3 ms·

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 com

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
  From your link: "But supply chain issues are expected to begin resolving, and commodity prices have begun to recede, paving the way for more projects to move forward." It's a bit disingenuous to assume average prices will stay the same when you scale production by several orders of magnitude, as we will with batteries in the next decades.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    It's also disingenuous to treat "expected to..." as a certainty. The future will tell whether battery cost will go down. Yes, production is increasing, but so is demand. Especially once EV mandates start kicking in.
    - 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.

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
From your link: "But supply chain issues are expected to begin resolving, and commodity prices have begun to recede, paving the way for more projects to move forward." It's a bit disingenuous to assume average prices will stay the same when you scale production by several orders of magnitude, as we will with batteries in the next decades.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  It's also disingenuous to treat "expected to..." as a certainty. The future will tell whether battery cost will go down. Yes, production is increasing, but so is demand. Especially once EV mandates start kicking in.
  - 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.