Neat breakdown with data + some code.
What a detailed and rigorous inquest into a question he admits from the outset is absurd and not applicable.
Guessing it would be more practical to have enough solar panels to fulfill energy needs in winter.
How come we can’t design energy storage that lifts something heavy when there’s excess power, and lets it fall to generate electricity when needed?
It’s usually called hydroelectric and implemented with dams and turbines.
Potential energy (in joules) is mass (in g) times height (in meters) times 9.8 m/s^2 .
So in order to store the 30 kWh per day that the typical American house uses, you’d need to convert the 30 kWh into 108,000,000 joules, and divide by 9.8, to determine how you’d want to store that energy. You’d need the height times mass to be about 11 million. So do you take a 1500 kg weight (about the weight of a Toyota Camry) and raise it about 7.3 meters (about 2 stories in a typical residential home)?
And if that’s only one day’s worth of energy, how would you store a month’s worth? Or the 3800kwh (13.68 x 10^9 joules) discussed in the article?
At that point, we’re talking about raising 10 Camrys 93 meters into the air, just for one household. Without accounting for the lost energy and inefficiencies in the charging/discharging cycle.
Chemical energy is way easier to store.
So do you take a 1500 kg weight (about the weight of a Toyota Camry) and raise it about 7.3 meters (about 2 stories in a typical residential home)?
Honestly that is way, way more reasonable than I was expecting. This isn’t half as bad of an idea as I thought it would be
Actually, yes. Lifting the weight of a Toyota Camry 2 stories seems reasonable for a day’s worth of energy storage for a house.
I’m not sure how expensive the lift and generator will be, but the weight itself can be anything that’s sufficiently heavy.
You say chemical energy is way easier to store, but is it really easier and cheaper to store the energy needed for a home in a chemical battery?
Hmm… this might be easier to do with an electric car. Put it on an inclined track, and then drive uphill to store energy, and go downhill to release the energy.
It’s an idea that’s been played with a few times, but there are many energy loss points in such a system, as well as logistics for keeping the “stack” from falling over. The best so far is pumping water up to an artificial lake, but that’s still not very efficient.
1 Watt is the equivalent of moving 1Kg 1 metre in 1 second.
If you want a kilowatt - you need to move 1,000Kg 1 metre in 1 second. Or, I guess, 1Kg a Km.
Plug the numbers together and you’ll see that you need a massive physical load and a huge distance in order to store a useful amount of energy.
The energy math doesn’t make sense for grid scale applications with solid objects.
However if you can get water between two places it can work quite well. You need to live close to a big change in altitude and do a bit of geoengineering to create the upper and lower reservoirs, which can be destructive to local ecology, but not as much as a dam.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
You can also use pumped air underwater with higher energy losses than pumped storage hydro because of compatibility of air.
It’s practical for someone with limited space for panels on a small room, but I ran these calculations by moving almost all loads to daytime, sizing the panel array to the (minimum daily usage + efficiency losses) * buffer factor for days long storms or equipment failure.
Start with the comparitively cheap panels if you have the space, move electrical loads to the daytime and design the house for thermal momentum, and size storage to the minimum inclusive efficiency losses times buffer. If you have the roof space the panels are the cheapest part and you should usually way, way over panel.
The most important thing is having thermal mass enough or living in a climate that allows your home to not need thermal input or extraction at night. Heat is expensive and exponentially moreso if you need to produce it from conventional storage.
It is possible that, not too long in the future, every home could also have a 1 MegaWatt-hour battery. They would be able to capture all the excess solar power generated in a year.
Braindead strategy, that most likely is discrete fossil fuel shilling, for purposes of making decision inpractical.
The cost of storage as a baselines is how much you can charge/discharge per day. Bonus for smaller (= cheaper) that can have more discharge/charge than its capacity per day. Plus the resilience/reserve capacity value which is a convenience factor. Resilience alternatives include fire places or gas generators (that are not expected to be used often) which tend to be cheap per kw. But noise, smell, variable costs, and startup effort are all inconveniences. Driving an EV to a public charger can be a similar inconvenience level to a generator for resilience value. If a 1mwh battery is used 10kwh/day it costs 100 times more per kwh than a 10kwh battery.
