Plunge in Storage Battery Costs Will Speed Shift to Renewable Energy, Says IEA (reuters.com) 100
"In less than 15 years, battery costs have fallen by more than 90%," according to a new report from the International Energy Agency, "one of the fastest declines ever seen in clean energy technologies."
And it's expected to get even cheaper, reports Reuters: An expected sharp fall in battery costs for energy storage in coming years will accelerate the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday... The total capital costs of battery storage are due to tumble by up to 40% by 2030, the Paris-based watchdog said in its Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions report.
"The combination of solar PV (photovoltaic) and batteries is today competitive with new coal plants in India," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. "And just in the next few years, it will be cheaper than new coal in China and gas-fired power in the United States. Batteries are changing the game before our eyes." [...] The global market for energy storage doubled last year to over 90 gigawatt-hours (GWh), the report said...
The slide in battery costs will also help provide electricity to millions of people without access, cutting by nearly half the average electricity costs of mini-grids with solar PV coupled with batteries by 2030, the IEA said.
The Los Angeles Times notes one place adopting the tech is California: Standing in the middle of a solar farm in Yolo County, [California governor] Newsom announced the state now had battery storage systems with the capacity of more than 10,000 megawatts — about 20% of the 52,000 megawatts the state says is needed to meet its climate goals.
Although Newsom acknowledged it isn't yet enough to eliminate blackouts...
And it's expected to get even cheaper, reports Reuters: An expected sharp fall in battery costs for energy storage in coming years will accelerate the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday... The total capital costs of battery storage are due to tumble by up to 40% by 2030, the Paris-based watchdog said in its Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions report.
"The combination of solar PV (photovoltaic) and batteries is today competitive with new coal plants in India," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. "And just in the next few years, it will be cheaper than new coal in China and gas-fired power in the United States. Batteries are changing the game before our eyes." [...] The global market for energy storage doubled last year to over 90 gigawatt-hours (GWh), the report said...
The slide in battery costs will also help provide electricity to millions of people without access, cutting by nearly half the average electricity costs of mini-grids with solar PV coupled with batteries by 2030, the IEA said.
The Los Angeles Times notes one place adopting the tech is California: Standing in the middle of a solar farm in Yolo County, [California governor] Newsom announced the state now had battery storage systems with the capacity of more than 10,000 megawatts — about 20% of the 52,000 megawatts the state says is needed to meet its climate goals.
Although Newsom acknowledged it isn't yet enough to eliminate blackouts...
Re:Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:5, Informative)
It's ok to be a bit paranoid, but not everything is a conspiracy against you.
Also, you think they're talking about consumer batteries? And even if consumer batteries were cheap, you think the hardware store would sell them to you cheap?
We're not talking AAA batteries. These are EV battery-size and bigger.
You can't buy this: https://www.tesla.com/megapack [tesla.com] ... at a hardware store.
Re:Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:5, Informative)
Something to point out here as well is that the batteries they are talking about wouldn't even be good at consumer grade things. They're a different chemistry that prizes storage, cheap up front cost, and long life over most other factors. There's trade offs they have to take like the low energy density, the complexities of ventilation and how you can only stack these things so high, and the delivery of these things at some of the places of generation (like wind farms).
This is one of the cooler things about battery storage over traditional fuels. Chemistry can be modified to meet application, it's just a matter of researching the chemical attributes that yield the desired results.
Re:Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the Powerwall 1 was introduced [wikipedia.org] back in April 2015 for a price of $3,000, which is $3,953 [in2013dollars.com] in 2024 dollars. The specs [tesla.com] said a total of 6.4 kWh with a continuous and peak charge/discharge of 3.3 kW. The inverter was separate, because it was designed to be integrated into an existing solar setup.
The Powerwall 3 [tesla.com] was introduced in September 2023 for $7,300 but includes an integrated solar inverter. The specs for it are double the total power at 13.5 kWh, with a continuous charge/discharge of 11.5 kW -- more than triple the original -- and a peak, 10 second draw of 30 kW, about 9 times the original.
