5 ms·

Wind Energy, like Solar Energy can be stored in Battery Energy Storage Systems to provide reliability to the grid in the event of shortages.

cupcakecommons 2y ago
[flagged]
- viraptor 2y ago
  LLMs should not be used as a reliable source of numbers for research like that. You keep saying how obvious this is and trivial to research. Maybe just post a quality research link instead in that case?
  - cupcakecommons 2y ago
    I am suggesting it as a way to do a back of the envelope calculation that can be thoroughly checked manually. It's very easy to check the numbers yourself.
- hedora 2y ago
  I don’t need to ask grok. Here are high-ball numbers for going off the grid; 2000 sf house in California: - 30 panels ~ 10kw: $20K - batteries ~ 10kwh: $8K. - permits + labor: $20K (California...) - 100+kwh EV with v2h bidirectional charging: $50K - comparable ICE car (offset): -$40K - heat pump water heater $1.5K - heat pump furnace: $15K - induction range: $2K That adds to: $76.5K. Typical PG&E bills are $500-1000 per month. Budget $200 / month for gas. (Again, California prices.). That’s 63-110 months till break even, which is less than the expected lifetime of the panels + battery. For another $10-20K, you can add propane backup, but I assume extended storms are rare enough to just charge the car and drive the electrons home a few times a year. A fireplace is about $5k installed. Not going full off-grid is cheaper. So is scaling up to beyond one house.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - thebruce87m 2y ago
    > That’s 63-110 months till break even, which is less than the expected lifetime of the panels + battery. You might want to check these, they are way off. You’ll get double these times at least. Not sure why you need the EV plus separate batteries too?
  - cupcakecommons 2y ago
    Grid scale power is being discussed here, not your house project (which is totally great)
- conception 2y ago
  From o1 pro with deep research # Comparison of Power Generation Options ## Upfront Capital Cost - *Nuclear*: Very high (£4,000-6,000/kW), with 10+ year construction time - *Natural Gas (CCGT)*: Low to moderate (£500-1,000/kW), with 2-3 year construction time - *Wind + Battery*: Moderate for turbines (£1,000-1,500/kW) plus substantial battery costs - *Solar + Battery*: Moderate for panels (£800-1,200/kW) plus large battery costs, especially for winter ## Plant Lifespan - *Nuclear*: Typically 60 years, with possible extensions; 2+ builds over 100 years - *Natural Gas*: 25-30 years; requires 3-4 rebuilds over 100 years - *Wind + Battery*: 25 years for turbines, 10-15 years for batteries; multiple replacements needed - *Solar + Battery*: 25-30 years for panels (with declining output), 10-15 years for batteries ## Fuel & Operating Costs - *Nuclear*: Low fuel cost, high operating cost (staffing, maintenance, safety) - *Natural Gas*: Major cost is fuel (price volatility), plus potential carbon costs - *Wind + Battery*: No fuel cost, moderate turbine O&M, plus battery replacement costs - *Solar + Battery*: No fuel cost, low panel O&M, plus battery replacement costs ## Levelized Cost (No subsidies) - *Nuclear*: £90-120/MWh - *Natural Gas*: £50-60/MWh (without carbon cost), £100+/MWh with high carbon prices - *Wind + Battery*: Base wind £40-50/MWh, potentially exceeding £100-150/MWh with storage for 90% CF - *Solar + Battery*: Base solar £40-50/MWh, potentially exceeding £150-200/MWh with storage ## Reliability / Capacity Factor - *Nuclear*: ~90% capacity factor, suited for baseload - *Natural Gas*: 80-90% if run as baseload, highly flexible - *Wind + Battery*: 35-50% raw CF for wind alone, requires battery + overbuild for 90% CF - *Solar + Battery*: 10-15% raw CF in UK, requires massive overbuild and storage for 90% CF ## Key Advantages - *Nuclear*: High-capacity 24/7 baseload, low CO₂, stable long-term output - *Natural Gas*: Low upfront capital, flexible/dispatchable, mature technology - *Wind + Battery*: Carbon-free, potentially low marginal wind cost, lower price volatility - *Solar + Battery*: Carbon-free, low operating costs, suitable for distributed generation ## Key Drawbacks - *Nuclear*: Expensive upfront, complex construction, decommissioning burden - *Natural Gas*: Volatile fuel costs, CO₂ emissions unless carbon capture added - *Wind + Battery*: High cost for baseload reliability, weather-dependent, multiple battery replacements - *Solar + Battery*: Very high overbuild and storage needs for 90% CF, seasonal variation
Manuel_D 2y ago
Batteries aren't produced at remotely enough scale to be viable for grid storage. To put this in perspective, the world uses 60 TWh of electricity per day. By comparison global lithium ion battery production was 1.1 TWh [1]. Remember, production capacity is distinct from the actual production figures. It's typical for actual production figures to be ~50% of production capacity. Intermittent sources don't just experience daily fluctuation, but also seasonal fluctuation. Even just 3 days of storage amounts to an impossible amount of batteries to provision, even assuming growing battery production capacity. Not to mention, even modest amounts of battery grid storage would severely hamper EV adoption, which would increase emissions. There's a reason why most plans for a primarily wind and solar grid assume that there will be some technological breakthrough that solves storage: hydrogen, compressed air, alternative battery chemistries, etc. are really common to see in plans for a primarily renewable grid. 1. https://interactanalysis.com/insight/global-li-ion-battery-shipments-will-exceed-3-5-twh-in-2029/ https://interactanalysis.com/insight/global-li-ion-battery-s...
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  Nobody, really nobody asks for the whole world consumption to be stored in batteries. This is such a bullshit argument it really paints the rest of your comment in a bad light. You can get so far by just storing up to 12 hours OF NIGHT TIME on a local level. Who cares about the 5% of times where we have to burn natural gas to stabilise the grid. 95% renewable is orders of magnitude better than today. Anyone saying different is literally a grifter. Also battery storage cost prognosis is 50% less in 5-6 years. Batteries are already cost effective and there are a lot of grid storage options build right now.
  - phil21 2y ago
    Because fuel costs only matter so much. You will still need exactly the same number of natural gas (or similar) plants with 12 hours of battery vs. 1 hour to cover seasonal events in most places on the planet. Until your battery backup can supply a week or more worth of power you have simply created an inevitable disaster in the making. No one is building a natural gas plant to staff it and let it sit idle for 95% of the time. The natural gas burned is only a fraction of its input costs. Battery storage is headed in the right direction but the fact almost all articles on the subject can’t even get the units correct as it would betray how ridiculously small the deployments actually are is quite telling in itself. The grifting are those pretending magic natural gas backing plants are going to pop up out of nowhere and not including that capital or maintenance expense when quoting intermittent power source costs. Right now those sources have been able to cherry pick the cheap and easy problems to solve since they’ve been using someone else’s power when they can’t meet demand. Eventually you run out of it though. Cheap intermittent sources have their place, and should be used maximally wherever possible. For example every watt of hydro production should have a watt of solar or wind built on top of it. Store the water for when the intermittent sources can’t keep up with demand.