OP gives an example of 12kwh summer use (no AC?) which is very high for most people, but can include cooking and floodlights.
The braindead analysis parts are “because 100 days of 10kwh surpluses happen, I need 1mwh battery”. Actual battery storage requirements are the lowest theoretical winter solar production over 1-2 weeks, together with running pumps for heat (stored mostly in fall) distribution. A 10kwh/day maximum deficit for 1 week straight, with 60 day average deficit of 5kwh/day (without requiring additional heat input), means that any consideration for a large static battery should stop at 70kwh. This is sharply reduced with 1 or 2 EVs where summer surpluses are free fuel, and EV provides backcharging at 3kw whenever needed. 30kwh battery is plenty to charge an EV overnight (300km range for small car) before next day’s sunlight exceeds needs. Even less battery with 2nd lightly used EV, but 30kwh will be cheaper than un-needed EV.
Instead of relying on batteries for heat generation, which is where $100k 1mwh delusion proposition comes, heat generated from solar stored in under $1/kwh hot water and dirt storage. Outside of winter, this also provides completely unlimited showers and hot tub use, and a $10-20k heat pump and heating system (fossil fuel systems often cost the same) and insulation improvements is the the unquestionable non-distracting path.
I looked into one of these thermal systems for my own place but the outlay is just massive for the 11 weeks months a year I really need heat, and the rest of the year it’s just a stupidly oversized hot water heater that is cooking my glycol and DC pumps.
I ended up paneling up and putting a dumb 9kw resistive boiler for my hydronic floors. The house slab is the battery and although inefficient in terms of strict energy efficiency, winter sun on my cheap pallet of panels dumps plenty into the resistance coils all day. I do have to light the stove if we get a snow storm for a day or two though
That scales down to the home level easily. Box filled with cement dust, dirt, sand, gypsum, gravel is all free material. Water gets more heat lift from heat pumps, but can’t store as much heat in a volume as dirt. Both are highly complimentary, because delivering hot water to everywhere in a home is efficient, quiet, dust free, heat. But if you are lucky enough to have centralized option, that is easier.
hot water to everywhere in a home is efficient, quiet
Have you never lived in an apartment building?
I don’t know why we haven’t come up with better solutions for piping. Or maybe it’s just because this building was built very cheaply. But anyway… the pipes make quite a loud banging sound if you shut them fast enough. And a lot of whoooshing in the walls just when using hot water.
High rise apartment buildings have a challenge with pumping water up more than 3-5 floors. This can be solved with intermediate storage on floors, but for high rises, forced air is the usual solution. Heat storage still works well enough with forced air, but water is much better due to internal piping through heat source, where air volume is harder to do there, and if gaining heat from outer shell, then insulation meant to keep heat in is not as good at heat transfer. Water is most perfect heat fluid in world. Air not so much.
And a lot of whoooshing in the walls just when using hot water.
This doesn’t apply for heat delivery. Tends to be continuous. A faucet is different.
This doesn’t apply for heat delivery.
Pegging your pardon, mister.
- Is HVAC excluded?
- Do you have an EV?
With an EV you can have 80%-90% of days covered, and top up with EV. You also get to dump daily surpluses into EV, and you can think of covering winter heating with solar and a heat pump. Easier if you have a fireplace for extreme cold possibility.
Storing heat with fall surpluses is path to get winter heating covered. Heat pump can make hot water very efficiently, and resistance heating can make a pile of dirt 300+C. Radiant floor heating is most efficient because water is distributed around 30C. This means your 90C water volume is 60C effective heat storage that is generated at 600% efficiency in fall, and 300% efficiency in typical UK winter, and your dirt heat storage can be 5x more dense.
