- Tesla powerwalls vastly too expensive
- Huge pumped hydro ‘batteries’ cheaper, but still too expensive
- Building enough storage costs so much energy it reduces the energy return of wind and solar
- But Amory Lovins says a smart grid doesn’t NEED storage?
- Storing energy for peaking power
- Gravel batteries
Tesla powerwalls vastly too expensive
Unless storing energy becomes orders of magnitude cheaper, it cannot save 100% wind and solar scenarios. Seasonal variations in wind and solar output can require weeks of storage. But when we try to store real power for more than a single day, it gets vastly too expensive to be worthwhile. When reading about the various costs of storage below, keep in mind that if we were to put today’s nukes up on the assembly line and build heaps of them, their costs could easily come down to around $2 billion per GW. (These prices are already being achieved outside of America’s terrible legislative environment and the UK’s infamously terrible Hinkley point project.) I’ve even seen IFR and MSR projections for half that, but let’s go with $2 billion per GW for now.
Tesla Powerwall’s have been sold as the band-aid for intermittent, unreliable renewables. But are up to the job? Eco-modernists have analysed it, and remain dismayed. Their figures show that if wind and solar provided just a third of Germany’s grid, and they tried to store 1 week for winter, you could replace the entire grid with nuclear power. (Note: German winters crash renewable output for weeks at a time!) The choice?
Store just a third of the German grid for a week, or nuke the entire grid for 60 years!
It gets far worse. That one third benchmark ends with the punchline that they could supply all their electricity with nuclear power. But 100% renewables would do it 3 times over, andGerman winters cut renewables for many weeks at a time, making storage 6 to 12 times as much as nuking the entire grid!
Remember, that does not even include buying and maintaining the wind and solar farms in the first place!
Huge pumped hydro ‘batteries’ cheaper, but still too expensive
Normal giant hydroelectricity dams have all sorts of problems associated with them.
We are running out of suitable sites. Humanity has already used most rivers and many no longer even make it to the sea. Massive freshwater dams also threaten migratory and spawning cycles with many freshwater fish. River ecosystems are under threat everywhere we look, and more hydro dams will only add to extinction pressures on fish and river ecosystems already in danger. In summary, there are already too many people using too much river water too fast.
But instead of traditional rivers for hydro-power generation, what about using pumped seawater for hydro-power storage. Just build a hydro dam anywhere there is an elevated plateau next to the ocean, and pump the seawater up into the dam when you have excess renewable energy, then open the floodgates and let it rip when the renewables die down again. It’s a giant hydro-power battery.
At first it sounds great! South Australia has hundreds of kilometres of coastal cliffs, and plenty of desert in which to build seawater hydro dams without hurting our last, fragile rivers. The only disadvantage is that it would be power storage, not a power source. This beast is a battery only, and has to be ‘charged up’ by pumping water up the 90 meter cliffs of the Nullarbor.
One vast 7km diameter dam would run the whole of Australia for 10 hours! The problem? Expense. This might be cheaper per unit than other methods of storing energy, but how do you get it across the whole continent? Here come the costs.
“Optimisation of a renewable energy power system and electricity”
Storage by means of pumped seawater hydro
Submission to ACRE 23/12/2010
Professor Peter Seligman, DEng
I stored his free PDF here: sub982_attach
Pages 6 – 8 show the costs:
Storage pond = $2 billion.
20 huge turbines & pipes = $33 billion.
Wiring it all up with a new DC super-grid across the bottom of Australia = $20 billion, which is also required by the renewable energy projects themselves. Remember we still have to bring electricity from the sunny deserts and windy coasts to where the people live.
That’s $55 billion for 10 hours storage for all of Australia. But at $2 billion per GW, we could nuke nearly half our grid for that! The Australian Energy Regulator shows us to be around 50 GW. What do you want to do?
Store just 10 hours, or nuke half the Aussie grid for 60 years?
Building enough storage costs so much energy it reduces the energy return of wind and solar
One of the great questions about any energy system is how much energy do you get back after all the energy it took to actually make your power plant or wind turbine? This is called ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested), which takes the energy returned and divides it by the cost of building the thing in the first place!
