efficient facilities fed by large amounts of clean, steady power. That means nuclear if you want the overall cycle to be carbon neutral.

unchocked 7y ago

The back of my envelope disagrees. I'm distracted so LMK if there's a major flaw in this analysis. Nuclear power generation costs ~$6k per kW(1) Solar power generation costs ~$1k per kW(2) Solar capacity factor is ~25%, so ~4k/kW to compare with 24 hour baseload power. Storing 3 kW for ~12hrs requires ~36kW-h storage. Li-ion battery packs are getting to ~$100/kW-h (3) 36 kW-h storage is ~$3.6k Nuclear cost: ~6k per kW baseload Solar + battery cost: ~7.6k per kW baseload (~4k/kW generation, ~3.6k/kW storage) (1) https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a... (2) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72133.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72133.pdf (3) https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-cells-this-year-100-kwh-tesla-battery-packs-in-2020/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-c...

sovnade 7y ago
Don't forget LiIon batteries only get a few hundred recharge cycles. Is that calculated in this kw-h figure?
manfredo 7y ago
> Nuclear cost: ~6k per kW baseload > Solar + battery cost: ~7.6k per kW baseload (~4k/kW generation, ~3.6k/kW storage) So nuclear is cheaper than solar + storage?
- briwang2050 7y ago
  China, South Korea are $2K-2.5K per kilowatt of baseload. A Nuclear kilowatt generates 70-95% of the time. A solar kilowatt generates 10-20% of the time. A Gigawatt of solar generates 1 Terawatt hour per year. A gigawatt of nuclear generates 6 to 8 terawatt hours per year. So nuclear generates an average of 7 times more. Solar lasts 15 years. Nuclear lasts 40-80 years. Solar needs to be rebuilt 3 to 5 times versus nuclear. There is no supply chain for matching battery storage at scale. They are just starting to build batteries for cars at the 200 gigawatt-hour levels. Solar and wind in California and many other places has only 10% of the generation during winter. There is no 90-day power storage and building one would be insanely expensive. You pay for electricity by the kilowatt-hour.
retrac 7y ago
Lithium deposits are already facing depletion and the price has been steadily rising for a decade now with the new demand for li-ion batteries. Building enough battery capacity for the grid would be far more than current world demand for Li-ion cells. I imagine prices would skyrocket, throwing off your calculations.
- audunw 7y ago
  Grid level battery storage is very likely moving to other chemistries. The only reason to use lithium is that it's the chemistry that's the most developed right now, but lithium-ion batteries do not fundamentally speaking have the best properties for grid storage. Lithium-ion is great for energy density, but that's not a critical requirement for the grid. For grid storage I think molten metal makes the most sense. It's a technology that was developed to be ideal for grid storage from the start. Flow cell batteries might also make sense. And then there's other storage technologies like compressed air, pumped hydro, storing kinetic energy, storing thermal energy, etc. http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112 http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiRrvxjrJ1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiRrvxjrJ1U

beat 7y ago

Everyone says that, but no one who says that shows us their math or cites any sources. Show your work. Don't just say "can't". Consider variations in both output and load, both of which are well documented. Consider cost, which is also documented. Consider change in cost, which has been considerable. Don't just say "can't" without any justification except your sense of certainty.