4 ms·

So it's estimated to cost 4x the cost of wind or solar today and it's not being deployed for at least 10yrs. Sounds like a bargain.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Can you share your math? How much storage are you factoring in for renewables?
- mikefallen 4y ago
  https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9. Tldr $20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs. That’s how cheap storage would have to get for renewables to get to 100 percent. Also the land requirements for huge solar / wind installations is another downside. Nuclear at scale is a clear winner especially in seismically stable regions of NA.
  - nl 4y ago
    Awesome link! > If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh. So just 5% of grid supply from something like gas lets you use storage for baseload now! Battery storage is now available for as low as $55/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-...
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      It's not critical, but I think you are looking at the wrong page. $55 is on the /MW basis, the next page shows $131/MWh which is still good. The source is "Lazard estimates", but I can't find anything close to this in reality. Pumped hydro is meant to be super cheap, but is currently ~ $100/kWh. I'm starting to agree with the other commenter that Lazard is bunk. "Pumped hydro is already the cheapest energy storage technology in the world in terms of cost per installed kilowatt-hour of capacity. Total project costs range between $106 and $200 per kilowatt-hour, compared to between $393 and $581 for lithium-ion batteries, World Bank figures show." https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-moves-to-retain-storage-market-leadership https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-mo...
      - nl 4y ago
        Lazard is generally regarded as pretty credible. BloombergNEF says $145-167 per MWh. > If you do that calculation at the global level, we evaluate the LCOE for recently financed projects is at US$150/MWh including charging costs. That’s our benchmark. We have a range around that benchmark which goes from US$115/MWh in China. https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapidly-falling-lcoe-of-battery-storage/ https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapid...
        brutusborn 4y ago
        Thanks for the link. I am trying to get my head around the ~1000x improvement and I think it is because we are comparing apples and oranges. ~$100/kWh (like pumped hydro) can last for as long as the water in the reservoir lasts. ~$100/MWh (like the batteries you mentioned) are for <4 hrs reserve. So the critical question is: how long will grids connected to renewables need reserve? 4 hours doesn't seem like much but I'm not sure the best way to find this info. Edit: from a 30s google search, 4 hours is only good for <80% renewables in Aus. [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable...
        nl 4y ago
        80% renewables is huge! It's some years before we get to that level by which time we can expect the 20 hours required for all states to be economically viable. And in the mean time gas peaker plants provide a viable, cheap and safe compromise without needing nuclear! > We found in some cases the battery requirement becomes very large relative to the load, at greater than 20 hours. In these cases, it was concluded that additional gas peaking capacity would be more economic (and biogas was used when the emission constraint did not allow for natural gas). This is the original report: https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electricity-network-transformation-roadmap-final-report/ https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electric... and these graphs are on page 98.
        brutusborn 4y ago
- jesstaa 4y ago
  The numbers from the article are: * $300 million for equivalent solar * $200-400 million for equivalent onshore wind (they don't mention offshore wind which is more cost effective over it's lifetime) * $1.5 billion for the SMR Assuming solar and wind stay the same price for the next decade (which they definitely won't) that's a 4-5x construction price difference. The article didn't mention lifetime, decommissioning or running costs, which is likely a significant difference too.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Your numbers don't include storage, and you have basically ignored the parent comment. I think this shows that you are discussing this in bad faith
mikefallen 4y ago
Except wind and solar cannot be used to sustain base load energy demands. Until battery technology improves drastically the issue with solar and wind is the variability of output. One of the greatest challenges of operating a power grid is matching the supply of electricity with demand. Thats why they build gas and coal plants to meet peak energy demand periods. Nuclear energy supplemented by win and solar is by far the cleanest way to meet our energy needs currently.
- nl 4y ago
  This is mostly untrue. Coal plants in particular are dramatically unsuited for the rapid changes in output to respond to changing demands for power. Gas plants on the other hand are. And gas plants are cheap! Overbuilding renewables with combinations of solar, geothermal (where available) and wind gives pretty good availability on it's own and with gas plants as a backup it gives you plenty of grid stability. Edit: A link you posted elsewhere (thanks!) points out how well this works: > If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh. Battery storage is already well below this $150/kWh price. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Do you have any non-Lazard data for the claim "Battery storage is already well below this $150/kWh price."?
    - nl 4y ago
      https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf lists a lot of difference references, and the Lazard range covers them all. https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-battery-storage-now-cheapest-energy-options-just-about-everywhere-95748/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-battery-storage-n... gives "Utility-scale battery (four-hour storage duration) $145-167 per MWh" and references BloombergNEF Better link for Bloomberg reference: https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapidly-falling-lcoe-of-battery-storage/ https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapid...
viraptor 4y ago
The caveat is mentioned in the link, right after the price comparison. "provided the 1,500- to-1,800 acres of land needed was free and the sun shone steadily" considering the price of land recently... that may need a better estimate than just the cost of the tech.
SECProto 4y ago
> it's not being deployed for at least 10yrs 2028 is 6 years from now.
- xorcist 4y ago
  I have a most excellent bridge to sell if you are interested?
  - SECProto 4y ago
    Sure, the current bridge I'm working on building is currently ahead of schedule and on budget (well, within expected margins).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throwaway894345 4y ago

