Solar Is Cheapest Electricity in History, U.S. DOE Aims to Cut Costs 60% by 2030

Aren't car battery packs under $100/KWh? Is there some other factor which drives up the price for grid level storage?

The factor that drives up price for grid level storage is scale. Only ~300 GWh worth of batteries is produced globally each year. The world uses 2.5 TWh of electricity each hour. If anyone tries to install battery storage at a significant scale, demand will vastly outstrip supply and drive prices up.

Assuming there aren't economies of scale. Demand for solar had gone way up in recent decades (e.g. in germany, before it was cheap), and the price subsequently went down.

It's not clear batteries will do the same. While there's been effort to make batteries less reliant on scarce natural resources and mining, there's no guarantee we really get there. If we don't, price can be expected to go up, not down, with scale.

I would bet on price going down slightly with scale, but one can't really tell now what will happen: it might go up a lot, it might go down a lot, or it might stay flat.

There are thousands of different chemistries for batteries. The nuclear stans are betting that all of them fail.

None of those other battery chemistries are seeing the massive growth that lithium ion batteries have experienced. The nuclear "stans" are just pointing out that these are potential solutions, not actual solutions. If iron oxide batteries, or some other chemistry, suddenly becomes cheap and easily deployed at the TWh scale, great. But until then they're not a solution.

Yes, you all are engaging in the "nothing can be invented" argument. It's profoundly reactionary, and also hypocritical, because nuclear itself is dead without great improvement. Uranium quickly runs out if the world is powered by burner reactors and known uranium resources, so either massive seawater uranium extraction or breeding cycles would be needed.

Batteries have the advantage of being explorable at a small scale. Now that the potential market has become so clear this is happening, in many companies.

It's not "nothing can be invented". It's "come back to me after it's invented, not before".

And uranium seawater extraction already exists: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

It's more expensive than mined uranium, but since fissile material is so energy-dense that increase in fuel cost amounts to hardly any change in overall cost.

That's lithium batteries, isn't it? For storage to balance out fluctuations in renewable sources you shouldn't need to use lithium.

It's used in cars and consumer devices because it can store a lot of energy for its size and weight and you don't have to mollycoddle it to avoid memory effects.

Those are much less important concerns for this application. You'd build you battery facilities somewhere outside your cities, perhaps near where you build your solar farms, and you don't need the batteries to move. Batteries that take up more room and/or weigh more than lithium batteries for a given capacity should be fine.

> Yes, you all are engaging in the "nothing can be invented" argument.

No, we're engaging in the "this has been resistant to being invented so far, so let's not bet everything on it showing up tomorrow" argument.

> Uranium quickly runs out if the world is powered by burner reactors and known uranium resources

You could quadruple the present rate of uranium use, representing in a major contribution to mankind's energy use, and have 35 years of supply, just using known reserves and no breeding.

And if you were using that much uranium, more reserves would be quickly proven. Do you think we've found all the uranium we'll ever find, even if market prices go up significantly?

And breeding is possible, and understood. Yes, there's proliferation concerns, but that's not the end of the world.

And seawater extraction is practical without much increase in cost.

No one is saying "no renewables" or "no battery storage" or "no pumped storage". Or "no power to gas to power". We need all of these things. And we need the diversity of having nuclear in the mix, too.

LOL. Hydrogen storage is much more invented than seawater uranium extraction. All the components are close to off the shelf; it's just a matter of putting them together (and for the CO2 tax to be high enough to make it worthwhile).

Seawater uranium extraction is at a much lower TRL (technology readiness level).

This is an excellent example of your hypocritical double standards on this subject.

Name one hydrogen electric grid storage facility. Not prototypes, but actual commercial facilities connected to the grid.

You insist that hydrogen is so technically ready, yet nobody is using it.

Not at all. The technology for hydrogen energy storage is (with the possible exception of cheap electrolysers) is off the shelf. It's not widely used not because it's not available, but because natural gas is cheaper to store and burn when there are no CO2 taxes. But the CO2 taxes will be raised enough to push natural gas out, if we're going to control global warming.

I will repeat the reply I gave elsewhere to this argument:

Dude. You are falling back to the "if it isn't already being done, it can't be done" argument. Please stop this foolishness.

Hydrogen is being stored in a few places. That the storage isn't larger isn't because of any technical obstacles, it's because there's no reason to store it now. In particular, when we can burn natural gas without CO2 charges, using the hydrogen for energy storage is pointless.

This doesn't mean hydrogen CAN'T be stored, it just means the market conditions for widespread adoption of an off-the-self technology aren't there yet.

You're falling back to the "if it works on paper it'll be guaranteed to work at scale, and work cheaply" argument. Please stop this foolishness.

It's not just a question of storage, you can just use a salt cavern for that.

