> 100mw output of batteries costs $38m, so 16 of those costs $0.6b, 3% of the cost of Hinckley C, even assuming no more overruns.
So 24 hours' worth would cost 72% of the cost of Hinkley C, and that's not including any amount of power generation. Looks like wind/solar + enough batteries to timeshift their output to match consumption would end up costing more.
> Ok that only gives you 1 hour of charge, but your requirement was changing in minutes. These batteries respond to load change in milliseconds.
The ability to change quickly is only part of the problem; if you want to run the country on wind or solar then you need to be able to handle several overcast or calm days in a row.
> if you want to run the country on wind or solar then you need to be able to handle several overcast or calm days in a row.
On a country scale yes, but not on a continental scale. Although in the case of solar, you probably just want to have peak output twice the size you’d expect for naive insolation, and it looks like it’ll be cheap enough soon enough for that to be economical.
So 24 hours' worth would cost 72% of the cost of Hinkley C, and that's not including any amount of power generation. Looks like wind/solar + enough batteries to timeshift their output to match consumption would end up costing more.
> Ok that only gives you 1 hour of charge, but your requirement was changing in minutes. These batteries respond to load change in milliseconds.
The ability to change quickly is only part of the problem; if you want to run the country on wind or solar then you need to be able to handle several overcast or calm days in a row.