So, we're talking more than 3x the device, plus a solar inverter, for less than double the price. Oh, and the original used nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries that were only rated for 5,000 cycles in the warranty. Battery chemistry is now Lithium-Ferrous (Iron)-Phosphate, which is more stable than the NMC and the warranty reflects that at 10-year, unlimited cycles. Oh, and the 3 is expandable with separate "DC packs". That's just batteries without the inverter.
As far as EV replacement batteries, there's a decent market for Nissan Leaf aftermarket batteries. The official, 24 kWh Nissan replacement is $5,500 + install. Third party depends on the current demand, but averaged half that when I last checked and there were even upgrade options (bigger batteries) if you wanted to pimp out your Leaf.
So... yes, batteries are getting substantially cheaper and while the end user may not be seeing the full 90% decrease, we're seeing quite a bit. That full cost decrease is for utility scale buyers.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as EV replacement batteries, there's a decent market for Nissan Leaf aftermarket batteries. The official, 24 kWh Nissan replacement is $5,500 + install. Third party depends on the current demand, but averaged half that when I last checked and there were even upgrade options (bigger batteries) if you wanted to pimp out your Leaf.
Bigger batteries are fine when they’re bolted on to something expected to fit in your hand or lap.
No one is going to feel good about a bigger battery in an EV when the car insurance company declines all repairs and medical costs because a ‘pimped’ out e-ride wasn’t able to stop in time to avoid crashing into two other cars, all because that EV was not designed to carry an additional 1,000 pounds of battery on top of a full compliment of passengers and/or cargo.
Re: (Score:3)
No shit Sherlock, we're not talking AAA batteries, how brilliant of you to have noticed.
You were the one who said that the reason you knew cheap batteries can't exist was because you can't buy them in the local hardware store. That was trolling, pure and simple. You even got that badge of honor, "-1 troll," so you can tell people how awful slashdot mods down people who are only trolling, can't they take a joke? And you drew the response you wanted, so you are probably feeling pretty smug.
In fact, batteries have been getting better at a remarkable rate. Sorry you haven't noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
EV batteries ... just don't die that often.
Re: Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:1)
The text doesn't say 92 percent, 10 years and Powerwalls, it says 90 percent, 15 years and batteries.
Re:Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:5, Interesting)
It's true you're paying about the same for a AA battery in the hardware store than you were 30 years ago, if you account for inflation. However a 1990s AA battery would have a capacity of around 800 mAH whereas a modern AA battery offers 2000 mAH or more for the same (adjusted for inflastion) price. So while it *looks* like you're paying more for batteries, you're not if you account for inflation. If you actually look at the number of batteries you to buy over the course of time to power some device, you're actually paying less than 1/3 the price *for the stored energy you get*.
In any case we're not talking about the primary (non-rechargeable batteries) you are buying in the hardware store. We're talking secondary (rechargeable) batteries. In secondary cells the price/per capacity deflation is dramatic. The cost of kWH of lithium ion battery went down by 92% since 2000 [source [ourworldindata.org]]. Projections are grid storage costs will continue to drop at dramatic, albeit at somewhat lower rates, so we'll see a cost reduction of about one half in the next seven years [source]. [energy-storage.news]
Note this is a conservative projection of of lithium ion technology's evolution. There are multiple promising technologies in the pipeline that could significantly beat this projection. Some of these technologies (e.g. molten metal batteries) promise to be an order of magnitude cheaper if the bugs can get ironed out.
Re:Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:5, Informative)
Now please drop me a link for an affordable powerwall alternative
Define "affordable". There certainly are plenty of Powerwall alternatives that are less expensive than Tesla's.
But that's not really the point of the article. The point is that battery prices have been dropping rapidly for a couple of decades now, and they're showing no sign of slowing. The point is that the cheaper batteries that will be available in the next 1-2 decades will make renewables cost effective as a full replacement for fossil fuels.
a replacement battery for my EV after its supposedly "immortal" battery dies after 5 years of use
If your battery dies after five years, it will be replaced for free under warranty because it's faulty. AFAICT all the manufacturer warranties are around 8 years.
