3 ms·

Up to how many hours of battery capacity?

• Schiendelman 4mo ago
  I'm not sure I understand the question. It's always cheaper.
  • womble2 4mo ago
    No it isn't. Storage capacity for energy is expensive, if you want to have a grid that is largely dependent on intermittent sources and still have a stable grid providing power at all times you need large amounts of storage as well as generating capacity. For example if nuclear costs 1bn for a GW and solar+wind costs 0.6bn but you need to also install 0.5bn of storage to make the grid reliable to the safety margin you deem acceptable then it is no longer a cheaper system. Amount of storage needed scales up rapidly as you get towards an grid with entirely intermittent generation.
    • Schiendelman 4mo ago
      It's more like 1 billion per GW versus 300 million per GW including the batteries. I'm sorry, it's just not close.
  • LorenPechtel 4mo ago
    What are you smoking?? Storage is more expensive than generation. Always. We see some storage on the grid because storage is fast. Batteries can respond to load changes a lot faster than anything else. Demand goes up, the batteries are drawn down while cheaper generators are spun up. A few places use pumped hydro for the same purpose, but that's very situational.
    • Schiendelman 4mo ago
      I'm just smoking the math, man. LCOE for renewables plus necessary battery storage to level out those renewables is way cheaper than nuclear. If you don't believe me, go find some comparisons.