3 ms·

> The problem with battery energy storage is not cost but scale. I'd posit that it's mostly cost, otherwise it would be a solved problem now. Certainly we can

by Jedd 5y ago

> The problem with battery energy storage is not cost but scale. I'd posit that it's mostly cost, otherwise it would be a solved problem now. Certainly we can scale - even if it means putting low-cost batteries behind the meter (that solves, for a very modest sum, 90% of power consumers' problems). That's a horizontal scaling, obviously. For the consumer types that need a lot of energy, then we need to come up with more imaginative solutions for their requirements. These types of turbines are almost definitely part of that. Aside - complaining about downvotes is bad form. My feeling is your myriad comments on this article exhibit vehemence, and imply everyone else is ill-informed. It's possible we all have something to learn.

eldaisfish 5y ago
People here are indeed ill-informed. Silicon valley has a recent obsession with battery tech and seems to believe that batteries can scale like software. Spoiler - this is not the case. As i said originally, the technical problem is scale. Even if cost does fall, no battery can power a gigawatt scale grid for more than a few minutes. Yes - minutes. During an extreme weather event, what will happen? There is a lot to learn but the solution - and this the part that people don't like hearing - is a mix of technologies. Batteries are a thin slice of the solution. We need more hydro generation, more nuclear, more wind and more solar PV. It is not a binary choice as many here seem to believe.
- N1H1L 5y ago
  Overbuilding solar and wind have been long suggested. But your insistence that batteries will only provide power for a few minutes is honestly not backed up by any data.
- adventured 5y ago
  > the solution ... is a mix of technologies Certainly. > Even if cost does fall, no battery can power a gigawatt scale grid for more than a few minutes. Yes - minutes. During an extreme weather event, what will happen? In an emergency the primary focus isn't, for example, on powering offices, powering every single thing you can. The focus should be on powering homes for a relatively short duration at reduced consumption. The goal is survival, not keeping everything on the grid powered up 24/7. Two Powerwalls can power a home for two to three days at reduced energy consumption (rationing). There's no reason we can't get to that type of outcome as routine in the next 10-20 years, given the cost of homes today (nearing $400,000 median sale price) and the continual decline in battery costs (and that's assuming no great battery breakthroughs). There's no reason all new homes built in the US shouldn't come with the equivalent of at least three Powerwalls of energy storage 20 years out.
- Jedd 5y ago
  It's possible that the phrase 'behind the meter' isn't universally understood - what I meant by that is that we can put storage systems (Lithium, Flow, etc) on the customer premises - on their side of the electricity meter. This gives the power consumer an energy cache, effectively, with 2-3 days of self-reliance. That's why I suggested that your insistence that we need one stonking large battery sitting somewhere is misguided - we can distribute, today, relatively cheaply (compared to the cost of a house build / maintenance) short-term independence from the grid supply.
  - N1H1L 5y ago
    Yeah. And for big power banks, there are several options beyond Li-ion. There are sodium, iron and magnesium chemistries for one. Compressed air storage is another option, that is quite cheap and scales extremely well. The one being built by Hydrostor now in California is 4GWh, for example [0]. Refs: [0] https://newatlas.com/energy/hydrostor-compressed-air-energy-storage/ https://newatlas.com/energy/hydrostor-compressed-air-energy-...
N1H1L 5y ago
One thing is pretty sure - we need to overbuild solar and wind. The total annual energy consumption in the US is around 15 PWh. Notably, the per capita energy consumption has essentially remained flat for four decades now. This energy consumption thus translates to an averaged power requirement of 4TW. Notably, while peaks are local, however nationally, extremes are not that higher than average. The average capacity factor is a third for renewables, so 12TW of nameplate renewable capacity is enough for the vast majority of the time - to power the entire nation's complete energy requirements through renewables. Let's go with a 50-25-25 mix of solar-onshore-offshore wind. Thus solar nameplate needs to be 6TW, and both onshore and offshore wind needs to have 3TW nameplate capacity installed each. Solar PV generates 10W per square foot. That's 22,000 square miles. A lot of that can come from rooftop solar. Onshore wind turbines are 2.5MW each, which translates to 1.2 million turbines, while with the offshore turbine designs that this article shows - this is 200k turbines. The cost of such turbines (onshore+offshore) with installation would come to 9 trillion USD. Solar would cost a similar amount. Battery costs for storing 96TWh (a day's worth of energy consumption - averaged) would be 10 trillion dollars more. Thus, building the nameplate capacity for the entire US to be powered by renewables is approximately 30 trillion dollars, where the GND price tag originated. However, all of these are at current solar/wind/storage prices. Each of those three is falling, and if the market becomes this big, economies of scale will drive costs down further.