However, it's really unlikely to happen. My 2011 Nissan Leaf's battery is still fine, though it only has about 80% of its original capacity, and the Leaf is about the worst case scenario since Nissan failed to implement thermal management. My four year-old Tesla still has 95% of its capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not really the point of the article. The point is that battery prices have been dropping rapidly for a couple of decades now, and they're showing no sign of slowing. The point is that the cheaper batteries that will be available in the next 1-2 decades will make renewables cost effective as a full replacement for fossil fuels.
While certainly true ESS costs are falling dramatically and it will obviously help to cost effectively increase mix of renewables conclusions regarding "cost effective as full replacement for fossil fuels" are unrealistic.
To give you some idea the US alone burns about 11 TWh per day. 42 GWh was added in ESS globally last year according to the IEA.
To buffer a single day in the US you need 261x the GLOBAL capacity added in 2023. To effectively electrify society you will at least have to double that again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China installed 260GW of solar last year alone.
They have a 100MWh flow battery in operation now. It's planned to scale to 200 - in one facility.
Re: (Score:2)
To buffer a single day in the US you need 261x the GLOBAL capacity added in 2023. To effectively electrify society you will at least have to double that again.
Sure. So? 10 years is almost certainly not enough to get us to that capacity, but 20 years is. Like most such things, installed battery capacity is likely following a sigmoid curve, and we're in the exponential phase, with an exponent of around 2. Assuming we didn't level off, 20 years would see global installed capacity increase about 1,000,000X.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. So? 10 years is almost certainly not enough to get us to that capacity, but 20 years is. Like most such things, installed battery capacity is likely following a sigmoid curve, and we're in the exponential phase, with an exponent of around 2. Assuming we didn't level off, 20 years would see global installed capacity increase about 1,000,000X.
Batteries are a mature industry driven by economies of scale far more than they are enabled by technological innovation. Power density is not increasing, mass is not decreasing. In fact the recent adoption of LFP has reversed both metrics. There is nothing left on the periodic table even if you pushed the chemistry to its theoretical limit you would only get about a 3x increase in density for something like LFP over current day systems. It is wholly unrealistic to expect feasibility of a million fold in
Re: (Score:2)
The increase I'm talking about is just in deployed capacity... it's a manufacturing and installation problem, not a technology problem, and it's manufacturing and installation (as well as demand) that is doubling deployed capacity every year, not technological changes. If you want to claim that the current rate of growth is going to stop it's incumbent on you to explain why it will change.
That said, I think you're wrong that the technology is "done". There is lots of very interesting research going on, in
Re: (Score:2)
The increase I'm talking about is just in deployed capacity... it's a manufacturing and installation problem, not a technology problem, and it's manufacturing and installation (as well as demand) that is doubling deployed capacity every year, not technological changes.
If you want to claim that the current rate of growth is going to stop it's incumbent on you to explain why it will change.
The simple answer to "Assuming we didn't level off, 20 years would see global installed capacity increase about 1,000,000X" is the world doesn't have a million times more dollars to spend on batteries (quadrillions of dollars) than it is spending now. Extrapolation of production trends does not itself address issues of economic feasibility.
The role of grid (B)ESS is short term buffering. To move beyond that is cost prohibitive given currently available technology at either current or projected prices. (Pr
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I think you're wrong that the technology is "done". There is lots of very interesting research going on, in both new chemistries and in new manufacturing techniques.
Went back through this entire thread and I don't see where I used the word "done" nor have I stated anything that would imply it. What I did do was point out the industry is mature and described some basic underlying physical constraints of the technology that limit its progress.
I fully expect advancements in both supporting technology and production yet what I don't expect is for this technology to advance in a way even remotely consistent with "cost effective as full replacement for fossil fuels" and cer
Re: (Score:2)
Flow batteries aren't new, but haven't been used at scale until recently. More capacity is just more tanks of fluid.
And of course sand heat batteries. Literally use summer sun for winter heating.
The field of battery innovation is quite dynamic.
Re: (Score:1)
MARKET FORCED BABY!!!
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK the rule to get the tax breaks for EVs was that the battery had to have at least 8 years/100k miles on the warranty. Although the tax break is gone now, that seems to have become a standard for EV battery warranties.
It's not all roses though. Some manufacturers are a pain when it comes to warranty work. Nissan is one of the worst offenders, sadly. Hopefully this will improve via case law building up and some government intervention.
