Except wind and solar cannot be used to sustain base load energy demands. Until battery technology improves drastically the issue with solar and wind is the variability of output. One of the greatest challenges of operating a power grid is matching the supply of electricity with demand. Thats why they build gas and coal plants to meet peak energy demand periods. Nuclear energy supplemented by win and solar is by far the cleanest way to meet our energy needs currently.
Alternately, if wind and solar can be made absurdly cheap, there are are less-energy-efficient but lower-cost per unit output forms of storage that can help. Pneumatic storage is promising for this for example. So like instead of one wind turbine and one battery, you build two wind turbines and one pneumatic energy storage vessel and get the same amount out.
Oh no. You only get one unit of wind, one unit of solar, one unit of methane by electrolysis, and one unit of combined cycle gas plant for the same price rather than the usual of double all that.
However can we figure out how to get the same result with twice the energy and the ability to store it indefinitely at 40% efficiency. Especially given that the costs of all these technologies are going down at two digit percent per year.
Coal plants in particular are dramatically unsuited for the rapid changes in output to respond to changing demands for power.
Gas plants on the other hand are. And gas plants are cheap!
Overbuilding renewables with combinations of solar, geothermal (where available) and wind gives pretty good availability on it's own and with gas plants as a backup it gives you plenty of grid stability.
Edit: A link you posted elsewhere (thanks!) points out how well this works:
> If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh.
Battery storage is already well below this $150/kWh price.
Again, this is only for very short term storage. We are comparing apples and oranges.
As an example, for most of Aus, 5 hrs storage will only work for <80% renewables [0]. It's only practical on smaller scales which doesn't mean it isn't useful now but just means that the ~$100/MWh systems will not be practical everywhere, especially when renewables become more ubiquitous.
Edit: I had a deeper look at the NREL paper and most of their costs seem to be in the $100s/kWh rather than MWh. E.g ~$300/ kWh for 6 hour systems on Fig. 6.
The caveat is mentioned in the link, right after the price comparison. "provided the 1,500- to-1,800 acres of land needed was free and the sun shone steadily" considering the price of land recently... that may need a better estimate than just the cost of the tech.
Also the land requirements for huge solar / wind installations is another downside. Nuclear at scale is a clear winner especially in seismically stable regions of NA.
It's not critical, but I think you are looking at the wrong page. $55 is on the /MW basis, the next page shows $131/MWh which is still good.
The source is "Lazard estimates", but I can't find anything close to this in reality. Pumped hydro is meant to be super cheap, but is currently ~ $100/kWh. I'm starting to agree with the other commenter that Lazard is bunk.
"Pumped hydro is already the cheapest energy storage technology in the world in terms of cost per installed kilowatt-hour of capacity. Total project costs range between $106 and $200 per kilowatt-hour, compared to between $393 and $581 for lithium-ion batteries, World Bank figures show."
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pumped-hydro-mo...
Its not bunk. People are comparing two widely different things and not understanding the difference.
The price of $150 is capacity of a battery. If i want a battery that can store 4 kwh i pay $600.
The other number referencing $55/MWh is referencing levelized cost of storage.
I have a a MWh but instead of using it right now i store it for 4 hours.
Now this MWh costs its initial price + $55.
Apply this example to a KWh where i would pay $0.1 for it if i used it right now
if i want to store it for 4 hours and use it later i have to add $55/1000
to the price or about $0.055.
So a directly used KWh would cost me $0.1. One stored for 4 hours would cost me
$0.15.
Hope that makes sense and explains these different numbers.
> If you do that calculation at the global level, we evaluate the LCOE for recently financed projects is at US$150/MWh including charging costs. That’s our benchmark. We have a range around that benchmark which goes from US$115/MWh in China.
Thanks for the link. I am trying to get my head around the ~1000x improvement and I think it is because we are comparing apples and oranges. ~$100/kWh (like pumped hydro) can last for as long as the water in the reservoir lasts. ~$100/MWh (like the batteries you mentioned) are for <4 hrs reserve.
So the critical question is: how long will grids connected to renewables need reserve? 4 hours doesn't seem like much but I'm not sure the best way to find this info.
Edit: from a 30s google search, 4 hours is only good for <80% renewables in Aus.
[0] https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable...
Not to mention the other comments that refute those numbers using the same paper - projects would be closer to ~$100/KWh when storage is taken into account, as shown graphed in the paper itself.
* $200-400 million for equivalent onshore wind (they don't mention offshore wind which is more cost effective over it's lifetime)
* $1.5 billion for the SMR
Assuming solar and wind stay the same price for the next decade (which they definitely won't) that's a 4-5x construction price difference. The article didn't mention lifetime, decommissioning or running costs, which is likely a significant difference too.