4 ms·

https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-continues-for-battery-storage-in-uk-and-ireland-co-location-emerging/ https://www.energy-storage.news/m

by davedx 2y ago

https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-continues-for-battery-storage-in-uk-and-ireland-co-location-emerging/ https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-con... > The energy storage market in the UK is currently experiencing substantial growth, as evidenced by the current operational capacity of 4.6GW/5.9GWh, projected to increase to 7.4GW/11.6GWh by the end of 2024.

Moldoteck 2y ago
"4.6GW" - that means that after 1h the 4.6GW are gone?
- matt-p 2y ago
  no, 5.9GWh, so after 1 hour at 4.6GW we could do another hour at 1.3 GW (or another 16 Mins at 4.6HW) ~76 mins at 4.6GW.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Too bad the nights a little bit more than 76 minutes.
    - matt-p 2y ago
      Indeed. We can only have a small amount of solar, but wind keeps blowing at night, Nucular continues, biomas too. The gap we need to bridge most urgently is turning off gas generation. Take a look here, https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical the majority of "turning off gas" is daytime demand that needs to be covered.
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        > wind keeps blowing at night But stops during anticyclones, which can last several weeks (that makes it completely unfeasible to use wind power with gas as a backup, because there's no way we can build several weeks worth of storage). > Nucular continues The problem is that nuclear plants cost is roughly the same no matter if they produce or not, so nuclear + solar is strictly costlier than just nuclear. Solar in a country as cloudy and rainy as the UK, and one that is so far north it gets very long nights in winter, doesn't make make any sense whatsoever.
        adrianN 2y ago
        Most countries have the infrastructure to store several weeks worth of methane. That can be repurposed to store hydrogen.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        It can theoretically be repurposed, but hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane and thus leaks in existing methane installations. Given that it is also much more dangerous when it leaks (it explodes much more easily than methane), that means reworking all the infrastructure around the storage site, which ain't free. Also, producing hydrogen from electricity requires lots of investments in terms of conversion units, and the economics is already dubious even when they run 100% of the time, so using it just for absorbing excess production a fraction of the year really isn't economical. In addition, what are you going to do with the hydrogen? Burns too hot for existing gas turbines so you'd need new ones. Fuel cells? That's expensive too. There's a reason why everyone is betting on batteries instead of hydrogen, the economics of hydrogen is just too difficult. And you know what? Even if you want to go full hydrogen, Nuclear + hydrogen is also more efficient than Wind + hydrogen since the hydrogen production units are going to be used at capacity more often, because wind is intermittent.
        adrianN 2y ago
        Nuclear+Hydrogen makes no sense economically. If you have the extra capacity to run electrolysis, your nuclear fleet is too big. And not everybody is betting (only) on batteries. A mix of storage technologies is most likely the cheapest solution.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        > Nuclear+Hydrogen makes no sense economically. If you have the extra capacity to run electrolysis, your nuclear fleet is too big. It's cheaper than running it on wind or solar, so no.
        2y ago
    - adrianN 2y ago
      Nobody claimed that the current battery capacity is sufficient to last a night. The interesting part is the growth curve of available storage.
      - littlestymaar 2y ago
        Going from 76 minutes to a full British night (which can last up to 16 hours in winter!) is going to need a heck of a growth curve indeed.
        adrianN 2y ago
        Less than four doublings is not a lot. We’re at the beginning of the storage expansion. The interesting question is not when we‘ll be able to cover a night, but when we’ll be able to cover a month.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        > The interesting question is not when we‘ll be able to cover a night, but when we’ll be able to cover a month. The answer to this one is a pretty straightforward never. You have to realize that such a storage will sit duck most of the time, making it impossible to get any return on investment on it.
        adrianN 2y ago
        There are power plants today that are being paid for standing by idle, so clearly you can make money by just providing emergency backup even when it's never used.
    - VICTORIAARCHIE 2y ago
      [flagged]
matt-p 2y ago
We only have so many lochs/valleys, realistically we will need to rely on batteries after about 20GWH or so.
chickenbig 2y ago
https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design 500MW/1GWh of batteries will cost 254M USD (in California Q2 2025). Assuming a 10% revenue per year, and cycling once a day implies a storage cost of 24500000/365/1000 = 67 USD/MWh.

