Finnish City Inaugurates 1 MW/100 MWh Sand Battery

This is super cool but the ending is bizarre.

> A comment on the YouTube video below complained, “Not a word about return on investment in the presentation. That means it’ll never pay off” MAGAlomaniacs are everywhere these days.

Given the supposed 50+ year lifespan of such a battery, I find it hard to believe it doesn't turn a profit at some point. And I understand that debunking low-effort accusations is asymmetric warfare. But why cite a random YouTube comment if you have no intention of addressing its claims? A more charitable interpretation is that it's meant to ragebait the readers. But to me, it seems like trying to make people feel ashamed for having doubts, by making a public example of a skeptic.

If, say, further insulating your house or building a sand battery will pay for itself in 50 years, it's a bad investment, financially speaking, and probably environmentally speaking as well. You can deploy "the same amount" of resources in something else with a higher ROI, like maybe solar panels with a one-year payback, and get a much bigger benefit. This is an important consideration as long as you are constrained by some kind of resource limitation.

So I think ROI is a first-order consideration.

Finland is the only country in the world where solar isn't the cheapest form of electricity because they get so little sun and they have good alternatives.

Certainly not the only country. Iceland is even more extreme in this regard and unlike Finland it is powered by 100% renewables, hydro and geothermal energy. In Finland the only good renewable alternative is wood/biomass.

Seems reasonable. I'll have to dig up my source to double check. Maybe they just didn't have Iceland data in their set? It's certainly a surprising result to see other non-sunny places like the UK, Germany, Norway & Sweden have solar as their cheapest energy source.

It's hard to get really solid estimates for solar costs because they've been dropping so precipitously, and because they depend on so many ancillary factors: wiring, inspections, permitting, power electronics, storage, and so on. Getting solid estimates for solar return on investment is even harder, because it depends on the future price of energy.

Yes, it's certainly possible that Iceland is better for solar than Finland not because of its sunlight, but because of those myriad extra factors.

I'm sure there is no sense in solar energy in Iceland due to strong winds there as well as geothermal energy.

It's sad they are building gas-powered data centers in US instead of powered by renewables in Iceland.

Windmills can be surprisingly expensive. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost... is not up-to-date, but I think the windmill prices in it have changed a lot less than the solar prices; the 200 MW onshore project they price out there comes to US$1265/kW (US$1.27/W), of which something like 61% is the windmills themselves. Low-cost photovoltaic solar modules currently cost €0.055/W (US$0.065/W), lower by more than an order of magnitude https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis....

So, at equal cost, the alternative to a megawatt of windmills may not be a megawatt of solar panels, but 10 megawatts of solar panels. And that can compensate for their lower capacity factor.

I don't think people are building gas-powered data centers in the US. There's a data center crunch in the US because people aren't building them because they can't get the power because of the US's anti-renewable-energy policies.

Difference is massive, but price of land should be also accounted for. Solar uses 5 times more land per MW.

The solution is to develop everything, all kinds of renewables.