by Jedd 5y ago

eldaisfish 5y ago

People here are indeed ill-informed. Silicon valley has a recent obsession with battery tech and seems to believe that batteries can scale like software. Spoiler - this is not the case. As i said originally, the technical problem is scale. Even if cost does fall, no battery can power a gigawatt scale grid for more than a few minutes. Yes - minutes. During an extreme weather event, what will happen? There is a lot to learn but the solution - and this the part that people don't like hearing - is a mix of technologies. Batteries are a thin slice of the solution. We need more hydro generation, more nuclear, more wind and more solar PV. It is not a binary choice as many here seem to believe.

N1H1L 5y ago
Overbuilding solar and wind have been long suggested. But your insistence that batteries will only provide power for a few minutes is honestly not backed up by any data.
adventured 5y ago
> the solution ... is a mix of technologies Certainly. > Even if cost does fall, no battery can power a gigawatt scale grid for more than a few minutes. Yes - minutes. During an extreme weather event, what will happen? In an emergency the primary focus isn't, for example, on powering offices, powering every single thing you can. The focus should be on powering homes for a relatively short duration at reduced consumption. The goal is survival, not keeping everything on the grid powered up 24/7. Two Powerwalls can power a home for two to three days at reduced energy consumption (rationing). There's no reason we can't get to that type of outcome as routine in the next 10-20 years, given the cost of homes today (nearing $400,000 median sale price) and the continual decline in battery costs (and that's assuming no great battery breakthroughs). There's no reason all new homes built in the US shouldn't come with the equivalent of at least three Powerwalls of energy storage 20 years out.
Jedd 5y ago
It's possible that the phrase 'behind the meter' isn't universally understood - what I meant by that is that we can put storage systems (Lithium, Flow, etc) on the customer premises - on their side of the electricity meter. This gives the power consumer an energy cache, effectively, with 2-3 days of self-reliance. That's why I suggested that your insistence that we need one stonking large battery sitting somewhere is misguided - we can distribute, today, relatively cheaply (compared to the cost of a house build / maintenance) short-term independence from the grid supply.
- N1H1L 5y ago
  Yeah. And for big power banks, there are several options beyond Li-ion. There are sodium, iron and magnesium chemistries for one. Compressed air storage is another option, that is quite cheap and scales extremely well. The one being built by Hydrostor now in California is 4GWh, for example [0]. Refs: [0] https://newatlas.com/energy/hydrostor-compressed-air-energy-storage/ https://newatlas.com/energy/hydrostor-compressed-air-energy-...

N1H1L 5y ago

One thing is pretty sure - we need to overbuild solar and wind. The total annual energy consumption in the US is around 15 PWh. Notably, the per capita energy consumption has essentially remained flat for four decades now. This energy consumption thus translates to an averaged power requirement of 4TW. Notably, while peaks are local, however nationally, extremes are not that higher than average. The average capacity factor is a third for renewables, so 12TW of nameplate renewable capacity is enough for the vast majority of the time - to power the entire nation's complete energy requirements through renewables. Let's go with a 50-25-25 mix of solar-onshore-offshore wind. Thus solar nameplate needs to be 6TW, and both onshore and offshore wind needs to have 3TW nameplate capacity installed each. Solar PV generates 10W per square foot. That's 22,000 square miles. A lot of that can come from rooftop solar. Onshore wind turbines are 2.5MW each, which translates to 1.2 million turbines, while with the offshore turbine designs that this article shows - this is 200k turbines. The cost of such turbines (onshore+offshore) with installation would come to 9 trillion USD. Solar would cost a similar amount. Battery costs for storing 96TWh (a day's worth of energy consumption - averaged) would be 10 trillion dollars more. Thus, building the nameplate capacity for the entire US to be powered by renewables is approximately 30 trillion dollars, where the GND price tag originated. However, all of these are at current solar/wind/storage prices. Each of those three is falling, and if the market becomes this big, economies of scale will drive costs down further.