3 ms·

Curious what you think of this recently completed project: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/28/scatecs-540mw-pv-1140mwh-battery-storage-project-in-south-afric

Curious what you think of this recently completed project: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/28/scatecs-540mw-pv-1140mwh-battery-storage-project-in-south-africa-begins-supplying-electricity-to-national-grid/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/28/scatecs-540mw-pv-1140mw... With enough storage and onsite renewables you can mimic the stable baseload that Nuclear provides.

defrost 3y ago
There are better examples, but given you asked; With an installed solar capacity of 540 MW of PV, and a battery storage capacity of 225MW/1,140MWh (BYD ESS), the plant is designed to deliver 150 MW of dispatchable power from 5 am to 9.30 pm year-round to the national grid under a 20-year power purchase agreement with South Africa’s national power utility company, Eskom. It's in MegaWatts not GigaWatts and delivers no power for seven and half hours every 24 hours. That is not mimicing the stable baseload that nuclear (or a hydro electric pupmped storage dam) provides. I'm not anti solar but a project such as your example has a long way to go to met the demands of a European country. It's worth looking into how much of a dent it makes in South African energy demands.
- chris222 3y ago
  Presumably all they would need to do here is change the ratios of solar and battery to achieve 24x7 dispatch. I presume the current arrangement is just more cost effective currently based on their needs but it does demonstrate there already are baseload style power purchase agreements occuring with combined renewables+storage facilities. We’re likely to see another halving of battery costs within the next decade which will shift the economics further.
  - JoachimS 3y ago
    Still MW not GW.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  10 of these solar power stations cost less than this new nuclear reactor. It certainly looks like a worthy competitor. It only took 18 months to build!
qwebfdzsh 3y ago
Wouldn't enough storage make it much more expensive than nuclear?
- chris222 3y ago
  Perhaps with todays prices on large lithium storage which I documented elsewhere in this thread at ~$500/kWh installed for a real project in the United States. Most analysts expect that price halves to $250/kWh or lower in the next decade which radically changes the economics. There are thousands of companies working on battery advancements within the entire stack right now. Raw material mining, refinement of materials, recycling, cell chemistry, longevity, density improvements, pack improvements, battery managament systems, thermal systems, safety, packaging, kW scale home batteries, GW scale utility batteries, cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, automobiles, ships. The amount of capital deployed is in the trillions of dollars.

defrost 3y ago

There are better examples, but given you asked; With an installed solar capacity of 540 MW of PV, and a battery storage capacity of 225MW/1,140MWh (BYD ESS), the plant is designed to deliver 150 MW of dispatchable power from 5 am to 9.30 pm year-round to the national grid under a 20-year power purchase agreement with South Africa’s national power utility company, Eskom. It's in MegaWatts not GigaWatts and delivers no power for seven and half hours every 24 hours. That is not mimicing the stable baseload that nuclear (or a hydro electric pupmped storage dam) provides. I'm not anti solar but a project such as your example has a long way to go to met the demands of a European country. It's worth looking into how much of a dent it makes in South African energy demands.

chris222 3y ago
Presumably all they would need to do here is change the ratios of solar and battery to achieve 24x7 dispatch. I presume the current arrangement is just more cost effective currently based on their needs but it does demonstrate there already are baseload style power purchase agreements occuring with combined renewables+storage facilities. We’re likely to see another halving of battery costs within the next decade which will shift the economics further.
- JoachimS 3y ago
  Still MW not GW.
Symbiote 3y ago
10 of these solar power stations cost less than this new nuclear reactor. It certainly looks like a worthy competitor. It only took 18 months to build!

qwebfdzsh 3y ago

Wouldn't enough storage make it much more expensive than nuclear?

chris222 3y ago
Perhaps with todays prices on large lithium storage which I documented elsewhere in this thread at ~$500/kWh installed for a real project in the United States. Most analysts expect that price halves to $250/kWh or lower in the next decade which radically changes the economics. There are thousands of companies working on battery advancements within the entire stack right now. Raw material mining, refinement of materials, recycling, cell chemistry, longevity, density improvements, pack improvements, battery managament systems, thermal systems, safety, packaging, kW scale home batteries, GW scale utility batteries, cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, automobiles, ships. The amount of capital deployed is in the trillions of dollars.