3 ms·
The cost of storage must be factored into the cost of renewables, else it's not really a fair comparison. How much does it cost to build out 10 hours of storage
by ceeplusplus 4y ago
The cost of storage must be factored into the cost of renewables, else it's not really a fair comparison. How much does it cost to build out 10 hours of storage @ 50% of day time generation wattage?
- nl 4y agoRenewables, with storage included are cost competitive with coal now. Utility scale wind = $26-$50/MWh + wholesale 100MWh storage ($55-$97) = $81-$147 Coal = $65-$152/MWh Nuclear: $131-$204/MWh These don't include pump-hydro which is a widely used and very cheap storage mechanism. It's much cheaper and better to overbuild renewables and put a few cheap gas peaker plants around as backup. 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-...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- credit_guy 4y agoStorage from day to night, not from summer to winter. The only solution for seasonal storage is hydrogen, and we are far, far from having any meaningful production of green hydrogen.
- nl 4y agoWhy would you store from summer to winter? Wind works pretty well in both seasons (depending on geography but the solution there is better transmission!)
- thrown_22 4y agoI love how nuclear is too expensive because it costs billions, but long range power lines, which also costs billions, are somehow a better waste of money.
- xupybd 4y agoI love that phrase, "a better waste of money".
- revertmean 4y agoLong range power cables only cost billions if they're >1000km long. But this is besides the point. Energy companies spent money on long range power cables because they calculate they can make a profit on the transmitted energy. Nuclear power stations spend taxpayer billions because they can't possibly compete commercially. That's the key difference.
- acidburnNSA 4y agoAh yes ye olde 4 hours of storage quotes from the Li(a)zard People. Hope you don't run into one of those 3 week wind lulls or anything. Lazard uses the worst possible nuclear builds and ignores the good ones. They ignore China, Korea, Japanese, and Russian builds. In 2006 Japan was churning out ultra-modern ABWR reactors in 36 months (not the old Fukushima kind). Unbelievably cheap and effective. Today, China's Hualong One builds are fully serialized. Yet Lazard keeps on looking at the worst 2 nuclear builds in history and ignoring e.g. the necessary cost of new transmission and overbuilding in order to actually decarbonize at scale with wind solar and gigatonnes of batteries. Lazard numbers are a farce. Please ignore.
- nl 4y ago> Ah yes ye olde 4 hours of storage quotes from the Li(a)zard People. Hope you don't run into one of those 3 week wind lulls or anything. This is why you have a blend of solar, wind and HVEC transmission lines across windzones! Rolling blackouts (which is the kind of thing that batteries prevent) average less than 2 hours across the US and Europe, so 4 hours is great. Did you know that the measured availability rates for non-renewable technologies is as follows: > Historical estimates of 1−EFORd for competing technologies are 89.7%, 92.0%, and 97.3% for natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants, respectively.[1] [1] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9#secsectitle0040 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9#se...
- orthecreedence 4y agoWe're talking about the far north. I think it's reasonable to require a lot more storage than 10 hours (and account for overcast weather, which is common in winter).