5 ms·

The price for solar/wind + energy storage is still cheaper than nuclear tho.

by j-pb 2y ago

Kuinox 2y ago
This doesn't take into account the cost associated with storing the energy, or having alternate energy source to fill in the gaps.
- j-pb 2y ago
  You say that the cost of renevables and energy storage combined don't include the cost associated with storing the energy? Wild take.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.
    - j-pb 2y ago
      Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$ - The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$ - Cost for solar 24–96$ - Cost for wind 24–75$ - Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$ - Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$ - Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$ So you can combine renewables with the most expensive/deluxe storage technology available today and it's still cheaper than nuclear. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april... 2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... 3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/energy-storage/recommendations-energy-storage_en https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...
      - kgabis 2y ago
        > The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s
        j-pb 2y ago
        He said without providing any backing. But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#erlac4dc8f1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#... They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System. So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
        kgabis 2y ago
        This study assumes 54.8 TWh of hydrogen storage, good luck with that.
        defrost 2y ago
        That's between 1.5 and 2 million tonnes of hydrogen .. in a world that currently produces about 74 million tonnes of hydrogen annually already. There are multiple sources for those interested, https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-of-thumb-of-the-hydrogen-economy https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-o... is a brief dot point page, the Hydrogen UK and European Hydrogen Backbone reports are longer more detailed technical report papers.
        kgabis 2y ago
        Cool link, thanks. But speaking about hydrogen production and not storage is a bit misleading: currently we can story only 0.5TWh of energy using hydrogen WORLDWIDE, and this paper proposes 55TWh just for Germany. Currently, hydrogen is mostly used for greenwashing fossil fuels, with a promise that if be build infrastructure using "bad" hydrogen, we will be ready when "good" hydrogen arrives.
kgabis 2y ago
You can't pay for something that doesn't exist. You just can't store enough energy to turn renewables into a baseload energy source because it's orders of magnitude more than existing storage solutions.

The price for solar/wind + energy storage is still cheaper than nuclear tho.

by j-pb 2y ago

The price for solar/wind + energy storage is still cheaper than nuclear tho.

This doesn't take into account the cost associated with storing the energy, or having alternate energy source to fill in the gaps.

j-pb 2y ago
You say that the cost of renevables and energy storage combined don't include the cost associated with storing the energy? Wild take.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.
  - j-pb 2y ago
    Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$ - The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$ - Cost for solar 24–96$ - Cost for wind 24–75$ - Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$ - Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$ - Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$ So you can combine renewables with the most expensive/deluxe storage technology available today and it's still cheaper than nuclear. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april... 2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... 3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/energy-storage/recommendations-energy-storage_en https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...
    - kgabis 2y ago
      > The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s
      - j-pb 2y ago
        He said without providing any backing. But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#erlac4dc8f1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#... They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System. So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
        kgabis 2y ago
        This study assumes 54.8 TWh of hydrogen storage, good luck with that.
        defrost 2y ago
        That's between 1.5 and 2 million tonnes of hydrogen .. in a world that currently produces about 74 million tonnes of hydrogen annually already. There are multiple sources for those interested, https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-of-thumb-of-the-hydrogen-economy https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-o... is a brief dot point page, the Hydrogen UK and European Hydrogen Backbone reports are longer more detailed technical report papers.
        kgabis 2y ago
        Cool link, thanks. But speaking about hydrogen production and not storage is a bit misleading: currently we can story only 0.5TWh of energy using hydrogen WORLDWIDE, and this paper proposes 55TWh just for Germany. Currently, hydrogen is mostly used for greenwashing fossil fuels, with a promise that if be build infrastructure using "bad" hydrogen, we will be ready when "good" hydrogen arrives.

kgabis 2y ago

You can't pay for something that doesn't exist. You just can't store enough energy to turn renewables into a baseload energy source because it's orders of magnitude more than existing storage solutions.