3 ms·

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

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.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Almost everyone predicts falling costs, but you take numbers from a supply shock situation and extrapolate them.

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.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Almost everyone predicts falling costs, but you take numbers from a supply shock situation and extrapolate them.