Green Energy

2178 readers

81 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

SteveKLord@slrpnk.net

117

Solar Photovoltaics with Battery Storage Cheaper than Conventional Power Plants (cleantechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/energy@slrpnk.net

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'll note that aggregate system cost still benefits significantly from including wind and other non-solar sources of energy; having a mix of different intermittent sources (and some firm generation such as geothermal) means less storage is needed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How does solar + pumped hydro compare? I thought I read somewhere the cost of pumped hydro per unit of storage was crazy cheap (assuming suitable enough sites are available). I think that kind of system probably makes a whole lot of sense too for places where the geography allows.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pumped hydro is great but limited by site availability

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Yep, it's great that batteries have gotten cheaper as they can be used basically anywhere.

I'm selfishly thinking of Australia in particular where we have almost 70 TWh of potential storage.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Pumped hydro is great for taking advantage of the geography but it's thousands of times less energy dense. There was this guy that made a pumped hydro water tank on his roof and by his calculations a cubic meter of water was equivalent to a AA battery. A professional damm might be a bit more efficient though.

I'm looking forward to see more heat based storage, like molten salt, heated sand, or pumped geothermal.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There was this guy that made a pumped hydro water tank on his roof and by his calculations a cubic meter of water was equivalent to a AA battery.

That sounds crazy. Let's do some math. From what I can find, a double A battery contains about 10-14 kilojoules of energy. Let's use 14 to be charitable.

A cubic meter of water weighs about 1000kg. We know the formula for potential gravitational energy U = mgh. So if we used all the energy from the battery, we could lift the water:

14000 = 1000 * 9.81 * h
h = 14000 / (1000 * 9.81) ≈ 1.43 meters (4 feet 8 inches)

That assumes 100% efficiency of course. Still, lifting a ton of water even two feet ain't nothing to sneeze at. Batteries have a lot of energy.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago

Thank you for doing the math! I think this was the video of the fella doing his water tank battery: https://youtu.be/CMR9z9Xr8GM?si=go28fQ6DYXyW1GTi