Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage of our global storage needs do you believe are "long term" in this dichotomy? Is this at the "electric cars can't do my daily commute" or "electric cars can't tow my boat 600 miles without stopping, once a year" stage? Seems like most of the world just needs solar to last until the next day with a decent chunk of that power needed immediately after the sun sets and any wind power available could get s…
Short term = diurnal Long term = weeks to seasonal Batteries, especially that sort of cheaper battery, would be great for diurnal load leveling. Long term storage is probably more hydrogen and mass thermal storage. The tradeoff would be capital cost per unit stored energy vs. efficiency. Storage competes with and complements two other approaches: overinstallation of generation capacity w. curtailment, and dispatchabl…
Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
111–120 of 134 posts
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage of our global storage needs do you believe are "long term" in this dichotomy? Solar output in the UK varies substantially between summer and winter [1] - as does demand for heating. As a Brit with solar panels, it would be super neat if I could generate power during the summer, store it for 6 months, and use it for heating during winter. That would reduce my direct carbon emissions relative to the sta…
For this, wouldn't it be better to pump water onto the top of a bunch of mountains in Wales? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station , but more.
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#113It irks me to see predictions talked about as if past events. But this is a more solid guess than most. Actual progress has been impressive: 85% reduction in the 2010-18 period, says the article. Graph here: [1] Getting another 50% in 10 years can probably be done from manufacturing scale alone. Giant battery pack factories seem to be going up all over. This is something that ought to be almost totally automated, but…
Halve the cost and I suspect energy utilities as we know them are in trouble too. Currently solar is a no brainer in my country of Australia. Typically around a 6 year payoff for a 20 year benifit. Batteries are about break over ~10 years payback. But if you could half that it's becomes something many people will do. And once that starts happening it's a death spiral for utilities as they will have a every reducing c…
There's a big difference between generating enough energy over a year to be net zero, and being able to instantaneously supply power from batteries and solar throughout the year.
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that this is a meaningless metric. It seems to me that we need at least enough storage to last for a night. Realistically we need enough storage to cover reduced production and increased demand through winter.
It's cheaper under most assumptions to build enough solar panels that the reduced production during winter is still enough to cover your increased demand, rather than to build seasonal utility energy stores. See my calculations at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20664835 which show that 50x panel overprovisioning is cheaper than a week’s worth of battery backup. 26 week backup would then be a higher cost than ov…
42,339 MW of PV installations produced 39,401 GWh of energy in 2017 in Germany[1], so about 38 days of peak generation.
That means you need around 400 square meters per person at typical PV efficiencies to break even. That's already a lot. Where do you want to build 50 times that? There are 230 people per square kilometer in Germany, that's 4300 square meters per person.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#Statist...
[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(total+energy+consumpt...
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Halve the cost and I suspect energy utilities as we know them are in trouble too. Currently solar is a no brainer in my country of Australia. Typically around a 6 year payoff for a 20 year benifit. Batteries are about break over ~10 years payback. But if you could half that it's becomes something many people will do. And once that starts happening it's a death spiral for utilities as they will have a every reducing c…
Are you aware of anyone that's actually cut the grid connection? There's a big difference between generating enough energy over a year to be net zero, and being able to instantaneously supply power from batteries and solar throughout the year.
Utilities fear being required to maintain electrical distribution and generating capacity and only getting revenue on cloudy days. This is a real issue in Hawaii, which has so much sun and no local fuel sources, but less of a problem elsewhere.
It's a good problem to have.
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#116If this prediction turns out to be true, it would be a real boon for reducing carbon emissions. Changing from 7% to 40% of electrical generation is a big deal. I'm sure it's not enough, but it sounds like a start.
Let's hope we didn't just replace 40% of electricity with renewables by 2040, or we can probably kiss civilization as we know it goodbye. We need to reduce global carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 if we want a fighting chance of staying below 2°. That's much more than just electricity.
And for Canada and Russia it will probably be a net positive.
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's cheaper under most assumptions to build enough solar panels that the reduced production during winter is still enough to cover your increased demand, rather than to build seasonal utility energy stores. See my calculations at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20664835 which show that 50x panel overprovisioning is cheaper than a week’s worth of battery backup. 26 week backup would then be a higher cost than ov…
I don't think we have enough room for overprovisioning panels that much. The average German for example uses 48000 kWh per year of primary energy[2]. Solar panels produce around 150 Watts per square meter peak. That means you need about 35 square meter years of solar panels per person to get to net 0. Let's say 15 square meter years because primary power consumption includes power plant inefficiencies and so on that…
Germany is an especially difficult case, being very industrial, very densely populated, and fairly polar, though less so than, say, England.