As you say though, Nissan is the worst case scenario. Chinese LFP
Re: (Score:2)
What was the Powerwall price in 2015?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:1)
Of course battery technology has become cheaper over the last ten years, idiot! How else do you think it is possible for you to be driving around in your $15,000 electric SUV? How else do you think a $100 consumer UPS can keep your gaming rig powered for 12 hours? Open your eyes, dumbass!
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to Gish Gallop your way out of this one. You're the one who brought up your personal experience with the price of batteries at the *hardware store* as proof that batteries have not gotten cheaper. I'm actually being charitable in assuming you're talking about shopping for primary cells; if we're talking *rechargeable* cells the argument is even stronger because they are recharged over and over again which means the steady increase of capacity and lifespan in secondary cells over the decad
Re: (Score:2)
It's true you're paying about the same for a AA battery in the hardware store than you were 30 years ago, if you account for inflation. However a 1990s AA battery would have a capacity of around 800 mAH whereas a modern AA battery offers 2000 mAH or more for the same (adjusted for inflastion) price.
An alkaline "duraleak" from 30 years ago has not appreciable changed despite marketing. Overall capacity is to a stupid degree dependent on current draw. mAh ratings have no effective meaning for these chemistries.
If you actually look at the number of batteries you to buy over the course of time to power some device, you're actually paying less than 1/3 the price *for the stored energy you get*.
You are just making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
The norm thirty years ago for a hardware store battery was zinc-carbon, with premium batteries being alkaline. The norm today is alkaline, with fancy batteries having a lithium chemistry. So it's absolutely true that the "regular AA" battery you put in your flashlight back then had something like an 800 mah capacity; there is nothing on the market today that is that weak.
In any case that's primary cells, which have zero relevance to this topic. We're mainly interested in secondary cells, and there the imp
Re: (Score:2)
The norm thirty years ago for a hardware store battery was zinc-carbon, with premium batteries being alkaline. The norm today is alkaline, with fancy batteries having a lithium chemistry. So it's absolutely true that the "regular AA" battery you put in your flashlight back then had something like an 800 mah capacity; there is nothing on the market today that is that weak.
Not even close. The energizer bunny arrived in the late eighties and its alkaline batteries had been available for decades before. By the late 80s over 80% of Duracell's sales was alkaline. In 1994 (30 years ago) alkaline batteries dominated the market.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah yes, cheap batteries. Leftist propaganda is chock full of them, and yet, they are noticeably absent at any hardware store. You know, in actual, real, reality.
Also, not even leftists themselves believe batteries+PV can compete with coal on equal terms, hence the screeching for subsidies, bans, and all other kinds of govt intervention. If they could, that's what bitcoin miners would be building, instead of trying to reopen mothballed coal plants.
You are either a really bad troll or the type of white bearded luddite that sat round a table in the corner of a pub in 1971 talking with his friends about how the world would soon realise this internal combustion engine hokum is just a fad and go back to good old coal and steam.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hardware store"? Are you for real?
Re: (Score:2)
"Hardware store"? Are you for real?
No, he's a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it. Yes. Thanks for the hint.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, cheap batteries. Leftist propaganda is chock full of them, and yet, they are noticeably absent at any hardware store. You know, in actual, real, reality.
A few months ago priced out cell costs of those "ego" batteries in hardware stores that sell for like $400 and came out to less than $40 my cost for the actual 18650 cells. Add whatever you think is fair for plastic, some copper wiring and small BMS... Batteries sold in hardware stores are akin to buying ink for HP printers. Purely a money making scam completely disconnected from the underlying battery market.
Also, not even leftists themselves believe batteries+PV can compete with coal on equal terms, hence the screeching for subsidies, bans, and all other kinds of govt intervention.
Cost of batteries are indeed falling precipitously. For PV systems a full featured 5KW rack moun
Re: Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:2)
You seem to know your stuff, so what price were they before? Have they dropped $450 from an initial price of $500
or dropped from $197,000 to $196,550 ?
Every few years I think about making a big UPS and I haven't noticed cells getting much cheaper. I am in the UK, though, so everything is a rip-off.
