3 ms·

"It says most new-build technologies, like renewables, can enter an electricity system and provide reliable power by relying on existing capacity already deploy

"It says most new-build technologies, like renewables, can enter an electricity system and provide reliable power by relying on existing capacity already deployed, but as their share increases, which forces the retirement of existing flexible capacity, the system will find it increasingly difficult to provide reliable power supply without additional investment. To address that issue, the report calculates the additional cost of making variable renewables reliable at shares of 60, 70, 80, and 90 per cent of the system (the extra "integration costs" consist mainly of new storage and transmission costs). The report found even when those integration costs were taken into account, the cost range for variable renewables was still the lowest of all new-build technologies in 2023 and 2030."

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Why wouldn't they compare an 100% equivalent solar+storage to nuclear on a cost per GW basis? Or, will this comparison be in the report? Eg a 2 GW Nuclear compared to 2GW Solar + (2+X GW storage to account for charge times and full non sunlight utilization per geography)
- theptip 3y ago
  It’s not straightforward. What is your “X”? Duck curve shifting within the day? Or seasonal storage to account for a no-sun / no- wind black swan week like they had in Germany recently? If you are just interested in intra-day shift, then battery+solar is already being widely deployed (in a pretty under-reported way IMO). Seasonal is way harder, I think smart grid / demand-side automation could actually be the key to resolving outlier events rather than building mostly-unused peaker plants.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  I might be misreading but maybe because 100% isn't possible? "Mind you, the integrated system plan was released last week and it did emphasise that although it is likely to be a renewable future, we'll still need gas as a supporting technology." Even ignoring times without sunlight they're nowhere close to full renewable saturation anyway (no one is), so considering it's cheaper for the bulk of use it seems like the prudent investment.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  One, it's not just an issue of 12 hours for diurnal storage. There's also seasonal fluctuations, where weather is drastically reducing output for weeks or more at a time. Second, the US is averaging total storage costs of over $500/KWh [1]. So 12 hours of storage for 2 GWH (total, 24 GWh) would work out to 12 billion dollars. And this storage needs to be replaced every 10-15 years. Estimates don't include storage because it's incredibly expensive. Renewables are cheap when they're supplementing a primarily fossil fuel grid (or hydro), but they're incredibly expensive as a primary source energy. But they're the cheapest short term carbon reductions, so naturally that's what politics rewards. 1. https://www.poweradvisoryllc.com/reports/battery-systems-5-mw-begin-capturing-new-york-vder-revenue#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20NYSERDA%20reported%20that,22%25%20increase%20in%20total%20costs https://www.poweradvisoryllc.com/reports/battery-systems-5-m....
  - thelastgallon 3y ago
    > they're incredibly expensive as a primary source energy Not true. Solar + storage is cheaper or same as fossil fuels. See page 5, Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Unsubsidized Analysis: https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Scroll down to page 17. This is for solar + 4 hours of storage. Not the 12 required to satisfy diurnal storage, let alone the days to weeks required to offset the seasonal fluctuations. This is a common way to make storage look cheaper than it really is: create an ambiguous term like "solar + storage", then bury the actual storage duration (often 2 or 4 hours) much deeper in the document. It's also unclear how they're calculating storage costs. Page 41 lists $178 per MWh. The US is currently building out storage at a cost of ~$500 per KWh so this is an insane cost. Are they projecting this as total cost for storage and retrieval over the life of the system? If so, how many discharge cycles are they assuming? What is the actual construction cost that this report is assuming? That figure seems to be absent from this report.
  - adrianN 3y ago
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  It's not 2GW solar plus storage, but Y GW of solar to be able to fill that storage in expected condition
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Good catch, would be super interested to see this comparison to nuclear. Are we close to equivalent flexibility and lifetime? Including maintenance cost and battery lifetime etc.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Why wouldn't they compare an 100% equivalent solar+storage to nuclear on a cost per GW basis? Or, will this comparison be in the report? Eg a 2 GW Nuclear compared to 2GW Solar + (2+X GW storage to account for charge times and full non sunlight utilization per geography)

theptip 3y ago
It’s not straightforward. What is your “X”? Duck curve shifting within the day? Or seasonal storage to account for a no-sun / no- wind black swan week like they had in Germany recently? If you are just interested in intra-day shift, then battery+solar is already being widely deployed (in a pretty under-reported way IMO). Seasonal is way harder, I think smart grid / demand-side automation could actually be the key to resolving outlier events rather than building mostly-unused peaker plants.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
I might be misreading but maybe because 100% isn't possible? "Mind you, the integrated system plan was released last week and it did emphasise that although it is likely to be a renewable future, we'll still need gas as a supporting technology." Even ignoring times without sunlight they're nowhere close to full renewable saturation anyway (no one is), so considering it's cheaper for the bulk of use it seems like the prudent investment.
Manuel_D 3y ago
One, it's not just an issue of 12 hours for diurnal storage. There's also seasonal fluctuations, where weather is drastically reducing output for weeks or more at a time. Second, the US is averaging total storage costs of over $500/KWh [1]. So 12 hours of storage for 2 GWH (total, 24 GWh) would work out to 12 billion dollars. And this storage needs to be replaced every 10-15 years. Estimates don't include storage because it's incredibly expensive. Renewables are cheap when they're supplementing a primarily fossil fuel grid (or hydro), but they're incredibly expensive as a primary source energy. But they're the cheapest short term carbon reductions, so naturally that's what politics rewards. 1. https://www.poweradvisoryllc.com/reports/battery-systems-5-mw-begin-capturing-new-york-vder-revenue#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20NYSERDA%20reported%20that,22%25%20increase%20in%20total%20costs https://www.poweradvisoryllc.com/reports/battery-systems-5-m....
- thelastgallon 3y ago
  > they're incredibly expensive as a primary source energy Not true. Solar + storage is cheaper or same as fossil fuels. See page 5, Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Unsubsidized Analysis: https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Scroll down to page 17. This is for solar + 4 hours of storage. Not the 12 required to satisfy diurnal storage, let alone the days to weeks required to offset the seasonal fluctuations. This is a common way to make storage look cheaper than it really is: create an ambiguous term like "solar + storage", then bury the actual storage duration (often 2 or 4 hours) much deeper in the document. It's also unclear how they're calculating storage costs. Page 41 lists $178 per MWh. The US is currently building out storage at a cost of ~$500 per KWh so this is an insane cost. Are they projecting this as total cost for storage and retrieval over the life of the system? If so, how many discharge cycles are they assuming? What is the actual construction cost that this report is assuming? That figure seems to be absent from this report.
- adrianN 3y ago
KptMarchewa 3y ago
It's not 2GW solar plus storage, but Y GW of solar to be able to fill that storage in expected condition
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Good catch, would be super interested to see this comparison to nuclear. Are we close to equivalent flexibility and lifetime? Including maintenance cost and battery lifetime etc.