Most renewables have good ERoEI’s on face value. But here’s the thing. These papers always ignore energy cost of building the storage required by wind and solar. That’s a major problem when trying to assess the Energy Return of an energy system that is mostly OFF! Sadly, when we include energy storage costs, the actual energy profit drops off a cliff. Solar PV is not even an energy source, wind only returns 3 times the energy it took to make the turbines and the energy storage (like pumped hydro dams), and solar thermal is the highest at 9. Our civilisation requires an ERoEI of at least 12.
But Amory Lovins says a smart grid doesn’t NEED storage?
That discussion fit more naturally into my wind power page.
Storing energy for peaking power
If we build nuclear power stations which are 90% reliable (baseload) power, then we will only require a tiny fraction of the power storage otherwise required by intermittent renewable energy. However, in some rare circumstances it may be cheaper to store power from nuclear power stations for peaking purposes. Peak demand usually refers to how we meet the late afternoon peak in demand, as some industry is still running, air-conditioners blast away, and people start cooking. In the future we will also have workers coming home from and plugging in their electric vehicles into the grid, placing additional power requirements on the grid. As the wiki says:
Peak demand, peak load or on-peak are terms used in energy demand management describing a period in which electrical power is expected to be provided for a sustained period at a significantly higher than average supply level. Peak demand fluctuations may occur on daily, monthly, seasonal and yearly cycles. For an electric utility company, the actual point of peak demand is a single half hour or hourly period which represents the highest point of customer consumption of electricity.
Peak demand is considered to be the opposite to off-peak hours when power demand is usually low.
So we either build a few additional power plants known as peaking power plants which can be ramped up really fast (usually natural gas) to meet this demand, or look for ways to store power that can be dished out quickly at an industrial scale. There is still a market for storage for these purposes, but it has got to be compared to reliable clean nuclear power when we do so.
Now this is interesting! IF this system works as advertised, this could prove to be a very useful energy storage mechanism.
Isentopic claims its gravel-based battery would be able to store equivalent amounts of energy but use less space and be cheaper to set up. Its system consists of two silos filled with a pulverised rock such as gravel. Electricity would be used to heat and pressurise argon gas that is then fed into one of the silos. By the time the gas leaves the chamber, it has cooled to ambient temperature but the gravel itself is heated to 500C.
After leaving the silo, the argon is then fed into the second silo, where it expands back to normal atmospheric pressure. This process acts like a giant refrigerator, causing the gas (and rock) temperature inside the second chamber to drop to -160C. The electrical energy generated originally by the wind turbines originally is stored as a temperature difference between the two rock-filled silos. To release the energy, the cycle is reversed, and as the energy passes from hot to cold it powers a generator that makes electricity.
Isentropic claims a round-trip energy efficiency of up to 80% and, because gravel is cheap, the cost of a system per kilowatt-hour of storage would be between $10 and $55.
Howes says that the energy in the hot silo (which is insulated) can easily be stored for extended periods of time – by his calculations, a silo that stood 50m tall and was 50m in diameter would lose only half of its energy through its walls if left alone for three years.
What does all this mean in terms of the size of plants and how much it will cost?
Professor Barry Brooks reviews it saying:
eclipsenow, I hope it works out – sounds interesting in principle and the energy density doesn’t look too bad. From the figures given, 540 cubic metres stores 16 MWh of energy, or 30 kWh per cubic metre. To store one day of output of a 1 GW power station would require 1,500 of those 7m tall, 7 m diameter twin silos. Let say you stacked them in a 15 x 15 m square (for each silo), that would require about 1 square km of silos (ignoring interconnections and local generators etc.) Could be useful for storing cheap baseload nuclear-generated electricity for peaking purposes.
$/kW is generating capacity (peak, in the case of wind), whereas $/kWh is energy storage. To store 1 day of energy from a 1 GW power plant requires 24 million kWh. At $55 per unit, that’s a storage cost of $1.3 billion for 24 hours of storage. Not ridiculously expensive by any means, but neither is it cheap as chips as you might have thought it to be, given the implicit comparison you made above. I’ve used the upper price figure cited, since we’ve not even seen a demonstration unit yet.
Regarding rise in steel and concrete prices, these will effect the cost of renewables at least 10 times more than nuclear power, see: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/06/tcase7/