Re: Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:5, Informative)
I've been pricing out solar systems recently and I've been absolutely shocked at how cheap it is. Based on my electricity usage, I could go off grid and break even in about 5 years. The panels last 30+ years. The other equipment - with good maintenance - should last 10+ years minimum. It's a no-brainer if you have the space.
When I looked about 5 years ago, my break even was closer to 20 years with similar electricity usage and lower rates.
Re: (Score:2)
The panels and inverters are cheaper, it is the labor to get those installed that has gotten expensive. Last year being handy and having found some money I paid cash ($20,000) for my off grid system and did all the work myself. 11,040 pvw, two 6500 watt 120v inverters, four 5.12 kWh batteries. Not quite enough storage so my plan is two more batteries and ten more 460 watt panels.
Paying to have that sized system installed can cost $40,000 or more and even more if you use their financing.
Re: Ah yes, cheap batteries (Score:2)
Oh, no need for that. It's not all that complicated, especially if you're not doing rooftop (which I'm not).
Re: (Score:2)
If you're citing coal as the fossil fuel that solar+batteries must compete with, you clearly do not know what the fuck you are talking about.
Coal is nowhere near the cheapest fossil fuel. Natural gas is.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're citing coal as the fossil fuel that solar+batteries must compete with, you clearly do not know what the fuck you are talking about.
Coal is nowhere near the cheapest fossil fuel. Natural gas is.
True, even nuclear beats coal on price.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't predict anything that depends on breakthroughs in theory. You can only hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:5, Interesting)
Intermittent energy sources are so cheap, you just build more of them. Use all the different kinds, and the gaps get smaller and smaller. And with batteries, you can cover the gaps. Eventually, hydro and similar will be filling in the last gaps. And we'll keep a few gas peaker plants that'll run on biogas from garbage and manure.
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:4, Interesting)
Dunkelflautes can get pretty big, to the point where EU would have to depend on generation in non EU countries OR need say 10x name plate capacity for wind and 40x for PV and batteries. Getting through winter on renewables alone without seasonal storage is very tough.
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:5, Interesting)
to the point where EU would have to depend on generation in non EU countries
Which, how's that different than right now? How's that different than 30 years ago? Like this is such a silly argument. EU has never soloed their energy production, but when people talk of solar and wind, "OH NO, you have to do it 100% inside that way or nothing!"
40x for PV and batteries
But that's not an unrealistic thing on a multi decade timescale. Like some people get hung up on building a 100GWh battery by tomorrow and that's not realistic. But seeing how LFP can reasonably over a ten to twelve year period produce that amount of storage, it is indeed, that we could possibly do that given enough time.
Dunkelflautes can get pretty big
And I'm not saying you're wrong here, but we've got the technology to overcome it. It's a matter of time and cost, not technology. We can technically overcome that aspect.
Re: (Score:3)
You can pile coal and pump gas underground, even without autarky you have reserves. There is a difference between being months and hours away from a nation with little alliance to yours being able to cast you into darkness.
I think PV with hydrogen seasonal storage is more realistic than over-provisioning by 40x.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen sucks for multiple small and surprising ways.
- pernicious molecule: embrittlement of metals means expensive installations, heavy maintenance and explosion risks
- it's also a greenhouse gas
- needs to be stored at high pressure and low temperature, so you can't just put it in a tank and forget about it, it requires energy input to store.
- each time you transfer it from one pressure vessel to another, you need to pressurise and cool again
All these small problems add up to make it uncompetitive with ot
Re: (Score:2)
EU has never soloed their energy production, but when people talk of solar and wind, "OH NO, you have to do it 100% inside that way or nothing!"
One thing to note, one of the primary benefits of solar / wind is energy security and independence. Europe is in an unfortunate situation sitting on a shitton of coal. They didn't become dependent on others by choice, it was just luck of where we drew the borders. But Europe does still have sun and wind. It doesn't have to be 100% inside or nothing, but that absolutely should be the aspirational goal.
I don't want to see my powerbill repeat what happened 2 years ago. That said it was the catalyst for pulling
Re: (Score:3)
EU has never soloed their energy production, but when people talk of solar and wind, "OH NO, you have to do it 100% inside that way or nothing!"
