5 ms·

For most projects, there's at most four hours of storage, just enough to shift peak daytime supply to peak evening demand. That's not the same as getting throug

For most projects, there's at most four hours of storage, just enough to shift peak daytime supply to peak evening demand. That's not the same as getting through the night, or having enough overcapacity to meet demand in cloudy winter weeks. Lazard puts the wholesale cost of solar PV plus four hours storage at $165 to $296/MWh: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

ncmncm 5y ago
Until we have more renewable generating capacity online, four hours is plenty. As the share of power generation increases, building more storage is favored. Lazard's figures are (as is proper) for existing storage, not for the much cheaper storage that will be built. It is generally a mistake to assume people controlling billion-dollar budgets have no idea what they are doing.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Yes, and building more storage raises the cost by quite a lot, as you can see by Lazard's cost figures for storage. Nuclear can easily be competitive in a grid not backed by natural gas, especially if MSR companies like Thorcon are successful in lowering nuclear costs.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Lazards's cost figures are backward-looking, so not representative. As I already pointed out. Yet, generation + even those figures is still cheaper than building nukes.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Lazard is the one widely cited by renewables advocates attempting to make their case. You're the first person I've seen claim that it overestimates renewable costs. Can you point out where in the Lazard report it describes its methodology in a way that makes clear it doesn't reflect the cost of new renewable projects today? And reference a thorough study that shows lower-than-Lazard average costs for solar+storage today, not in some estimated future, and not with cherry-picked projects in ideal locations? And if that cost includes sufficient collection and storage to get through a windless night, like nuclear can do, that would be nice too.
- jupp0r 5y ago
  If PV and storage were that much cheaper, those people controlling billion-dollar budgets would have built that instead of gas plants and this discussion would be moot.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    And now they are building out PV and gearing up to build out storage.
    - jupp0r 5y ago
      Are they? Why haven’t they already? It looks like they are supplementing peak capacity right now with gas plants dynamically reacting to varying demand with storage being oders of magnitude too small.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Do you understand the difference between already built-out storage, and preparing to build out storage? If you want to compare like against like, the number of ThorCon reactors deployed is exactly zero (0). Storage is not already built out because it is still obviously better to spend the money building out generating capacity, and will be until its share is much larger. In particular, before storage can be useful, you need enough spare generating capacity to top up your storage while also driving customer load.
        jupp0r 5y ago
        The business model for storage is leveraging the difference in prices at different times (of the day mostly). There is already quite a price difference on energy markets and negative prices happen regularly around the world.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        You seem to be talking about storage as a separate business. But the major market for storage will be public utilities that also own generating capacity, and sell power principally to end users. After their storage is full, maybe they sell any extra to the grid, or use it to synthesize liquid fuel for sale. Negative prices are a very, very temporary phenomenon. Very soon, all surplus generating capacity will be absorbed producing hydrogen and ammonia for sale into an unlimited market.
danans 5y ago
That graph actually shows the levelized cost of solar+storage capacity at $165-296/kWh-year The levelized cost of solar + storage according to Lazards is even less: $85-158/MWh.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Oops, you're right, sorry. But that's still only four hours storage, and still higher than Thorcon's estimated cost for their reactor, which could actually supply power through the night and through all seasons regardless of weather conditions without extra cost.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    ThorCon can make up any number they like. By the time they could get one built, prices for the alternatives will be much lower.

ncmncm 5y ago

Until we have more renewable generating capacity online, four hours is plenty. As the share of power generation increases, building more storage is favored. Lazard's figures are (as is proper) for existing storage, not for the much cheaper storage that will be built. It is generally a mistake to assume people controlling billion-dollar budgets have no idea what they are doing.

DennisP 5y ago
Yes, and building more storage raises the cost by quite a lot, as you can see by Lazard's cost figures for storage. Nuclear can easily be competitive in a grid not backed by natural gas, especially if MSR companies like Thorcon are successful in lowering nuclear costs.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Lazards's cost figures are backward-looking, so not representative. As I already pointed out. Yet, generation + even those figures is still cheaper than building nukes.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Lazard is the one widely cited by renewables advocates attempting to make their case. You're the first person I've seen claim that it overestimates renewable costs. Can you point out where in the Lazard report it describes its methodology in a way that makes clear it doesn't reflect the cost of new renewable projects today? And reference a thorough study that shows lower-than-Lazard average costs for solar+storage today, not in some estimated future, and not with cherry-picked projects in ideal locations? And if that cost includes sufficient collection and storage to get through a windless night, like nuclear can do, that would be nice too.
jupp0r 5y ago
If PV and storage were that much cheaper, those people controlling billion-dollar budgets would have built that instead of gas plants and this discussion would be moot.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  And now they are building out PV and gearing up to build out storage.
  - jupp0r 5y ago
    Are they? Why haven’t they already? It looks like they are supplementing peak capacity right now with gas plants dynamically reacting to varying demand with storage being oders of magnitude too small.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Do you understand the difference between already built-out storage, and preparing to build out storage? If you want to compare like against like, the number of ThorCon reactors deployed is exactly zero (0). Storage is not already built out because it is still obviously better to spend the money building out generating capacity, and will be until its share is much larger. In particular, before storage can be useful, you need enough spare generating capacity to top up your storage while also driving customer load.
      - jupp0r 5y ago
        The business model for storage is leveraging the difference in prices at different times (of the day mostly). There is already quite a price difference on energy markets and negative prices happen regularly around the world.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        You seem to be talking about storage as a separate business. But the major market for storage will be public utilities that also own generating capacity, and sell power principally to end users. After their storage is full, maybe they sell any extra to the grid, or use it to synthesize liquid fuel for sale. Negative prices are a very, very temporary phenomenon. Very soon, all surplus generating capacity will be absorbed producing hydrogen and ammonia for sale into an unlimited market.

danans 5y ago

That graph actually shows the levelized cost of solar+storage capacity at $165-296/kWh-year The levelized cost of solar + storage according to Lazards is even less: $85-158/MWh.

DennisP 5y ago
Oops, you're right, sorry. But that's still only four hours storage, and still higher than Thorcon's estimated cost for their reactor, which could actually supply power through the night and through all seasons regardless of weather conditions without extra cost.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  ThorCon can make up any number they like. By the time they could get one built, prices for the alternatives will be much lower.