5 ms·

Measuring cost by installed capacity is highly misleading because solar and wind need storage to be reliable sources. The cost of storage dwarfs the other costs

by jules 4y ago

Measuring cost by installed capacity is highly misleading because solar and wind need storage to be reliable sources. The cost of storage dwarfs the other costs, and battery prices have stagnated.

kristopolous 4y ago
The reason battery prices are down 97% since 1990 is because of better battery chemistries coming along. Currently there's a few more in the pipeline (including silicon) that lead market forecasters to predict the long-term (think 2030) trend will continue. The downhill road of pricing has had some bumps but it's very assuredly, extremely downhill
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  So Wright's Law applies to batteries but not to nuclear power?
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    Yes, that's what the historical data from the last 50 years supports. There's giant periods without any movement. Batteries have been around for centuries for instance. These model can be a bit imaginative at times and nuclear may start its journey on it any day but so far it doesn't look like it has. I'd love something absurdly cheap like a working Ponz-Fleischman bubble fusion to come around but if I was advising say a $100 million fund I'd say "solar + wind + chemical batteries" is the foreseeable future. It's just the reality.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Wait, that has happened with fission too, just not at grid scale because there hasn't been funding for it. If you look at military, academic, and space nuclear reactors, you will see Wright's law playing out. Solar and wind got the chance to ramp investment and scale. Grid-attached nuclear never did. Personally, I see more risks to massive-scale battery production than to modest-scale nuclear fission, both of which solve the same problem.
- jules 4y ago
  The battery price graph tells a different story. Improvements have been slowing down for a long time, and have been almost zero the past couple of years and we've actually had a price increase this year. Switching to an entirely new technology is speculative at best, not all that dissimilar from putting all hope in fusion. Could work, but betting the future of the planet on it is silly.

by jules 4y ago

Measuring cost by installed capacity is highly misleading because solar and wind need storage to be reliable sources. The cost of storage dwarfs the other costs, and battery prices have stagnated.

kristopolous 4y ago

The reason battery prices are down 97% since 1990 is because of better battery chemistries coming along. Currently there's a few more in the pipeline (including silicon) that lead market forecasters to predict the long-term (think 2030) trend will continue. The downhill road of pricing has had some bumps but it's very assuredly, extremely downhill

pclmulqdq 4y ago
So Wright's Law applies to batteries but not to nuclear power?
- kristopolous 4y ago
  Yes, that's what the historical data from the last 50 years supports. There's giant periods without any movement. Batteries have been around for centuries for instance. These model can be a bit imaginative at times and nuclear may start its journey on it any day but so far it doesn't look like it has. I'd love something absurdly cheap like a working Ponz-Fleischman bubble fusion to come around but if I was advising say a $100 million fund I'd say "solar + wind + chemical batteries" is the foreseeable future. It's just the reality.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Wait, that has happened with fission too, just not at grid scale because there hasn't been funding for it. If you look at military, academic, and space nuclear reactors, you will see Wright's law playing out. Solar and wind got the chance to ramp investment and scale. Grid-attached nuclear never did. Personally, I see more risks to massive-scale battery production than to modest-scale nuclear fission, both of which solve the same problem.
jules 4y ago
The battery price graph tells a different story. Improvements have been slowing down for a long time, and have been almost zero the past couple of years and we've actually had a price increase this year. Switching to an entirely new technology is speculative at best, not all that dissimilar from putting all hope in fusion. Could work, but betting the future of the planet on it is silly.