cupcakecommons 2y ago

[flagged]

viraptor 2y ago
LLMs should not be used as a reliable source of numbers for research like that. You keep saying how obvious this is and trivial to research. Maybe just post a quality research link instead in that case?
- cupcakecommons 2y ago
  I am suggesting it as a way to do a back of the envelope calculation that can be thoroughly checked manually. It's very easy to check the numbers yourself.
hedora 2y ago
I don’t need to ask grok. Here are high-ball numbers for going off the grid; 2000 sf house in California: - 30 panels ~ 10kw: $20K - batteries ~ 10kwh: $8K. - permits + labor: $20K (California...) - 100+kwh EV with v2h bidirectional charging: $50K - comparable ICE car (offset): -$40K - heat pump water heater $1.5K - heat pump furnace: $15K - induction range: $2K That adds to: $76.5K. Typical PG&E bills are $500-1000 per month. Budget $200 / month for gas. (Again, California prices.). That’s 63-110 months till break even, which is less than the expected lifetime of the panels + battery. For another $10-20K, you can add propane backup, but I assume extended storms are rare enough to just charge the car and drive the electrons home a few times a year. A fireplace is about $5k installed. Not going full off-grid is cheaper. So is scaling up to beyond one house.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  > That’s 63-110 months till break even, which is less than the expected lifetime of the panels + battery. You might want to check these, they are way off. You’ll get double these times at least. Not sure why you need the EV plus separate batteries too?
- cupcakecommons 2y ago
  Grid scale power is being discussed here, not your house project (which is totally great)
conception 2y ago
From o1 pro with deep research # Comparison of Power Generation Options ## Upfront Capital Cost - *Nuclear*: Very high (£4,000-6,000/kW), with 10+ year construction time - *Natural Gas (CCGT)*: Low to moderate (£500-1,000/kW), with 2-3 year construction time - *Wind + Battery*: Moderate for turbines (£1,000-1,500/kW) plus substantial battery costs - *Solar + Battery*: Moderate for panels (£800-1,200/kW) plus large battery costs, especially for winter ## Plant Lifespan - *Nuclear*: Typically 60 years, with possible extensions; 2+ builds over 100 years - *Natural Gas*: 25-30 years; requires 3-4 rebuilds over 100 years - *Wind + Battery*: 25 years for turbines, 10-15 years for batteries; multiple replacements needed - *Solar + Battery*: 25-30 years for panels (with declining output), 10-15 years for batteries ## Fuel & Operating Costs - *Nuclear*: Low fuel cost, high operating cost (staffing, maintenance, safety) - *Natural Gas*: Major cost is fuel (price volatility), plus potential carbon costs - *Wind + Battery*: No fuel cost, moderate turbine O&M, plus battery replacement costs - *Solar + Battery*: No fuel cost, low panel O&M, plus battery replacement costs ## Levelized Cost (No subsidies) - *Nuclear*: £90-120/MWh - *Natural Gas*: £50-60/MWh (without carbon cost), £100+/MWh with high carbon prices - *Wind + Battery*: Base wind £40-50/MWh, potentially exceeding £100-150/MWh with storage for 90% CF - *Solar + Battery*: Base solar £40-50/MWh, potentially exceeding £150-200/MWh with storage ## Reliability / Capacity Factor - *Nuclear*: ~90% capacity factor, suited for baseload - *Natural Gas*: 80-90% if run as baseload, highly flexible - *Wind + Battery*: 35-50% raw CF for wind alone, requires battery + overbuild for 90% CF - *Solar + Battery*: 10-15% raw CF in UK, requires massive overbuild and storage for 90% CF ## Key Advantages - *Nuclear*: High-capacity 24/7 baseload, low CO₂, stable long-term output - *Natural Gas*: Low upfront capital, flexible/dispatchable, mature technology - *Wind + Battery*: Carbon-free, potentially low marginal wind cost, lower price volatility - *Solar + Battery*: Carbon-free, low operating costs, suitable for distributed generation ## Key Drawbacks - *Nuclear*: Expensive upfront, complex construction, decommissioning burden - *Natural Gas*: Volatile fuel costs, CO₂ emissions unless carbon capture added - *Wind + Battery*: High cost for baseload reliability, weather-dependent, multiple battery replacements - *Solar + Battery*: Very high overbuild and storage needs for 90% CF, seasonal variation

