3 ms·
Cheap land is cheap specifically because there is a very great deal of it. But it is a stupid place to site solar, anyway: there are much better places, already
by ncmncm 4y ago
Cheap land is cheap specifically because there is a very great deal of it. But it is a stupid place to site solar, anyway: there are much better places, already in use, that may continue in that use, but with added solar revenue.
The overwhelming bulk of utility scale storage will not be in batteries. They cost too much per kWh stored. Bulk storage will be in media where incremental kWh are cheapest. Think tankage.
- scythe 4y ago>The overwhelming bulk of utility scale storage will not be in batteries. They cost too much per kWh stored. Bulk storage will be in media where incremental kWh are cheapest. One side of this comparison has cost estimates, the other one is vaporware. You need a certain generation capacity for hydrogen (or whatever) measured in watts, not watt-hours; these plants require maintenance and operation costs likely much higher than batteries. With battery costs approaching $100/kWh, many TWh of storage are attainable. I'm assuming that nuclear will be a significant part of the energy supply, so I would not expect it to be necessary to, for example, store six months' worth of energy for the winter.
- ncmncm 4y agoNukes will soon be unable to find buyers for their power at a price they can offer, most of the time, so will be unable to collect enough revenue to continue operating, anywhere they are not propped up from money coerced by taxation. Cheap storage will displace them.