16 ms·

This is something people get confused about. Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence. The media does their best to obfuscate th

This is something people get confused about. Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence. The media does their best to obfuscate this. What has been built around the places are battery packs to absorb dangerous power fluctuations caused by windmills. They destroyed the grid in South Australia a few years ago, and Elon Musk famously went in and installed batteries (maybe that is what you are thinking of). If you don't believe me go back and have a look at how big the batteries were. The 500 million dollar project installed 130 MWh worth of electricity storage. That is enough to produce the same energy as a power station for 10 minutes before being fully drained.

pydry 5y ago
I'm thinking of battery backed solar farm in Hawaii that cost around $70/MwH and supplied about 1/5th of the power for the island. There's a few new projects in California/Nevada/Colorado that are allegedly costing around $30-40MwH (although I'm skeptical of how much storage they have for that price). Either way, conservatively speaking, $50-60/MwH for battery backed wind/solar on the mainland seems fairly doable. Prices will likely keep dropping too. By contrast, in the UK Hinkley Point C is being paid $124/MwH guaranteed for 20 years. It doesn't exist because it's a cost effective way of supplying green energy that's for sure, but it does bolster the nuclear economy. The military do like to hire nuclear technicians and buy parts for PWRs in nuclear subs, etc. and somebody has to pay for these things. Rate payers, I guess.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  These numbers are way off though, maybe those are just the cells? If we look at the 2021 estimates by the National Renewable Energy Labs for utility scale 4h batteries [0] We get cost estimates of 250 $/kWh for the high case, 200 $/kWh for the middle case and 150 $/kWh for the low case by 2030. [0] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf.
  - pydry 5y ago
    That seems to be the cost of the physical batteries, not the price the grid would pay the farm for.
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      That makes sense I guess. Assume enough energy is supplied to charge the batteries. So lets say we want 1kWh during 4 hours, that puts our capital cost at 4 kWh*200$/kWh = 800$. Now we assume this system runs every day for 4 hours during ten years. Ten years sounds reasonable, but it could be less. 7 years maybe? So about 1kWh*365,25*10=14610kWh in total. That gives us 800$/14610kWh = 0,0548$/kWh or 54,8 $/MWh in 2030 if I didn't make a major mistake somewhere and assuming no efficiency losses. That's pretty good.
      - pydry 5y ago
        Your link says a lifetime of 15 years. Capacity would degrade over time though.
ghouse 5y ago
> Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence. California has more than 1.5 GW of utility-scale chemical batteries interconnected to it's grid with another 1 GW anticipated to enter service by the end of the year. Most of these batteries can sustain full output for four hours. This is in addition to the more than 3.0 GW of pumped hydro "batteries." 1 GW is roughly the output of one nuclear power plant. Source: I develop power plants in the western US.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  If you develop power plants then how come you don't know the difference between energy and power?
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  1GW is roughly the output of one nuclear reactor (most plants have 2 or more) for one hour. We'll need at least half a day's worth of storage, likely much more if we want to use wind for a significant portion of power generation.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I remember people saying something similar about the amount of deployed solar and wind shortly after it became cost competitive. There used to be a tiny amount deployed but it was the cheapest form of power. Then over the course of a few years there was a lot. All that really matters is A) is it cost effective B) will there be scaling problems C) will there be political impediments.
    - coryrc 5y ago
      Solar is not cost-effective today for applying power after the sun sets (duck curve) or at night. Wind is not cost-effective at supplying power on calm days. If they were required to build the rest of the system to be reliable (longer interconnects, batteries, etc) it suddenly wouldn't be cost-effective, this explaining why energy cost continues to go up while this supposedly cheap power ramps up.

pydry 5y ago

I'm thinking of battery backed solar farm in Hawaii that cost around $70/MwH and supplied about 1/5th of the power for the island. There's a few new projects in California/Nevada/Colorado that are allegedly costing around $30-40MwH (although I'm skeptical of how much storage they have for that price). Either way, conservatively speaking, $50-60/MwH for battery backed wind/solar on the mainland seems fairly doable. Prices will likely keep dropping too. By contrast, in the UK Hinkley Point C is being paid $124/MwH guaranteed for 20 years. It doesn't exist because it's a cost effective way of supplying green energy that's for sure, but it does bolster the nuclear economy. The military do like to hire nuclear technicians and buy parts for PWRs in nuclear subs, etc. and somebody has to pay for these things. Rate payers, I guess.

cinntaile 5y ago
These numbers are way off though, maybe those are just the cells? If we look at the 2021 estimates by the National Renewable Energy Labs for utility scale 4h batteries [0] We get cost estimates of 250 $/kWh for the high case, 200 $/kWh for the middle case and 150 $/kWh for the low case by 2030. [0] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf.
- pydry 5y ago
  That seems to be the cost of the physical batteries, not the price the grid would pay the farm for.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    That makes sense I guess. Assume enough energy is supplied to charge the batteries. So lets say we want 1kWh during 4 hours, that puts our capital cost at 4 kWh*200$/kWh = 800$. Now we assume this system runs every day for 4 hours during ten years. Ten years sounds reasonable, but it could be less. 7 years maybe? So about 1kWh*365,25*10=14610kWh in total. That gives us 800$/14610kWh = 0,0548$/kWh or 54,8 $/MWh in 2030 if I didn't make a major mistake somewhere and assuming no efficiency losses. That's pretty good.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Your link says a lifetime of 15 years. Capacity would degrade over time though.

ghouse 5y ago

> Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence. California has more than 1.5 GW of utility-scale chemical batteries interconnected to it's grid with another 1 GW anticipated to enter service by the end of the year. Most of these batteries can sustain full output for four hours. This is in addition to the more than 3.0 GW of pumped hydro "batteries." 1 GW is roughly the output of one nuclear power plant. Source: I develop power plants in the western US.

mrjangles 5y ago
If you develop power plants then how come you don't know the difference between energy and power?
Manuel_D 5y ago
1GW is roughly the output of one nuclear reactor (most plants have 2 or more) for one hour. We'll need at least half a day's worth of storage, likely much more if we want to use wind for a significant portion of power generation.
- pydry 5y ago
  I remember people saying something similar about the amount of deployed solar and wind shortly after it became cost competitive. There used to be a tiny amount deployed but it was the cheapest form of power. Then over the course of a few years there was a lot. All that really matters is A) is it cost effective B) will there be scaling problems C) will there be political impediments.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Solar is not cost-effective today for applying power after the sun sets (duck curve) or at night. Wind is not cost-effective at supplying power on calm days. If they were required to build the rest of the system to be reliable (longer interconnects, batteries, etc) it suddenly wouldn't be cost-effective, this explaining why energy cost continues to go up while this supposedly cheap power ramps up.