Manuel_D 2y ago

Batteries aren't produced at remotely enough scale to be viable for grid storage. To put this in perspective, the world uses 60 TWh of electricity per day. By comparison global lithium ion battery production was 1.1 TWh [1]. Remember, production capacity is distinct from the actual production figures. It's typical for actual production figures to be ~50% of production capacity. Intermittent sources don't just experience daily fluctuation, but also seasonal fluctuation. Even just 3 days of storage amounts to an impossible amount of batteries to provision, even assuming growing battery production capacity. Not to mention, even modest amounts of battery grid storage would severely hamper EV adoption, which would increase emissions. There's a reason why most plans for a primarily wind and solar grid assume that there will be some technological breakthrough that solves storage: hydrogen, compressed air, alternative battery chemistries, etc. are really common to see in plans for a primarily renewable grid. 1. https://interactanalysis.com/insight/global-li-ion-battery-shipments-will-exceed-3-5-twh-in-2029/ https://interactanalysis.com/insight/global-li-ion-battery-s...

notTooFarGone 2y ago
Nobody, really nobody asks for the whole world consumption to be stored in batteries. This is such a bullshit argument it really paints the rest of your comment in a bad light. You can get so far by just storing up to 12 hours OF NIGHT TIME on a local level. Who cares about the 5% of times where we have to burn natural gas to stabilise the grid. 95% renewable is orders of magnitude better than today. Anyone saying different is literally a grifter. Also battery storage cost prognosis is 50% less in 5-6 years. Batteries are already cost effective and there are a lot of grid storage options build right now.
- phil21 2y ago
  Because fuel costs only matter so much. You will still need exactly the same number of natural gas (or similar) plants with 12 hours of battery vs. 1 hour to cover seasonal events in most places on the planet. Until your battery backup can supply a week or more worth of power you have simply created an inevitable disaster in the making. No one is building a natural gas plant to staff it and let it sit idle for 95% of the time. The natural gas burned is only a fraction of its input costs. Battery storage is headed in the right direction but the fact almost all articles on the subject can’t even get the units correct as it would betray how ridiculously small the deployments actually are is quite telling in itself. The grifting are those pretending magic natural gas backing plants are going to pop up out of nowhere and not including that capital or maintenance expense when quoting intermittent power source costs. Right now those sources have been able to cherry pick the cheap and easy problems to solve since they’ve been using someone else’s power when they can’t meet demand. Eventually you run out of it though. Cheap intermittent sources have their place, and should be used maximally wherever possible. For example every watt of hydro production should have a watt of solar or wind built on top of it. Store the water for when the intermittent sources can’t keep up with demand.