4 ms·
~ $300 - $700 /kWh. that figure could be outdated but its in the ballpark
by Hammershaft 6y ago
~ $300 - $700 /kWh.
that figure could be outdated but its in the ballpark
- hntrader 6y agoSo nuclear is much much much much cheaper and until the storage costs come way down, we have no other choice (aside from natgas peakers). Correct?
- Hammershaft 6y agoFor baseline power the answer is yes. The only two forms of low carbon baseline energy we currently have are nuclear and hydro.
- hntrader 6y agoDo you know why California is using batteries instead of cheaper nuclear? Is it just for cynical political reasons?
- fallingknife 6y agoNo one is using batteries at a large scale at this point.
- hntrader 6y agoUser "jeffbee" said that California has 250MW of battery facilities right now
- fallingknife 6y agoI assume that's 250MWh, and California consumes 260 TWh per year, so that's 30s of power consumption.
- jeffbee 6y agoNo, it's 250MW of peak power. I'm not sure what the total energy storage capacity is for California, but the typical project has 4 hours of capacity. For an example please see this PG&E project which is coming online in Summer 2021. These installations have 700MW of power capacity and each has a 4-hour discharge time. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_5826-E.pdf https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_582...
- fallingknife 6y agoYou're right about the numbers, but still this is tiny at the scale of the grid. 2.8GWh is still only around 5 mins of consumption. You would probably need a few days of storage to run a 100% wind/solar grid, so that's about 1000x more.