Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by yodelshady on Monday July 11, 2022 @06:09AM (#32054221)

I read the original report, which still includes figures of >$100 per kWh for storage, projected for multiple decades (if not in this report, in others). For a higher-latitude nation, we need TWh, probably tens of, for even a small nation. Be assured I have crunched these numbers and confirmed against our current best wind+PV resource data.

In other words, if we run a nuclear plant and deliberately induce a, as you say, "Fukushima-style cleaup", we are about comparable.

That's how expensive proper storage is. "Storage will save us", is frankly, an irresponsible lie that has killed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by pydry on Monday July 11, 2022 @06:16AM (#32054262)

Australia is already building a lot of pumped storage. E.g. snowy 2 alone has 350 GWh of storage. Im skeptical of the idea that this + solar + wind costs more than nuclear + this even without free catastrophe insurance but id be curious to see your numbers.

(Obviously some form of storage would also be necessary for nuclear power which cant adjust output to match variable demand).

It is pretty cheap to build pumped storage, relatively. Pumping water uphill isnt too complicated. Until a few months ago though the cheapest "battery" was still natural gas.

Pumped storage is an unsexy 100 year old technology and it doesnt have a huge lobby doing public relations like the nuke industry so when big projects go ahead we tend not to hear about it but there are tons in the pipeline all over.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by breadloaf on Monday July 11, 2022 @06:39AM (#32054396)

That's all is valid only if you have geography and water for such stunt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by pydry on Monday July 11, 2022 @06:43AM (#32054418)

This, along with wind turbine bird death thing, is one of the more bizarre objections Ive heard emanating from the carbon + nuclear public relations lobbies.

There isnt a shortage of up. The geography to make it work isnt rare:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by gregwebs on Monday July 11, 2022 @06:59AM (#32054514)

Geography plus water plus land usage concerns make it rare. The western US has plenty of sites identified but little water to spare. There is one pumped hydro storage project in process in the entire USA and it is being challenged on environmental concerns. If we are going to make pumped hydro work these issues do need to be acknowledged.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by pydry on Monday July 11, 2022 @10:55AM (#32056972)

The paucity of projects in the US is because about 50% of your electricity comes from natural gas. If it's very cheap (and it was) and you dont care about CO2 (& the US doesnt) it renders most kinds of storage fairly pointless.

Pretty much the only place without suitable geography in the US for pumped storage is Florida.

In Europe hydropower in the alps is already being used as a giant battery.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold by saddlerustle on Monday July 11, 2022 @07:10AM (#32054582)

Significant new pumped storage capacity requires building large new dams, which is even more unpopular in populated areas than building nuclear.

[ Parent | on HN ]