3 ms·

So you’re charging twice for the grid tie? Because the reason for installing batteries would be 1) to not grid-tie, or 2) to grid-tie along with a renewable ene

by svnt 2y ago

So you’re charging twice for the grid tie? Because the reason for installing batteries would be 1) to not grid-tie, or 2) to grid-tie along with a renewable energy source, which if it is a commercial site, is already grid-tied.

XorNot 2y ago
It's the same thing: the inverters and support electronics needed for batteries currently cost, per watt, about the same as LiFePO4. You can't run "bare" LiFePO4: you're either forming a grid, or you're connecting to one. Both involve BMSes and inverters.
- jaggederest 2y ago
  But that's already cheaper than building new coal or natural gas plants. The cost per watt of solar plus battery, right now, is the cheapest available form of power. I don't understand why you don't think that it's going to replace a majority of primary and secondary energy usage on the planet relatively quickly. I'd bet a dollar that, in 50 years time, nearly all energy usage is going to be primitive biofuels or solar-PV-origin.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    The sticker price of any given power source is irrelevant: the question is how much does it return on the investment. If building a solar installation is cheaper per kW then building a gas generator, that literally doesn't matter if the only times the solar installation generates power is when power prices are negative.
    - jaggederest 2y ago
      Including batteries. It's a peaking plant in a can. As far as I can tell the all-in non-land costs are cheaper, full stop. I also did the analysis for new nuclear under a relaxed regulatory regime (i.e. substantially cheaper and faster than now) and there's no way it wins. For the price of a gigawatt of nuclear, you can get 5 gigawatts of solar that's online next year, plus half a gigawatt of battery. I could be wrong, I'm just an armchair economist on this stuff, but I just don't see how it makes any economic sense to build anything but solar unless you're located somewhere remote and arctic (i.e. Åland or something)
      - XorNot 2y ago
        But it's the half gigawatt of battery which is the problem - it's nowhere near enough. Roughly batteries scale 1:4 power-to-energy. So 0.5 GW is only about 2 GWh of actual storage. But you need that for almost 18 hours a day since solar tends to have about 6 productive hours a day. So your batteries are covering you for maybe 0.1 GW of constant draw - presuming nothing goes wrong (i.e. a week of regional cloud cover). On top of that the solar plant capacity factor is somewhere between 10% - 30% in most locales, so the sticker plate capacity of 5 GW is going to be under 2.5 GW at best (and that would be a 50% capacity factor). I've never been able to find a way to square an actual "no fossil fuels grid" with the supposed cheapness of solar or wind - it always feels like people are quoting selectively useful $/GW values and then not giving a full accounting of the assumptions behind them - i.e. GW type quotes originate with thermal powerplants which have capacity factors which are essentially "whatever you want if you pay us".
        ben_w 2y ago
        I'm less optimistic about the current state of affairs than the person you're conversing with, but I think more than you. The LCOE values I've seen place batteries+PV at ~ nuclear… but nuclear is more expensive than almost anything else. I anticipate further reductions in the price of batteries from the learning curve and demand driven by electric cars where they're already cheap enough to replace ICEs, such that the cost of batteries for electricity time-shifting will be OK fairly soon (as in: 5-10 years)but that's a forecast and not a guarantee. There's also the possibility of a global power grid — the maths works out just fine, few hundred billion USD and a year or two of global aluminium production, we have to spend more than that on upgrading the last (hundred) miles even if we never build the global interconnects — but basically only China has both the interest and the capabilities to attempt something like that as part of a future belt-and-road initiative, everyone else will definitely not get past the "talking about it" stage.
        XorNot 2y ago
        I mean that to me seems like the obvious answer if we're doing solar: don't really do storage, just wrap the generating capacity around the Earth and have it follow the sun. Nation-states would likely still retain strategic reserves of thermal powerplants, but they wouldn't be run, and the budgeting for them would be under national defense and interpreted through that lens (i.e. you can buy it down with strategic alliances and diplomacy).
- svnt 2y ago
  That’s a cost on a renewables installation though, it doesn’t need to be loaded on the batteries. You aren’t installing bare solar panels either.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    The hardware to manage batteries and the hardware to manage solar panels is different (but sometimes can be packaged into the same box, or with one-off benefits like hybrid inverters), with batteries being considerably more complicated. You would struggle to ruin a solar panel with a bad inverter. You can completely destroy a battery by over-discharging it once. A solar panel produces energy. A battery only stores it (and loses, round trip about 8% in the process) - which is to say, batteries are solely arbitrage instruments.
    - svnt 2y ago
      You started out loading the whole cost for a grid tie. Now you are talking about a BMS. A BMS is typically included in the cost of batteries. Batteries are extremely functional in many installations, and even if you’re not using, only selling, arbitrage can work well. This is especially true if you get paid to accept the commodity in one time window and can get others to pay you to take it later.

