Re:Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
by cinntaile on Saturday November 06, 2021 @11:42AM
(#29131141)
These numbers are way off though, maybe those are just the cells?
If we look at the 2021 estimates by the National Renewable Energy Labs for utility scale 4h batteries [0] We get cost estimates of 250 $/kWh for the high case, 200 $/kWh for the middle case and 150 $/kWh for the low case by 2030.
[0] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf.
Re:Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
by pydry on Saturday November 06, 2021 @11:54AM
(#29131255)
That seems to be the cost of the physical batteries, not the price the grid would pay the farm for.
Re:Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution
by cinntaile on Saturday November 06, 2021 @12:33PM
(#29131617)
That makes sense I guess.
Assume enough energy is supplied to charge the batteries. So lets say we want 1kWh during 4 hours, that puts our capital cost at 4 kWh*200$/kWh = 800$. Now we assume this system runs every day for 4 hours during ten years. Ten years sounds reasonable, but it could be less. 7 years maybe? So about 1kWh*365,25*10=14610kWh in total. That gives us 800$/14610kWh = 0,0548$/kWh or 54,8 $/MWh in 2030 if I didn't make a major mistake somewhere and assuming no efficiency losses. That's pretty good.
Either way, conservatively speaking, $50-60/MwH for battery backed wind/solar on the mainland seems fairly doable. Prices will likely keep dropping too.
By contrast, in the UK Hinkley Point C is being paid $124/MwH guaranteed for 20 years. It doesn't exist because it's a cost effective way of supplying green energy that's for sure, but it does bolster the nuclear economy. The military do like to hire nuclear technicians and buy parts for PWRs in nuclear subs, etc. and somebody has to pay for these things. Rate payers, I guess.