by davedx 2y ago

Moldoteck 2y ago

"4.6GW" - that means that after 1h the 4.6GW are gone?

matt-p 2y ago
no, 5.9GWh, so after 1 hour at 4.6GW we could do another hour at 1.3 GW (or another 16 Mins at 4.6HW) ~76 mins at 4.6GW.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Too bad the nights a little bit more than 76 minutes.
  - matt-p 2y ago
    Indeed. We can only have a small amount of solar, but wind keeps blowing at night, Nucular continues, biomas too. The gap we need to bridge most urgently is turning off gas generation. Take a look here, https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical the majority of "turning off gas" is daytime demand that needs to be covered.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > wind keeps blowing at night But stops during anticyclones, which can last several weeks (that makes it completely unfeasible to use wind power with gas as a backup, because there's no way we can build several weeks worth of storage). > Nucular continues The problem is that nuclear plants cost is roughly the same no matter if they produce or not, so nuclear + solar is strictly costlier than just nuclear. Solar in a country as cloudy and rainy as the UK, and one that is so far north it gets very long nights in winter, doesn't make make any sense whatsoever.
      - adrianN 2y ago
        Most countries have the infrastructure to store several weeks worth of methane. That can be repurposed to store hydrogen.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        It can theoretically be repurposed, but hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane and thus leaks in existing methane installations. Given that it is also much more dangerous when it leaks (it explodes much more easily than methane), that means reworking all the infrastructure around the storage site, which ain't free. Also, producing hydrogen from electricity requires lots of investments in terms of conversion units, and the economics is already dubious even when they run 100% of the time, so using it just for absorbing excess production a fraction of the year really isn't economical. In addition, what are you going to do with the hydrogen? Burns too hot for existing gas turbines so you'd need new ones. Fuel cells? That's expensive too. There's a reason why everyone is betting on batteries instead of hydrogen, the economics of hydrogen is just too difficult. And you know what? Even if you want to go full hydrogen, Nuclear + hydrogen is also more efficient than Wind + hydrogen since the hydrogen production units are going to be used at capacity more often, because wind is intermittent.
        adrianN 2y ago
        Nuclear+Hydrogen makes no sense economically. If you have the extra capacity to run electrolysis, your nuclear fleet is too big. And not everybody is betting (only) on batteries. A mix of storage technologies is most likely the cheapest solution.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        > Nuclear+Hydrogen makes no sense economically. If you have the extra capacity to run electrolysis, your nuclear fleet is too big. It's cheaper than running it on wind or solar, so no.
        2y ago
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Nobody claimed that the current battery capacity is sufficient to last a night. The interesting part is the growth curve of available storage.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      Going from 76 minutes to a full British night (which can last up to 16 hours in winter!) is going to need a heck of a growth curve indeed.
      - adrianN 2y ago
        Less than four doublings is not a lot. We’re at the beginning of the storage expansion. The interesting question is not when we‘ll be able to cover a night, but when we’ll be able to cover a month.
        littlestymaar 2y ago
        > The interesting question is not when we‘ll be able to cover a night, but when we’ll be able to cover a month. The answer to this one is a pretty straightforward never. You have to realize that such a storage will sit duck most of the time, making it impossible to get any return on investment on it.
        adrianN 2y ago
        There are power plants today that are being paid for standing by idle, so clearly you can make money by just providing emergency backup even when it's never used.
  - VICTORIAARCHIE 2y ago
    [flagged]

matt-p 2y ago

We only have so many lochs/valleys, realistically we will need to rely on batteries after about 20GWH or so.

chickenbig 2y ago

https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design 500MW/1GWh of batteries will cost 254M USD (in California Q2 2025). Assuming a 10% revenue per year, and cycling once a day implies a storage cost of 24500000/365/1000 = 67 USD/MWh.