Germany uses about 72 gigawatts of electricity and about 400 gigawatts of fossil fuels, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany (but converted to SI units). It comprises some 82 million humans, so this works out to about 5 kW of fossil fuels per person. (Your "48000 kWh/year" comes out to 5.5 kW.) Generally 1 W thermal is worth about 0.4 W electric—less as transport fuel, more for industrial process heat, but generally about that. (I think this might be what you're saying about power plant inefficiencies?) We can take 0.5 W to be generous and we get 2–3 kW per person.
This would come out to 12–19 square meters of panels per person, using low-cost 160 W/square-meter panels, but those aren't average watts, but peak watts. Typical capacity factors (average÷peak) for PV installations in the US are 15–30%, so you'd normally need on the order of 60 to 120 square meters to get that much power on average, but the number Wikipedia is reporting for Germany is 10.6%. Maybe that's just a function of polar latitudes but it seems pretty extreme! Maybe something else is going on there, like production curtailment due to inadequate storage resources and demand response, or plants being offline due to equipment failure?
So I think that low capacity factor already incorporates some overprovisioning in that sense.
When I mentioned "50x", that was not because that's an overprovisioning ratio that is ever actually needed. I'm sorry that was unclear! It is far in excess of what is needed. I think 10x is pretty much the limit of what you need outside of the polar circle: instead of the 3.3 peak watts per average watt you'd need in Perú, you provision 33, and enough storage to get you through the night, and then you'll be fine even if every day has storm clouds blocking 90% of the light. In Germany that would be 400–600 square meters per person. Yes, that does mean covering 10–15% of the country in solar panels. The Germans would be well advised to put some of those panels in other, more equatorial countries, with lower population densities. Or work on demand response.
I mentioned the grossly excessive 50x number because even that ridiculous level of overprovisioning is still cheaper than a week-long battery storage system. (But not if you have to invade Egypt to install it, I suppose.) My point was that battery storage is far too expensive for anything where there is any alternative. In particular it is not a viable option to deal with seasonal variability. (Some other form of energy storage might be.)
Earth's population density is only 20% that of Germany, so getting the world's human population to be as energy-intensive as Germany without any demand response, you'd need to pave "only" 2–3% of it in solar panels. Fortunately or unfortunately, that includes the sea.
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we have enough room for overprovisioning panels that much. The average German for example uses 48000 kWh per year of primary energy[2]. Solar panels produce around 150 Watts per square meter peak. That means you need about 35 square meter years of solar panels per person to get to net 0. Let's say 15 square meter years because primary power consumption includes power plant inefficiencies and so on that…
I don't understand what you mean about “square meter years”. Germany is an especially difficult case, being very industrial, very densely populated, and fairly polar, though less so than, say, England. Germany uses about 72 gigawatts of electricity and about 400 gigawatts of fossil fuels, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany (but converted to SI units). It comprises some 82 million humans, s…
I was also surprised by that low capacity factor. Before doing the math I estimated maybe 100sqm per person. The US installation averages probably benefit a lot from the deserts and being much closer to the equator. Solar is pretty bad in Germany during winter.
I agree that we most likely don't need week long battery storage btw, but mostly because of wind energy that is also available at night and during winters. We can probably get away with just over night batteries and power-to-gas for long winters.
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
or you could have some batteries, save the energy for a cloudy day, and have a smaller installation of panels.
Right, the problem is that a week’s worth of batteries is an immense cost that is reducing only slowly, while waiting a few days to wash your laundry is close to free. Let's say you use 1 kW on average in your house. You'll need about 4 kWp of panels to supply that with a typical capacity factor of 25%—a bit more panels than that if you're in Scotland, a bit less in Perú, but about that. At current prices that's US$8…
Re: Energy Storage Investments Boom as Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade
#120No companies listed in article - anyone have a list of companies developing new battery technology? Been something I've tried researching in the past with little luck
In the united states the main commercial option for non-lithium batteries is Nant who is developing zinc-air batteries (but for usage alongside lithium) Then there is Redflow out of Australia and Voltstorage in Germany. Not sure on vanadium flow batteries