One thing to note, one of the primary benefits of solar / wind is energy security and independence. Europe is in an unfortunate situation sitting on a shitton of coal.
Not really, the world's coal reserves in order of size are:
United States – 249 billion tonnes
Russia – 162 billion tonnes
Australia – 149 billion tonnes
China – 142 billion tonnes
India – 106 billion tonnes
Europe's coal reserves are somewhere down the list after India at around 55 billion tonnes.
But Europe does still have sun and wind. It doesn't have to be 100% inside or nothing, but that absolutely should be the aspirational goal.
I don't want to see my powerbill repeat what happened 2 years ago. That said it was the catalyst for pulling my finger out and actually insulating my house.
This is true but reason Europe ditched coal isn't just environmental (for example, they have 143,000 km of coastline vulnerable to sea level rise), it is also cost based. Coal isn'
Re: (Score:1)
The EU can be energy independent, they merely need to decide to make that a priority.
France proved that it is possible to make nuclear fission a majority provider of electricity to the grid. The big problem with making all electricity by nuclear fission is that current nuclear reactors, or more precisely the steam power units attached to them, don't react well to changing electrical loads. With large capacity electrical storage systems on the electrical grid that problem of supply meeting demand goes away
Re: (Score:3)
Dunkelflautes can get pretty big
Not really, it's just that we started with the easiest and cheapest locations for things like wind power. Off-shore the wind is constant, it only varies in terms of speed, it never stops. These things are huge too, and 100m off the ground things get even more consistent.
Current off-shore wind farms are reaching over 50% capacity factor, and prototype super sized turbines are exceeding 70%. That's on par with French nuclear plants, and we have huge amounts of untapped space for these things.
We don't even hav
Re: (Score:1)
Current off-shore wind farms are reaching over 50% capacity factor, and prototype super sized turbines are exceeding 70%. That's on par with French nuclear plants, and we have huge amounts of untapped space for these things.
French nuclear power plants have such low capacity factors because electricity demand changes through the day, and through the year. With so much reliance on nuclear power they have to curtail some of that output to compensate.
What happens to the capacity factor of a nuclear power plant when they can charge up a battery on times of low demand? Capacity factor will increase, obviously. What happens to capacity factors of windmills if there's no means to store excess energy production with batteries? The
Re: (Score:2)
"Intermittent energy sources are so cheap, you just build more of them. Use all the different kinds, and the gaps get smaller and smaller."
Point is that you do need a lot of different kinds, and we seem to be concentrating primarily on solar at the moment. Would like to see a LOT more wind and I'd love to see more work on tidal and geothermal.
Re: (Score:2)
Hawaii had a geothermal plant but if had to shut down for two years when the lava hit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Am I happy about that? no. I would like to see us transition to a greener energy in my lifetime. I also do like having lights and heat at night though.
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly.
The sun doesn't shine 24/7 and there are periods where it's completely blocked for days or even weeks by cloud cover.
That's why plant life can't survive on the surface of earth and without some form of plant life, no other lifeforms can evolve. /s
Re: (Score:3)
Plants can modulate their power consumption better than an industry which wants to be internationally competitive.
We can't really afford to hibernate our economy over winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Over winter? no. Over a few days now and again? maybe. Much of industry already deals with SOME disruption that cause plants to idle: hurricanes, blizzards, strikes... If you add to that say 1 week a year due to an uncharacteristic long periods of low wind / high clouds that lead to a spike in energy costs, then most will adjust.
And for situations where that is just not acceptable they'll financial engineer some insurance via energy futures or something. (Airlines already do this for petroleum price
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:5, Informative)
Last, it's not winter that's the problem. It's fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Last, it's not winter that's the problem. It's fall.
Interesting... can you expand on that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:5, Insightful)
Batteries will smooth out that graph.
Re:Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an optio (Score:5, Funny)
Intermittent Energy Sources mostly not an option
If only we had a way to save the intermittent energy for later. Like, a storage device, but for energy. And if only we had some sort of indication that those storage devices had come down in price by 90% in the last 15 years, with further gains still to be had. Alas, we can only imagine.
In other news... (Score:2)
In Old News ... (Score:2)
Water is still wet
Human beings still age.
