←back to thread

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

(cleantechnica.com)
131 points mg | 1 comments | 26 Mar 21 20:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.195s | source
Show context
rich_sasha ◴[26 Mar 21 22:13 UTC] No.26597628[source]▶
If solar were free, but we still needed to pay for battery storage, how would it then compare in cost to fuel-based alternatives (fossil fuel, nuclear etc)?
replies(6): >>26597661 #>>26597691 #>>26597763 #>>26597783 #>>26597850 #>>26598615 #
kleton ◴[26 Mar 21 22:19 UTC] No.26597691[source]▶
Would need $20/KWh battery storage to be competitive with nuclear for baseload according to https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 At the moment, we're at about $800/KWh.
replies(3): >>26597895 #>>26597898 #>>26598636 #
1. pfdietz ◴[27 Mar 21 00:34 UTC] No.26598636[source]▶
Using batteries for all storage use cases is bad engineering. Hydrogen can be stored underground for $1/kWh of energy storage capacity (there is also a per-kW cost, but it is independent of the size of the underground storage caverns). Use that (burned in turbines) instead of batteries for the rare correlated outages of solar/wind, and the cost goes down.