
Cost breakdown for Solar PV with lithium-ion storage - epistasis
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/02/utility-scale-solar-power-plus-lithium-ion-storage-cost-breakdown/
======
so_tired
> PV system with one-axis tracking

In the South West US, this reaches 30% capacity BEFORE any storage.

Add 4hr storage and we reach 50% capacity. This is true for about 50% (pure
guess) of humanity that lives in sunny climates.

Even better, poorer/populous countries are often closer to the equator with
even better solar conditions.

We are literally half-way to solving our climate problems.

Now, about those Windows updates...

~~~
rakoo
Climate problems are not about price, they're about CO2 émissions. Turns out
producing and installing batteries produces a lot of CO2, and they're not even
enough on a large scale so they have to be complemented with more pilotable
electricity, which unfortunately mostly is carbon-based. As long as we depend
on those intermittent sources (that's the real name we should give them not to
be confused with other renewable), we rely on carbon.

~~~
epistasis
>Turns out producing and installing batteries produces a lot of CO2,

That is counter to anything I've ever read on the subject. Can you source your
claim?

~~~
rakoo
Batteries are mostly produced in countries where a huge portion of electricity
comes from CO2 ([http://www.worldstopexports.com/lithium-ion-batteries-
export...](http://www.worldstopexports.com/lithium-ion-batteries-exports-by-
country/)). On top of that, each battery needs to be transported to its final
destination, which is yet another source of pollution.

~~~
lostmsu
I don't think this is a good argument. What you are describing is the chicken
and egg problem. Once one part is solved, the other one is too.

------
philipkglass
4 hours of storage is enough for a PV system to serve the early-evening period
when demand is at its highest.

For example, here's the demand curve for California's CAISO today:

[http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx)

The peak demand is between 6 and 7 PM. Since the sun sets at 4:55 PM today in
Los Angeles, and solar output dips significantly starting a couple of hours
before sunset, solar cannot supply any of the peak-demand load at this time of
year. Even with later sunsets in the summer, solar can supply only a fraction
of peak-period demand. But solar coupled with 4 hours of storage can cover the
most important hours just before and just after sunset. By the later evening,
demand is lower and wind output has often increased.

The two most interesting cases:

 _Standalone 100-MW PV system with one-axis tracking ($111 million)_ \-- this
is a pretty typical configuration for a new solar farm being built today.

 _Co-located, AC-coupled PV (100 MW) plus storage (60 MW /240 MWh, 4-hour
duration) system ($188 million)_ \-- this is a battery system plus the solar
farm at the same facility. AC coupling is a little bit more expensive than DC
coupling but it is more flexible; it can be installed as part of the original
solar project or as a retrofit. Most utility scale PV projects that are
already built have ample room for a battery system on the same site.

A year ago, XCel Energy in Colorado received median bids of $36/MWh
($0.036/kWh) for PV plus 4 hours of storage:

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/record-low-
sola...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/record-low-solar-plus-
storage-price-in-xcel-solicitation)

However, those bids are for projects to be completed in 2023 and NREL's cost
estimates are for projects built now. That can explain part of why NREL's cost
premium for adding storage appears to be higher than the premium assigned in
recent auctions.

~~~
Retric
Shifting power east / west is another option. Supplying Florida with solar
from California can significantly reduce the need for storage. This also
allows you to supply morning power in California with solar in Florida.

The interactions are complex enough I think production, transmission, and
storage all need to be dealt with separately.

~~~
philipkglass
Long-distance grid connections are _technically_ viable and can reduce the
need for storage. The biggest problem in the US is the very slow and uncertain
process of getting state-by-state approval for interstate transmission
projects. A Florida-California transmission project would need approval from
at least 8 states.

The proposed Grain Belt Express transmission project goes through only 3
states and received its first approval (in Kansas) 7 years ago. It is _still_
trying to get the necessary approvals in Missouri. Due to this drawn-out
process in Missouri, opponents in Illinois were able to reverse the project's
earlier-obtained Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Even if
Missouri gets on board the project will have to re-obtain approval in
Illinois, and perhaps by the time that's over Kansans will have new
objections.

~~~
tsukikage
JOOI, who is the opposition, and why are they opposing this?

~~~
pjc50
Appears to be the usual mix of NIMBYs and anti-eminent-domain activists:
[http://enquirerdemocrat.com/grain-belt-express-project-
halte...](http://enquirerdemocrat.com/grain-belt-express-project-halted-
courts/)

------
dev_dull
> _or the standalone systems, a constant per-energy-unit battery price of $209
> /kilowatt-hour (KWh) is assumed, with the system costs vary from $380/kWh
> (4-hour duration system) to $895/kWh (0.5-hour duration system)._

Still seems very low to me. I'm looking at my own 2x powerwall estimate (24
kWh), and it's $450/kWh after all rebates and credits. Maybe they're averaging
some state rebate in this methodology.

~~~
epistasis
This is looking at utility scale storage, not small residential systems.
Single home installs will be far more expensive per unit of capacity than
industrial scale systems.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _For the standalone systems, a constant per-energy-unit battery price of
> $209 /kilowatt-hour (KWh) is assumed, with the system costs vary from
> $380/kWh (4-hour duration system) to $895/kWh (0.5-hour duration system)_

“The 19.4 cents per kWh New York households paid for electricity in November
2018 was 45 percent more than the national average of 13.4 cents per kWh” [1].
The four-hour duration system thus costs over 280,000% more than the baseline.
How do those numbers make sense?

[1] [https://www.bls.gov/regions/new-york-new-jersey/news-
release...](https://www.bls.gov/regions/new-york-new-jersey/news-
release/averageenergyprices_newyorkarea.htm)

~~~
tonyarkles
I think you're confusing operating costs and installation costs. The $380/kWh
is referring to the cost for a battery that can store 1kWh of energy. That
battery will store and release energy many times.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> * you're confusing operating costs and installation costs*

Yup–thank you!

------
TooSmugToFail
What does the `hours of duration` mean in this context?

~~~
epistasis
It's the energy capacity of the battery divided by the power of the battery;
i.e. if you discharge the battery at maximum power, how long does the battery
last?

