3 ms·

Look at the cost of storing 12 hours of energy for a 2 GW solar install (assuming long winter nights) or cost per kWhr of non gravity storage (since mountains a

Look at the cost of storing 12 hours of energy for a 2 GW solar install (assuming long winter nights) or cost per kWhr of non gravity storage (since mountains aren't available everywhere).

epistasis 3y ago
Take these numbers from a smaller install on HN a few days ago, $390/kWh: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942951 And you get roughly $9B for 24GWh. Rhis is roughly half the cost of Vogtle most recently completed $18B reactor, which is only 1.2GW and does baseload, so it provides less valuable constant power rather than dispatchable power that can match supply to demand. And that's before further price reductions for the batteries from having far lower power:energy ratio (save a ton on inverters), bulk discounts, and the thigh cost of doing any construction in Hawaii versus other places. What about the solar to charge it and provide daytime power? Again, using high cost estimates of $1/W, and a capacity factor of 0.25, you'd need 8GW to supply an average of 2GW continuous power, which is $8B. And again, that's using a high installed cost, and ignoring that a major cost of install, the inverters, would be shared with the batteries and could be dual utilized. Solar panel costs are only 1/3 of the total installed cost of utility solar in the US, and batter packs are similarly only able 1/3 of the total balance of system. So using excessivelt high, conservative estimates, a solar+batter install that could sustain 2GW average, but which is also hugely flexible and can adapt to peaks and troughs in demand, is going to be less than $17B, probably closer to $12B or $10B realistically. That nuclear reactor for an inflexible 1.2GW is $18B. And then let's look at project completion risk and timelines. The nuclear reactor will take 10 years, and has a >25% of failing to complete construction, leaving billions stranded. The solar plus battery install will be completed in 2-5 years, with a >95% of project success. That's today, but every year solar and storage costs fall. Nuclear might eke out a 5% decrease in cost when 10+ reactors have been built, but it's not going to catch up to storage and solar. Gravity based storage won't be able to compete, according to any of the startups' preliminary numbers I have seen published. New hydro storage requires construction, which is super expensive for advanced economies, and is unlikely to be able to even match the costs of hydro built 75 years ago, and will likely be be far more expensive. In any case, the idea that storage is 100x more expensive than nuclear is just not close to reality.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf Which energy storage is $1/kWh? I thought battery was ~100$
  - epistasis 3y ago
    I can't match up your numbers with anything in that 20 page PDF or with my comment... could you clarify your question?

Look at the cost of storing 12 hours of energy for a 2 GW solar install (assuming long winter nights) or cost per kWhr of non gravity storage (since mountains aren't available everywhere).

epistasis 3y ago

Take these numbers from a smaller install on HN a few days ago, $390/kWh: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942951 And you get roughly $9B for 24GWh. Rhis is roughly half the cost of Vogtle most recently completed $18B reactor, which is only 1.2GW and does baseload, so it provides less valuable constant power rather than dispatchable power that can match supply to demand. And that's before further price reductions for the batteries from having far lower power:energy ratio (save a ton on inverters), bulk discounts, and the thigh cost of doing any construction in Hawaii versus other places. What about the solar to charge it and provide daytime power? Again, using high cost estimates of $1/W, and a capacity factor of 0.25, you'd need 8GW to supply an average of 2GW continuous power, which is $8B. And again, that's using a high installed cost, and ignoring that a major cost of install, the inverters, would be shared with the batteries and could be dual utilized. Solar panel costs are only 1/3 of the total installed cost of utility solar in the US, and batter packs are similarly only able 1/3 of the total balance of system. So using excessivelt high, conservative estimates, a solar+batter install that could sustain 2GW average, but which is also hugely flexible and can adapt to peaks and troughs in demand, is going to be less than $17B, probably closer to $12B or $10B realistically. That nuclear reactor for an inflexible 1.2GW is $18B. And then let's look at project completion risk and timelines. The nuclear reactor will take 10 years, and has a >25% of failing to complete construction, leaving billions stranded. The solar plus battery install will be completed in 2-5 years, with a >95% of project success. That's today, but every year solar and storage costs fall. Nuclear might eke out a 5% decrease in cost when 10+ reactors have been built, but it's not going to catch up to storage and solar. Gravity based storage won't be able to compete, according to any of the startups' preliminary numbers I have seen published. New hydro storage requires construction, which is super expensive for advanced economies, and is unlikely to be able to even match the costs of hydro built 75 years ago, and will likely be be far more expensive. In any case, the idea that storage is 100x more expensive than nuclear is just not close to reality.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf Which energy storage is $1/kWh? I thought battery was ~100$
- epistasis 3y ago
  I can't match up your numbers with anything in that 20 page PDF or with my comment... could you clarify your question?