5 ms·

Interesting, especially for its benefits for solar power. (One sentence sticks out though: ". The company projects it can deliver energy for utilities and othe

Interesting, especially for its benefits for solar power. (One sentence sticks out though: ". The company projects it can deliver energy for utilities and other users at a cost of less than $250 per kilowatt hour." This must be a mistake?)

danbruc 12y ago
This are (probably) the installation costs.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Amortized over 10 or 20 years? That sounds comfortably low to me.
bencoder 12y ago
There's discussion of that in the comments [1]. It looks like it's referring to the storage capacity. [1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/new-flow-battery-aims-to-replace-gas-plants#comment-1400912704 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/...
ndonnellan 12y ago
Storage energy, not cost per unit of production. For example, to store 1 MWh, it would cost $250,000 to build the storage. That cost would be amortized as suggested below. Since solar and wind are still very small parts of the energy production industry, it's not clear what utilities will pay for pure storage (at least, not the last time I checked). Places like Hawaii, where the PV concentration is very high, might be interested.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Even absent solar and wind, aren't there some fairly substantial costs associated with fluctuating demand? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this stuff, but I seem to recall that even among traditional methods of generating power, the cheaper forms tend to be less able to respond to quick changes in demand. Beyond that, there's also the fundamental conflict between average and peak demand, meaning that a lot of generating capacity (and thus capital expenditures) sits idle a lot of the time, and just exists to be able to handle those few days when the temperature hits 105F and everyone runs their air conditioners at full power all day long. I have no idea how those costs stack up against $250/kWh for storage systems, but it's at least conceivable that this stuff could be worthwhile even absent any significant solar/wind deployment.

danbruc 12y ago

This are (probably) the installation costs.

stcredzero 12y ago
Amortized over 10 or 20 years? That sounds comfortably low to me.

bencoder 12y ago

There's discussion of that in the comments [1]. It looks like it's referring to the storage capacity. [1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/new-flow-battery-aims-to-replace-gas-plants#comment-1400912704 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/...

ndonnellan 12y ago

Storage energy, not cost per unit of production. For example, to store 1 MWh, it would cost $250,000 to build the storage. That cost would be amortized as suggested below. Since solar and wind are still very small parts of the energy production industry, it's not clear what utilities will pay for pure storage (at least, not the last time I checked). Places like Hawaii, where the PV concentration is very high, might be interested.

mikeash 12y ago
Even absent solar and wind, aren't there some fairly substantial costs associated with fluctuating demand? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this stuff, but I seem to recall that even among traditional methods of generating power, the cheaper forms tend to be less able to respond to quick changes in demand. Beyond that, there's also the fundamental conflict between average and peak demand, meaning that a lot of generating capacity (and thus capital expenditures) sits idle a lot of the time, and just exists to be able to handle those few days when the temperature hits 105F and everyone runs their air conditioners at full power all day long. I have no idea how those costs stack up against $250/kWh for storage systems, but it's at least conceivable that this stuff could be worthwhile even absent any significant solar/wind deployment.