Can you share your math? How much storage are you factoring in for renewables?

mikefallen 4y ago
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9. Tldr $20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs. That’s how cheap storage would have to get for renewables to get to 100 percent. Also the land requirements for huge solar / wind installations is another downside. Nuclear at scale is a clear winner especially in seismically stable regions of NA.
- nl 4y ago
  Awesome link! > If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh. So just 5% of grid supply from something like gas lets you use storage for baseload now! Battery storage is now available for as low as $55/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-...
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    It's not critical, but I think you are looking at the wrong page. $55 is on the /MW basis, the next page shows $131/MWh which is still good. The source is "Lazard estimates", but I can't find anything close to this in reality. Pumped hydro is meant to be super cheap, but is currently ~ $100/kWh. I'm starting to agree with the other commenter that Lazard is bunk. "Pumped hydro is already the cheapest energy storage technology in the world in terms of cost per installed kilowatt-hour of capacity. Total project costs range between $106 and $200 per kilowatt-hour, compared to between $393 and $581 for lithium-ion batteries, World Bank figures show." https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-moves-to-retain-storage-market-leadership https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-mo...
    - nl 4y ago
      Lazard is generally regarded as pretty credible. BloombergNEF says $145-167 per MWh. > If you do that calculation at the global level, we evaluate the LCOE for recently financed projects is at US$150/MWh including charging costs. That’s our benchmark. We have a range around that benchmark which goes from US$115/MWh in China. https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapidly-falling-lcoe-of-battery-storage/ https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapid...
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        Thanks for the link. I am trying to get my head around the ~1000x improvement and I think it is because we are comparing apples and oranges. ~$100/kWh (like pumped hydro) can last for as long as the water in the reservoir lasts. ~$100/MWh (like the batteries you mentioned) are for <4 hrs reserve. So the critical question is: how long will grids connected to renewables need reserve? 4 hours doesn't seem like much but I'm not sure the best way to find this info. Edit: from a 30s google search, 4 hours is only good for <80% renewables in Aus. [0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable...
        nl 4y ago
        80% renewables is huge! It's some years before we get to that level by which time we can expect the 20 hours required for all states to be economically viable. And in the mean time gas peaker plants provide a viable, cheap and safe compromise without needing nuclear! > We found in some cases the battery requirement becomes very large relative to the load, at greater than 20 hours. In these cases, it was concluded that additional gas peaking capacity would be more economic (and biogas was used when the emission constraint did not allow for natural gas). This is the original report: https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electricity-network-transformation-roadmap-final-report/ https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electric... and these graphs are on page 98.
        brutusborn 4y ago
jesstaa 4y ago
The numbers from the article are: * $300 million for equivalent solar * $200-400 million for equivalent onshore wind (they don't mention offshore wind which is more cost effective over it's lifetime) * $1.5 billion for the SMR Assuming solar and wind stay the same price for the next decade (which they definitely won't) that's a 4-5x construction price difference. The article didn't mention lifetime, decommissioning or running costs, which is likely a significant difference too.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Your numbers don't include storage, and you have basically ignored the parent comment. I think this shows that you are discussing this in bad faith

mikefallen 4y ago

Except wind and solar cannot be used to sustain base load energy demands. Until battery technology improves drastically the issue with solar and wind is the variability of output. One of the greatest challenges of operating a power grid is matching the supply of electricity with demand. Thats why they build gas and coal plants to meet peak energy demand periods. Nuclear energy supplemented by win and solar is by far the cleanest way to meet our energy needs currently.

nl 4y ago
This is mostly untrue. Coal plants in particular are dramatically unsuited for the rapid changes in output to respond to changing demands for power. Gas plants on the other hand are. And gas plants are cheap! Overbuilding renewables with combinations of solar, geothermal (where available) and wind gives pretty good availability on it's own and with gas plants as a backup it gives you plenty of grid stability. Edit: A link you posted elsewhere (thanks!) points out how well this works: > If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh. Battery storage is already well below this $150/kWh price. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Do you have any non-Lazard data for the claim "Battery storage is already well below this $150/kWh price."?
  - nl 4y ago
    https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf lists a lot of difference references, and the Lazard range covers them all. https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-battery-storage-now-cheapest-energy-options-just-about-everywhere-95748/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-battery-storage-n... gives "Utility-scale battery (four-hour storage duration) $145-167 per MWh" and references BloombergNEF Better link for Bloomberg reference: https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapidly-falling-lcoe-of-battery-storage/ https://www.energy-storage.news/behind-the-numbers-the-rapid...

viraptor 4y ago

The caveat is mentioned in the link, right after the price comparison. "provided the 1,500- to-1,800 acres of land needed was free and the sun shone steadily" considering the price of land recently... that may need a better estimate than just the cost of the tech.

SECProto 4y ago

> it's not being deployed for at least 10yrs 2028 is 6 years from now.

xorcist 4y ago
I have a most excellent bridge to sell if you are interested?
- SECProto 4y ago
  Sure, the current bridge I'm working on building is currently ahead of schedule and on budget (well, within expected margins).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]