by svnt 2y ago

XorNot 2y ago

It's the same thing: the inverters and support electronics needed for batteries currently cost, per watt, about the same as LiFePO4. You can't run "bare" LiFePO4: you're either forming a grid, or you're connecting to one. Both involve BMSes and inverters.

jaggederest 2y ago
But that's already cheaper than building new coal or natural gas plants. The cost per watt of solar plus battery, right now, is the cheapest available form of power. I don't understand why you don't think that it's going to replace a majority of primary and secondary energy usage on the planet relatively quickly. I'd bet a dollar that, in 50 years time, nearly all energy usage is going to be primitive biofuels or solar-PV-origin.
- XorNot 2y ago
  The sticker price of any given power source is irrelevant: the question is how much does it return on the investment. If building a solar installation is cheaper per kW then building a gas generator, that literally doesn't matter if the only times the solar installation generates power is when power prices are negative.
  - jaggederest 2y ago
    Including batteries. It's a peaking plant in a can. As far as I can tell the all-in non-land costs are cheaper, full stop. I also did the analysis for new nuclear under a relaxed regulatory regime (i.e. substantially cheaper and faster than now) and there's no way it wins. For the price of a gigawatt of nuclear, you can get 5 gigawatts of solar that's online next year, plus half a gigawatt of battery. I could be wrong, I'm just an armchair economist on this stuff, but I just don't see how it makes any economic sense to build anything but solar unless you're located somewhere remote and arctic (i.e. Åland or something)
    - XorNot 2y ago
      But it's the half gigawatt of battery which is the problem - it's nowhere near enough. Roughly batteries scale 1:4 power-to-energy. So 0.5 GW is only about 2 GWh of actual storage. But you need that for almost 18 hours a day since solar tends to have about 6 productive hours a day. So your batteries are covering you for maybe 0.1 GW of constant draw - presuming nothing goes wrong (i.e. a week of regional cloud cover). On top of that the solar plant capacity factor is somewhere between 10% - 30% in most locales, so the sticker plate capacity of 5 GW is going to be under 2.5 GW at best (and that would be a 50% capacity factor). I've never been able to find a way to square an actual "no fossil fuels grid" with the supposed cheapness of solar or wind - it always feels like people are quoting selectively useful $/GW values and then not giving a full accounting of the assumptions behind them - i.e. GW type quotes originate with thermal powerplants which have capacity factors which are essentially "whatever you want if you pay us".
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I'm less optimistic about the current state of affairs than the person you're conversing with, but I think more than you. The LCOE values I've seen place batteries+PV at ~ nuclear… but nuclear is more expensive than almost anything else. I anticipate further reductions in the price of batteries from the learning curve and demand driven by electric cars where they're already cheap enough to replace ICEs, such that the cost of batteries for electricity time-shifting will be OK fairly soon (as in: 5-10 years)but that's a forecast and not a guarantee. There's also the possibility of a global power grid — the maths works out just fine, few hundred billion USD and a year or two of global aluminium production, we have to spend more than that on upgrading the last (hundred) miles even if we never build the global interconnects — but basically only China has both the interest and the capabilities to attempt something like that as part of a future belt-and-road initiative, everyone else will definitely not get past the "talking about it" stage.
        XorNot 2y ago
        I mean that to me seems like the obvious answer if we're doing solar: don't really do storage, just wrap the generating capacity around the Earth and have it follow the sun. Nation-states would likely still retain strategic reserves of thermal powerplants, but they wouldn't be run, and the budgeting for them would be under national defense and interpreted through that lens (i.e. you can buy it down with strategic alliances and diplomacy).
svnt 2y ago
That’s a cost on a renewables installation though, it doesn’t need to be loaded on the batteries. You aren’t installing bare solar panels either.
- XorNot 2y ago
  The hardware to manage batteries and the hardware to manage solar panels is different (but sometimes can be packaged into the same box, or with one-off benefits like hybrid inverters), with batteries being considerably more complicated. You would struggle to ruin a solar panel with a bad inverter. You can completely destroy a battery by over-discharging it once. A solar panel produces energy. A battery only stores it (and loses, round trip about 8% in the process) - which is to say, batteries are solely arbitrage instruments.
  - svnt 2y ago
    You started out loading the whole cost for a grid tie. Now you are talking about a BMS. A BMS is typically included in the cost of batteries. Batteries are extremely functional in many installations, and even if you’re not using, only selling, arbitrage can work well. This is especially true if you get paid to accept the commodity in one time window and can get others to pay you to take it later.