[sudosysgen]

Is it? Are you taking into account battery degradation from 1 cycle every day? The vast majority of battery chemistries won't last more than 3-4 years under those circumstances, and those that would are either much more expensive or experimental.

As of now storing 10kWh at 1kW costs around 1000$ from the cells alone. If you're changing them every 3 years then you have to spend 10 000$/kW over 30 years whereas nuclear is the same price per kW for a 30 year period.

If you don't take that into account then sure.

[jungturk]

Aren't lifetimes closer to 10+ years due to better battery management (managed operating temperature and charge/discharge)?

Tesla suggest such with its megapack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack

[sudosysgen]

Only if you don't do daily ~80% discharges.

You can avoid that right now because the grid has baseload. But if it doesn't you can avoid the wear cycles.

10 years is about what you'd expect if you only discharge ~30% of capacity daily, which is how it is operating right now.

[pydry]

This suggests it's even cheaper than gas now:

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne...

And gas is a lot cheaper than nuclear.

Theres a new battery backed solar plant in california that can service the early evening peak times with cheaper electricity than coal.

Battery prices have been plummeting consistently for the last three years.

[denton-scratch]

> battery chemistries

Ah, you're focused on chemical batteries.

Hauling a lot of water up a mountain at times of low demand, and releasing it through a turbine at times of high demand, is a type of battery; it seems to me a reasonable approach to smoothing supply and demand for wind/solar.

I agree that it's going to be a long time before grid-scale chemical batteries can help much with demand-smoothing.

[sudosysgen]

I'm focused on chemical batteries because that's what's being talked about when people say battery.

Pumped hydro is promising but it's going to be as expensive as regular hydro.