4 ms·

Can someone explain the economics of this to me? As I understand it, battery storage isn't cheaper than just base load generation (nuclear, combined cycle). Ho

by _ea1k 2y ago

Can someone explain the economics of this to me? As I understand it, battery storage isn't cheaper than just base load generation (nuclear, combined cycle). However, it sounds like natural gas peaker plants are significantly more expensive. Can that be quantified? ~80% more, or more than $.03kwh difference? Are the levelized costs of battery storage, including financing, now less than this? Are incentives a part of it? I'm guessing the solar aspect plays into this as well, as a large plant like that likely produces at times when prices are relatively cheap. It'd be really to see it all quantified.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont have the data you are looking for, but my take on California is that cost is largely an afterthought. regulatory pressure and regulatory costs drive up or eliminate the alternatives, and power companies have a captive market. As a result, I'm paying $0.50/kwh with a large green component, and have no choice on the matter. My only alternative is to try and reduce my use of the grid, which also means going solar.
- energy123 2y ago
  There's private energy developers building multi-GW of utility scale battery storage in Texas at the moment.
- _ea1k 2y ago
  One of the most compelling arguments that I hear from the anti-renewables types is that they do it in California and it doesn't work. I think there's more to it than that, though. TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen.
  - energy123 2y ago
    > TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen. Kansas and Iowa are 40-60% wind and have lower prices than the national average: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I completely agree. There is a smart way to do renewables, and then there is the moronic California way. For example requiring every new house to have enough rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is one of the highest cost sources and we already have an excess of daytime solar. It ignores basic economies of scale. It adds a huge cost to every new house in a housing crisis. I don't think it is cynical to think it was simply a handout to the rooftop solar installers.
    - rickydroll 2y ago
      IMO, Rooftop, and other dual-use solar are as important as Utility scale solar. The main advantage of rooftop solar panels is that the land can be used for both power and housing. Agrivoltaics and parking lot/garage rooftop solar are other examples of dual-use solar. Rooftop Solar + batteries (correctly done) is a geographically dispersed virtual power plant. There are almost no regulatory hurdles for installation and expansion. RTS is more resilient. One node goes down, and the rest keeps running. Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. Utility-scale solar is more vulnerable to damage, and outages affect a larger area. Current utility-scale solar installations are too big and should be distributed among each community.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I disagree with the resilience point and distribution. They costs differential is just too great (more than 10X last I checked), and the grid transmission always has to be sized to support 100% of local demand. I think the crux of it is your point that Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. I largely agree with that and think the other issues flow from this. It doesnt matter if my power company is buying large scale solar for $0.03/kwh, they will figure out a way to charge me $0.50. In California, power companies are not in competition, and the government sets price controls based on a ~10% corporate profit margin. Naturally, the power company drives their opex costs as high as possible every year. The system is so broken, it is hard to see a way out. I want to try to mitigate costs by rooftop production, but the state is shifting costs from use to grid hookup fees. Hell, there has even been proposals for taxing residential rooftop production.
energy123 2y ago
Battery storage doesn't need to be cheaper than nuclear on a kWh vs kWh basis, because you only need about 5 hours storage to get to 98% renewables. The combination of solar and wind and battery storage needs to be cheaper, and it is. The CSIRO, who factored in all costs on both sides, found that it's about 50% of the price of new nuclear in Australia. This conclusion may vary in places with less sun or an existing nuclear industry with a track record of building cheap plants quickly. Note also that a nuclear grid will also need battery storage because demand itself is variable. Unless you overbuild nuclear and run at a low capacity factor, but that carries with it its own additional costs.
- rswskg 2y ago
  Overbuilding nuclear and diverting the excess in liquid hydrocarbon synthesis would be a great way to do things.
revscat 2y ago
According to [1] “solar-plus-storage energy projects are already cheaper than new fossil fuel power plants in many parts of the world, and costs are poised to fall further.” There are links provided there that may answer your questions in more detail. [1] https://www.vox.com/climate/372852/solar-power-energy-growth-record-us-climate-china https://www.vox.com/climate/372852/solar-power-energy-growth...

by _ea1k 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I dont have the data you are looking for, but my take on California is that cost is largely an afterthought. regulatory pressure and regulatory costs drive up or eliminate the alternatives, and power companies have a captive market. As a result, I'm paying $0.50/kwh with a large green component, and have no choice on the matter. My only alternative is to try and reduce my use of the grid, which also means going solar.

energy123 2y ago
There's private energy developers building multi-GW of utility scale battery storage in Texas at the moment.
_ea1k 2y ago
One of the most compelling arguments that I hear from the anti-renewables types is that they do it in California and it doesn't work. I think there's more to it than that, though. TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen.
- energy123 2y ago
  > TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen. Kansas and Iowa are 40-60% wind and have lower prices than the national average: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I completely agree. There is a smart way to do renewables, and then there is the moronic California way. For example requiring every new house to have enough rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is one of the highest cost sources and we already have an excess of daytime solar. It ignores basic economies of scale. It adds a huge cost to every new house in a housing crisis. I don't think it is cynical to think it was simply a handout to the rooftop solar installers.
  - rickydroll 2y ago
    IMO, Rooftop, and other dual-use solar are as important as Utility scale solar. The main advantage of rooftop solar panels is that the land can be used for both power and housing. Agrivoltaics and parking lot/garage rooftop solar are other examples of dual-use solar. Rooftop Solar + batteries (correctly done) is a geographically dispersed virtual power plant. There are almost no regulatory hurdles for installation and expansion. RTS is more resilient. One node goes down, and the rest keeps running. Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. Utility-scale solar is more vulnerable to damage, and outages affect a larger area. Current utility-scale solar installations are too big and should be distributed among each community.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I disagree with the resilience point and distribution. They costs differential is just too great (more than 10X last I checked), and the grid transmission always has to be sized to support 100% of local demand. I think the crux of it is your point that Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. I largely agree with that and think the other issues flow from this. It doesnt matter if my power company is buying large scale solar for $0.03/kwh, they will figure out a way to charge me $0.50. In California, power companies are not in competition, and the government sets price controls based on a ~10% corporate profit margin. Naturally, the power company drives their opex costs as high as possible every year. The system is so broken, it is hard to see a way out. I want to try to mitigate costs by rooftop production, but the state is shifting costs from use to grid hookup fees. Hell, there has even been proposals for taxing residential rooftop production.

energy123 2y ago

Battery storage doesn't need to be cheaper than nuclear on a kWh vs kWh basis, because you only need about 5 hours storage to get to 98% renewables. The combination of solar and wind and battery storage needs to be cheaper, and it is. The CSIRO, who factored in all costs on both sides, found that it's about 50% of the price of new nuclear in Australia. This conclusion may vary in places with less sun or an existing nuclear industry with a track record of building cheap plants quickly. Note also that a nuclear grid will also need battery storage because demand itself is variable. Unless you overbuild nuclear and run at a low capacity factor, but that carries with it its own additional costs.

rswskg 2y ago
Overbuilding nuclear and diverting the excess in liquid hydrocarbon synthesis would be a great way to do things.

revscat 2y ago

According to [1] “solar-plus-storage energy projects are already cheaper than new fossil fuel power plants in many parts of the world, and costs are poised to fall further.” There are links provided there that may answer your questions in more detail. [1] https://www.vox.com/climate/372852/solar-power-energy-growth-record-us-climate-china https://www.vox.com/climate/372852/solar-power-energy-growth...