Film at 11
Must Be A Slow News Cycle At /. To Bore Us With 'Filler' Articles Like This
Doesn't seem to translate (Score:2)
"In less than 15 years, battery costs have fallen by more than 90%" - then why oh why have EV prices not fallen with them? Smells like BS to me.
Re: (Score:3)
You may have noticed the EVs are now available for under $100K. Regardless:
Nissan LEAF: $29,280
Mini Cooper SE: $31,895
Hyundai Kona Electric: $34,000
Hyundai Ioniq 6: $38,650
Tesla Model 3: $40,380
Kia Niro EV: $40,975
Volkswagen ID.4: $41,160
Ford Mustang Mach-E: $41,890
Hyundai Ioniq 5: $43,175
Re: (Score:1)
I want a nice $4k offer
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you're the same sort of person who says, "Global warming is BS because it snowed yesterday!"
First, we 're talking 15 years. Not days. Not months. Years. So let's go back to 2009--fifteen years ago--and look at the price of EVs, shall we?
Well, you had the Tesla Roadster that cost $109,000 and had a battery capacity of 53 kWh. Today, I see a Tesla Model 3 with a 57.5 kWh battery for $40,630. So that seems like a pretty good drop.
Now, I'll admit that's not really fair. Tesla, at the time, was b
Re: (Score:2)
You also had the Nissan LEAF in 2009.
"Well, you had the Tesla Roadster that cost $109,000 and had a battery capacity of 53 kWh. Today, I see a Tesla Model 3 with a 57.5 kWh battery for $40,630. So that seems like a pretty good drop."
Apples to Bananas. I mean... to compare a Tesla Roadster to a Model 3 ? You might as well compare it to the upcoming 2026 Tesla Roadster - Its at least as fair (unfair?) a comparison -- except that's going to be 200,000 to 250,000. So it doesn't really support your point.
Now in
Re: (Score:2)
From the point of view ... (Score:2)
Never mind that the concept of "dispatchable power" demands that suppliers guarantee some level of certainty that power will be there when the system operator requests that your source be brought on line. To the point that its up to you (the supplier) to line up alternate sources through contracts or exchange agreements should your supply fail. It was never the system operator, the transmission grid
40% is not 'tumble' (Score:2)
Despite this being a sizable decrease it is far from tumble.
GW and GWh (Score:3)
"Newsom announced the state now had battery storage systems with the capacity of more than 10,000 megawatts â" about 20% of the 52,000 megawatts the state says is needed to meet its climate goals."
And for how many hours can these 10,000 megawatts be supplied? That's the question.
Similarly with the 52,000. Again, how many hours storage are needed at this rate of discharge?
A 90% drop seems like a lot. But its over 15 years, starting from tiny production levels. The interesting question for the future of grid level battery storage is how much costs fell in the last couple of years. Not much.
The future of grid level wind and solar is parallel amounts of gas generation. The more wind and solar you put in, the more gas you have to put in. Wind and solar can supplement gas, not the other way around.
Read the UK Royal Society report on energy storage:
https://royalsociety.org/news-... [royalsociety.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power (GW) is just as important for battery storage as energy (GWh), you need to have sufficient power to cover the 95th percentile worst-case load, and sufficient energy capacity to cover that load for the 95th percentile worst-case duration or something like that. Tesla touts the power capability of the powerwall more than the storage quantity, I suspect it's the larger engineering challenge... after all, to add storage capacity you just add cells, but to add power throughput in that application you need
Re: (Score:2)
If including storage, the cost of solar power is 15x that of nuclear power [ssrn.com]
I’m assuming the fine print on that statement, includes a financial timeline measured in decades.
The fucking nuclear red tape can cost more than an entire solar project. And that’s before you even break ground on the plant.
Great match for my thin film solar cells (Score:2)
that I plastered all over my house for $1 per square meter.
A $12 home battery would make a great addition.
"fastest declines ever seen in clean energy costs" (Score:2)
Really? Lets be real here. What exactly is "clean" about a lithium battery?
not cheap for long (Score:2)
The demand for batteries is likely to outstrip supply, so even if mfring costs decline, prices will rise.