• zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Paying billions for mega projects to save millions on cheap electricity makes no sense.

    Napkin math gravity battery Last figures I found are from 2022 the costs storing 1GW 24 hours is $150 per installed kWh

    My apartment has an estimated electricity consumption annually of 2000kWh, I’ll need to store half that for $150 per kWh in a structure that lasts 100 years without maintenance, then crumbles into dust and needs to be rebuilt. It would average out to $1500 per year.

    My current electricity bill is about $600 per year.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think your calculations are way off based on what I’ve just checked.

      Firstly the average UK house (which is on average a fair bit smaller than American houses, for example), which typically doesn’t use AC and electric heating/cooking uses 2,700kWh (and around 10,000kWh of gas). I imagine that most other countries that don’t typically use gas and have AC, have a significantly higher average.

      Secondly I’m seeing several sources saying <$0.20/kWh is what pumped hydro battery storage costs, which is roughly 2/3 of the price of grid electricity in my country.

      Finally, we spend billions on power plants—why not power storage too? It’s necessary infrastructure spending whichever way you go about it.

      • zxqwas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t live in the US either.

        I think the actual value on my bill is 2300kwh. But we can use 2700.

        I can’t find any source for $0.2/kWh. I used https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment and eyeballed the cheapest gravitational storage. PSH is still above $50. Well let’s assume $0.2 per kWh per year and that half of it can be stored it’s $270 per year in storage fee

        My actual price for electricity is much lower than €600 per year, most of it is taxes and fees that does not get benefit from storage. Looking up the invoice from March i paid $0.07 per kWh, September was $0.01. Half of 2700 would be $95 using March price for the entire year.

        We are spending billions, we must spend billions, but we have to spend them where it makes sense. Spending 270 to save 95 is insanity.

        • 9point6@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Wow your electricity prices are insanely cheap to me! I knew it was a bit more expensive here, but not by over 3x or even 30x based on your September estimate! We also have standing charges that amount to something like £250 a year even if you use no electricity whatsoever. My electricity & gas bill is over double yours for two people in a 2 bed house and we basically never use the heating. I think the economy of it makes sense with my situation but it definitely doesn’t for you

          If you don’t mind me asking, where is it you live? Does your country have a lot of oil reserves or something?

          • zxqwas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            North Scandinavia.

            Most of the electricity here is hydroelectric that has been built many years ago so the power plants are paid off.

            The price during summer is very low. In the winter especially the cold months is much higher with Dec-Feb being the peak.

            The determining factor is still the capex for storing it. At $50 it makes no sense. At $0.2 it makes sense in some places. I don’t know which assumption is correct, I expect to be wrong in 50% of the cases when I argue on the internet.

      • zxqwas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        No. It’s district heating and not included on the electricity bill. I live north of the Arctic circle and a house from the same year with a heat pump would use an order of magnitude more.

        The example was meant to highlight the absurd costs despite ludicrously favorable assumptions.

        • KimjongTOOILL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Interesting. For reference, I use more than that most months, but I live in Texas and it is very very hot.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      My apartment has an estimated electricity consumption annually of 2000kWh, I’ll need to store half that

      Your electricity usage isn’t equally distributed. You use more power during the day - primarily for cooling your house - than you do at night.

      We also get a glut of wind power in the mornings and evenings, during big swings in temperature. Plenty of opportunity to harness cheap energy at the moment it is available.

      And even after that, battery prices have been falling for years. Current EV batteries are $133/kWh with expectations of $100/kWh by next year and under $80/kWh by 2030.

      That’s before we get into the benefits of High Voltage DC transmissions, which can move large volumes of electricity across regions with minimal loss. Peak production on one coast can offset higher than expected usage on another.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Current EV batteries are

        And just like that you’ve shown that gravity batteries aren’t feasible.

        Storage is going to be a big part of the solution going forward. But it’s going to be chemical batteries and thermal batteries, not gravity batteries.

      • zxqwas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Give it a few years and I’ve got my hopes up for batteries.

        The calculations showed the absurdity in gravity storage today, not batteries in the future.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Gravity just isn’t a good store of energy relative to chemical and nuclear alternatives.

          It’s a simple method for storing energy but not an efficient method. That’s why the human body uses ATP instead of a bunch of pebbles that get lifted to our heads and dropped to our perineum.

          But hey, we’ll always have Dams. And tidal generators are gaining momentum. They’re basically gravity batteries.