It's also a question of electrolyzing water into hydrogen efficiently.

And converting it back into electricity efficently.

And building all of these systems cheaply.

And deploying all of these systems at massive scale.

We're still on the first phase of that. As per your other comment we still don't even have effective elctrolysers to do this cost-effectively [1].

Will hydrogen storage pan out? Maybe. But until then it's not a solution. It's a potential solution, like fusion, or algae in vats, and thermal storage, and all the other potential solutions being proposed. It's not a solution that has actually demonstrated viability.

!. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26599346

Why shouldn't it scale? It's not as if it uses any rare materials. The geological formations in which hydrogen can be stored are abundant. The cost estimation should be good, since the technology is just integrating existing components. That's the easiest and surest kind of technology to roll out.

When the largest electrolyzer we have in the world is 10MW... and hydrogen storage hasn't been demonstrated at anywhere near the scale you're talking about... it's a tad of a stretch to talk about it being "off the shelf." Particularly when you point to nuclear fuel reprocessing and breeding as nonexistent in the same thread.

That's a question that can't be answered until people actually build hydrogen storage facilities at scale.

Why shouldn't nuclear plants scale? They're mostly just steel and concrete. Uranium is more than 40 times more prevalent than gold, and it's energy density is such that it represents a negligible cost of operations. The technology is just scaling up existing components, we had nuclear powered submarines for a while. This is what people thought about nuclear power in the 1950s and early 60s. As plants actually started being constructed problems such as corrosion, large amounts of earth moving, metal impurities, and more were discovered and made the plants more expensive.

We haven't discovered these issues with hydrogen storage. We won't discover these issues until we actually build hydrogen storage facilities at scale. We don't know what challenges will lie in store when building hydrogen storage, because we've never done it before. This is why it's useless to talk about the cost of hydrogen storage until we actually have experience building and operating hydrogen storage plants. Our knowledge of cost of hydrogen storage is in the same situation as nuclear power in the 1950s.

We can run electrolysers in parallel to scale to any desired output level. There might be economies of scale to make them even larger, or there could be economies of manufacturing scale of making smaller ones at higher volume. PV and wind are examples of technologies that work well with large numbers of not so large units, replicated as needed. This is a nice place for a technology to be.

A few prototype / demonstration units at 10MW scale and lower is not proven, off the shelf technology. Fullstop.

Right. Lithium batteries won't cut it. That leaves geographically-dependent hydroelectricity, which isn't so easy to build. And then proposed solutions that are still in the prototyping phase, and aren't commercially available.

I've really enjoyed reading your contribution to this discussion. To the extent I kind of wished there was a private message function.

Partially this is because we have similar views on a lot of the challenges facing a move to renewables. I think sometimes this comes across as being sceptical of the progress of renewables.

In my case, and I suspect in yours, that's not really the case. In fact I'm excited and interested in how we will solve these problems in a variety of different ways.

I think we are in agreement that lithium isn't going to be the answer to energy storage at grid scale. If for no other reason than being in direct competition with the electrification of transportation isn't ideal.

Personally I'm hopeful that Ambri's liquid metal battery will materialize.

What developments do you have your eye on?

Electrolytic hydrogen plants of up to 250 MW were constructed in the 20th century by the use of smaller electrolysis units in parallel. All of them were for producing ammonia from hydrogen. See table 3-2 on page 99 of this NASA report from 1975:

"Survey of Hydrogen Production and Utilization Methods"

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19760008503/downloads/19...

250 MW, Rjakon, Norway, built 1965

170 MW, Kima, Egypt, built 1960

125 MW, Nangal, India, built 1958

90 MW, Trail, Canada, built 1939

25 MW, Curco, Peru, built 1958

??? Those are input powers of terrifically inefficient and expensive electrolyzers. That 250MW plant put out 17MW of hydrogen -- (120 (megajoules / kilogram)) * ((0.000236 kilograms) / (cubic foot)) * (2 200 000 ((cubic feet) / hour)) = 17,306,667 Watts.

I think that you slipped a decimal point. The mass of a cubic foot of hydrogen is about 0.00236 kg, not 0.000236 [1]. That means that the output power is an order of magnitude greater than you calculated -- 173 megawatts.

[1] https://microsites.airproducts.com/gasfacts/hydrogen.html

These discussions are always super boring. There are dozens of technologies that can scale to the level needed but everyone goes goes lithium ion and pumped hydro as if everything else didn't exist.

Sure cell batteries might not work, we can try out flow batteries, we can try liquid metal batteries, we can try hydraulic hydro storage, we can try out hydrogen, we can try compressed air, we can try electrolyzing iron or aluminum, we can try another dozen different things and it is highly likely that at least 3 will work out just fine.

There is very little demand for grid storage. The biggest problem with energy storage is that it's a red herring until the 30s and 40s.