5 ms·

No, that's not this works. Batteries currently cost ~$150 to $250 per KWh. As in, if you want to store one kilowatt hour, you need to spend $150 to $250 dollars

No, that's not this works. Batteries currently cost ~$150 to $250 per KWh. As in, if you want to store one kilowatt hour, you need to spend $150 to $250 dollars on batteries. If you want to store one megawatt hour, then that's $150,000 to $250,000 worth of batteries. Yes, you can cycle this battery multiple times. I'm not sure how you think that this somehow makes storage cheaper. The fact that you can charge a 1 KWh battery and discharge it 1,000 times doesn't magically make it a 1 MWh battery. Battery cost is measured in terms of cost of capacity, in watt hours. It absolutely is a fantasy to use this for grid storage. To put this in perspective, the US uses 11.5 TWh of electricity each day. The entire world produces 300 GWh of batteries every year. In order to achieve the 12 hours of storage for 80% renewables we'd consume global battery production for several years. To reach the 3 weeks storage for 100% renewable we'd need 805 years of the entire world's battery production at current levels. Sure, battery production is set to double over the next decade. But we're still talking centuries worth of global battery production to fulfill the storage demands of just the United States. And we're ignoring the fact that batteries wear out after a few thousand cycles. Again, the idea that batteries are going to make wind and solar feasible is a fantasy.

reitzensteinm 6y ago
Parent compared the price of one MWh of power from a natural gas plant with the capital cost of building batteries that can store one MWh. This is a type error.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  The enormous capital costs demonstrates how expensive it makes solar and wind in simple terms. Even if we measure in terms of cost per watt hour stored and drawn over the lifetime of the batter it's still hugely expensive. Most batteries can support 300 to 1,000 charge and discharge cycles. So in terms of overall cost of storage, that's still in the range of $200 to $700 per MWh of energy stored and drawn over the lifetime of the battery. This point is largely moot because we don't even have the manufacturing capacity to deliver the amount of batteries required. We only build 300 GWh of batteries globally each year. To reach 12 hours of storage, the US would need 6 TWh - 20 years of global production at current production rates.
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    US oil consumption increased by almost 100x from 1900-1970. In 1850 it was just a few thousand barrels annually! That orders of magnitude more batteries are needed is not in itself an issue, as long as the solution itself is sound. NMC chemistry (as used in Hornsdale) is good for 3000-4000 cycles, although it's about 50% more expensive than LFP, at least if you buy them from CATL. This isn't going to be cheap. But it is feasible, and if you care about carbon I'm not sure how else you do it.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      > This isn't going to be cheap. But it is feasible, and if you care about carbon I'm not sure how else you do it. How about we use the carbon free method of generating electricity that France has used to generate most of it's electricity for close to half a century? We don't have to wait for a miracle that makes batteries cheaper, we don't have to scale up battery production by several orders of magnitude. If we built ten nuclear plants for every one that exists in the US today, that's enough for 100% carbon free electricity generation. It'd also provide enormous amounts of water if we use the waste heat for desalination. It also wouldn't involves consuming massive areas of land for solar panels. It would only involve technologies that currently exist and that we have decades of experience working with.
      - jka 6y ago
        Your arguments are the most compelling I've seen so far for more nuclear as opposed to renewables. I'm still leaning towards renewables for various reasons, but could be swayed - could you share any more details about where the 12 hour capacity requirement and costs mentioned come from?
        Manfredo_1 6y ago
        12 hours of capacity would still leave 20% of electricity to be fulfilled by fossil fuels. To get to 100% renewable we'd need 3 weeks of storage: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/#:~:text=Team-,12%20hours%20of%20energy%20storage%20enough%20for%20U.S.%20to%20run,3%20weeks%20of%20energy%20storage https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...

reitzensteinm 6y ago

Parent compared the price of one MWh of power from a natural gas plant with the capital cost of building batteries that can store one MWh. This is a type error.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
The enormous capital costs demonstrates how expensive it makes solar and wind in simple terms. Even if we measure in terms of cost per watt hour stored and drawn over the lifetime of the batter it's still hugely expensive. Most batteries can support 300 to 1,000 charge and discharge cycles. So in terms of overall cost of storage, that's still in the range of $200 to $700 per MWh of energy stored and drawn over the lifetime of the battery. This point is largely moot because we don't even have the manufacturing capacity to deliver the amount of batteries required. We only build 300 GWh of batteries globally each year. To reach 12 hours of storage, the US would need 6 TWh - 20 years of global production at current production rates.
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  US oil consumption increased by almost 100x from 1900-1970. In 1850 it was just a few thousand barrels annually! That orders of magnitude more batteries are needed is not in itself an issue, as long as the solution itself is sound. NMC chemistry (as used in Hornsdale) is good for 3000-4000 cycles, although it's about 50% more expensive than LFP, at least if you buy them from CATL. This isn't going to be cheap. But it is feasible, and if you care about carbon I'm not sure how else you do it.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    > This isn't going to be cheap. But it is feasible, and if you care about carbon I'm not sure how else you do it. How about we use the carbon free method of generating electricity that France has used to generate most of it's electricity for close to half a century? We don't have to wait for a miracle that makes batteries cheaper, we don't have to scale up battery production by several orders of magnitude. If we built ten nuclear plants for every one that exists in the US today, that's enough for 100% carbon free electricity generation. It'd also provide enormous amounts of water if we use the waste heat for desalination. It also wouldn't involves consuming massive areas of land for solar panels. It would only involve technologies that currently exist and that we have decades of experience working with.
    - jka 6y ago
      Your arguments are the most compelling I've seen so far for more nuclear as opposed to renewables. I'm still leaning towards renewables for various reasons, but could be swayed - could you share any more details about where the 12 hour capacity requirement and costs mentioned come from?
      - Manfredo_1 6y ago
        12 hours of capacity would still leave 20% of electricity to be fulfilled by fossil fuels. To get to 100% renewable we'd need 3 weeks of storage: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/#:~:text=Team-,12%20hours%20of%20energy%20storage%20enough%20for%20U.S.%20to%20run,3%20weeks%20of%20energy%20storage https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...