4 ms·

Everybody always says that solar + storage is cheaper. And sometimes there are even studies to support it. But if that's true where is it?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
China mostly: 2021 figures: > China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW. 81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  I don't dispute the economics of renewable generation on the existing grid. I'm talking about storage as replacement for baseload, which is purely hypothetical at this point. Right now we have very small scale storage as peaker capacity, but not as a baseload replacement.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Storage doesn't replace baseload. Did the pumped hydro dams they built alongside nuclear power plants replace the baseload? No, they took the cheap energy that was produced at times when it wasn't needed and provided it back at peak times. They literally increased the base load by propping it up when it would otherwise droop at night (mostly).
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Storage does, in fact, supply base load. That is its purpose.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Today, storage runs (i.e. supplies) when electricity prices peak, which broadly matches high demand. It charges, when electricity prices are low, which generally means off peak overnight. In a future renewable grid, with zero dispatchable power it might be used on occaision to help meet the baseload, but it's almost certainly going to be used more during demand peaks, because that's when most electricity is used. Maybe in equatorial regions with a lot of solar, not much wind and no other energy sources it'll share baseload duties with the solar that charges it during the day, but unless the term baseload has lost all meaning (which I fear it has) storage is not ever providing baseload, since that would imply supplying that amount constantly and storage needs to absorb more energy than it returns. I can't see a definition of 'baseload' provider that storage meets that solar doesn't for example.
- q1w2 4y ago
  That does not discuss storage AT ALL. True solar with storage is not economical.
  - jhallenworld 4y ago
    PV + storage is cheaper than nuclear: 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-... (you have to compare cost of nuclear on first page with wholesale PV+storage energy on subsequent pages).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Storage cost is falling even faster than solar. Renewables + storage beats everything, hands down.
  - mayama 4y ago
    They are building massive pumped hydro storage too. A lot of closed-loop PHS is being built by China. Closed loop PHS doesn't have same ecological issues as traditional dams, but is not as trendy as batteries and has almost same political issues as traditional dams in west. So, it is generally ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations#Under_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
Brometheus 4y ago
Top five countries with the highest wind energy capacity in 2020 China – 288.32 GW. ... United States – 122.32 GW. ... Germany – 62.85 GW. ... India – 38.63 GW. ... Spain – 27.24 GW.
- q1w2 4y ago
  This means nothing if you don't factor in storage, or at least measure the CONSISTENT power output. These are just PEAK numbers that are totally useless when planning a grid.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    So, factor in storage. And, those are not peak.
  - NickChasanis 4y ago
q1w2 4y ago
In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere. The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with economical tech.
- ElectronCharge 4y ago
  It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power. The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat. Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    That's what hydrogen (stored underground at a storage capacity cost of $1/kWh) is for.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Anytime local storage runs low and transmission line capacity is exceeded, you order a shipment of synthetic ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics. There will be plenty competing for your business.
pfdietz 4y ago
Waiting for the CO2 taxes to rise high enough to drive off fossil fuels.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  Many people support CO2 taxes to raise the price of fossil fuels when gas prices are low. When gas prices are high I see very few people cheering it on or attempting to claim credit for all their great work to raise the price. It's tough to really get that ball rolling if that's your goal due to this marketing issue.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Without CO2 taxes, we're globally screwed. I expect they will be forced through, and confiscatory tariffs on trade with countries that refuse to impose them.
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      It's hard to say how it will go. It's entirely possible carbon capture will become cheap enough that a couple of rich countries can just capture all the necessary carbon for the whole globe and it will be a rounding error in their budget. Then other countries can burn all the oil/coal they want and it will only be a local pollution problem rather than an existential risk to the globe.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

China mostly: 2021 figures: > China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW. 81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.

fallingknife 4y ago
I don't dispute the economics of renewable generation on the existing grid. I'm talking about storage as replacement for baseload, which is purely hypothetical at this point. Right now we have very small scale storage as peaker capacity, but not as a baseload replacement.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Storage doesn't replace baseload. Did the pumped hydro dams they built alongside nuclear power plants replace the baseload? No, they took the cheap energy that was produced at times when it wasn't needed and provided it back at peak times. They literally increased the base load by propping it up when it would otherwise droop at night (mostly).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Storage does, in fact, supply base load. That is its purpose.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Today, storage runs (i.e. supplies) when electricity prices peak, which broadly matches high demand. It charges, when electricity prices are low, which generally means off peak overnight. In a future renewable grid, with zero dispatchable power it might be used on occaision to help meet the baseload, but it's almost certainly going to be used more during demand peaks, because that's when most electricity is used. Maybe in equatorial regions with a lot of solar, not much wind and no other energy sources it'll share baseload duties with the solar that charges it during the day, but unless the term baseload has lost all meaning (which I fear it has) storage is not ever providing baseload, since that would imply supplying that amount constantly and storage needs to absorb more energy than it returns. I can't see a definition of 'baseload' provider that storage meets that solar doesn't for example.
q1w2 4y ago
That does not discuss storage AT ALL. True solar with storage is not economical.
- jhallenworld 4y ago
  PV + storage is cheaper than nuclear: 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-... (you have to compare cost of nuclear on first page with wholesale PV+storage energy on subsequent pages).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Storage cost is falling even faster than solar. Renewables + storage beats everything, hands down.
- mayama 4y ago
  They are building massive pumped hydro storage too. A lot of closed-loop PHS is being built by China. Closed loop PHS doesn't have same ecological issues as traditional dams, but is not as trendy as batteries and has almost same political issues as traditional dams in west. So, it is generally ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations#Under_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

Brometheus 4y ago

Top five countries with the highest wind energy capacity in 2020 China – 288.32 GW. ... United States – 122.32 GW. ... Germany – 62.85 GW. ... India – 38.63 GW. ... Spain – 27.24 GW.

q1w2 4y ago
This means nothing if you don't factor in storage, or at least measure the CONSISTENT power output. These are just PEAK numbers that are totally useless when planning a grid.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  So, factor in storage. And, those are not peak.
- NickChasanis 4y ago

q1w2 4y ago

In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere. The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with economical tech.

ElectronCharge 4y ago
It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power. The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat. Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  That's what hydrogen (stored underground at a storage capacity cost of $1/kWh) is for.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Anytime local storage runs low and transmission line capacity is exceeded, you order a shipment of synthetic ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics. There will be plenty competing for your business.

pfdietz 4y ago

Waiting for the CO2 taxes to rise high enough to drive off fossil fuels.

Consultant32452 4y ago
Many people support CO2 taxes to raise the price of fossil fuels when gas prices are low. When gas prices are high I see very few people cheering it on or attempting to claim credit for all their great work to raise the price. It's tough to really get that ball rolling if that's your goal due to this marketing issue.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Without CO2 taxes, we're globally screwed. I expect they will be forced through, and confiscatory tariffs on trade with countries that refuse to impose them.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    It's hard to say how it will go. It's entirely possible carbon capture will become cheap enough that a couple of rich countries can just capture all the necessary carbon for the whole globe and it will be a rounding error in their budget. Then other countries can burn all the oil/coal they want and it will only be a local pollution problem rather than an existential risk to the globe.