A 2nd EV even if not frequently used during the day can be an attractive option, especially if used, and tax credits will go away soon, or have gone away (makes used prices lower) can be much easier than home batteries, and much cheaper if it remains uninsured/unused, and resale value doesn’t go down much because of few miles driven. Where utility service includes a high fixed monthly charge, ($50/month in Toronto), $12000 over 20 years savings creates high incentive to remove electric utility. Gas utility has similar fixed vs variable equation, but for Toronto, heat is somewhat reasonable from high supply on our continent.
Author’s diagram is about summer. Fall, winter, spring is about heating-degree days. If you’re heating your home with electricity, you’ll not get there with batteries.
So, working towards a solution, there are other ways to store excess energy than in batteries. One example is sand, which can be heated to very high temperatures. Insulate a sand container well and its storage can do a lot of home-heating.
We’ll need to put a lot of different methods into use. There are many practical ideas out there, and they’ll need to be tried.
The sand storage is used for district heating. It’s not much of a substitute for single homes that have electrical heating or are off-grid.
It’s a great way to balance both the electrical and the heating grids so that more electricity from renewables can be used to offset other means of heat production, but it needs to be done by the district heating supplier. I doubt it makes sense for individual houses.
When I was a kid my parents had electric resistance heat with some very effective thermal storage.
Each room had a unit about the size of a typical radiator. The unit was basically an insulated box with a small circulation fan. I’m not sure what was inside but always assumed some form of brick - they weren’t expensive so it couldn’t be anything exotic. At night when electric rates were low, whatever was inside the units was heated up. During the day, the only power usage was a small circulation fan controlled by the thermostat.
I just got a heat pump installed and thought thermal storage would be worth considering since I was also looking into solar, but contractors acted like they never heard of it, and there really didn’t seem to be any consumer units available.
The solar panels are another story. I don’t see how such a scammy (in the us) industry even exists. They make it really hard to give them my money
Very old heaters used to contain lots of asbestos. It might have worked well.
Right, you really need scale for sand batteries to work. It would be difficult for individual people to do, especially in suburban London.
District heating also works better in denser housing. In other words, not suburban London.
Dunno what heat pumps are available in England, but that’s probably the best option here.
you really need scale for sand batteries to work
Not at all. First, (hot) water batteries are excellent for home heat storage. Sand/dirt is even more storage per volume required, and completely complimentary in sending hot water through it (pipes) to make it hotter. No combustion heat means less air exchanges, and a 300C rock/dirt/sand pit has losses that radiate through house.
Suburbs are fine for district heating, but it’s a massive long term investment.
For UK in particular, I also think proper insulation and triple/quadruple window panes are much needed to curb with the increasingly scorching summers and freezing winters. I was surprised to see soo many houses with single paned windows in London.
Oof. If they’re running around with single pane windows, yeah, that’s pretty bad, but also the easiest thing to fix.
IMO, triple pane and onward provide only marginal benefits over double pane. But the jump from single to double is a big one.
Something very important that anti-nuclear but otherwise environmental minded people should realize is this sentence: " There’s no practical way to build domestic batteries with this capacity using the technology of 2025."
Also applies to grid storage. There does not exist a chemical energy storage solution that can substitute for “baseload” power. It’s purely theoretical much like fusion power. Sure maybe in 50 years, but right now IT DOESN’T EXIST. Economically, practically, or even theoretically.Why do I bring this up? Because I’ve seen too many people think that solar and wind can replace all traditional power plants. But if you are anti-nuclear, you are just advocating for more fossil fuels. Every megawatt of wind or solar, has a megawatt of coal or gas behind it and thus we are increasing our greenhouse gas emission everytime we build “green” generation unless we also build Nuclear power plants. /soapbox
It’s very infuriating talking to people about this because they never really accept that nuclear power is necessary. They spend all their time complaining about how it’s dangerous (it isn’t) and how it’s very expensive, and how you don’t have a lot of control over its output capacity. And yeah, all of those are true, but so what, the only other option is to burn some dead trees which obviously we don’t want to do.
Just because nuclear has downsides doesn’t mean you can ignore it, unless of course you want to invent fusion just to spite me, in which case I’ll be fine with that.
This has been studied, and we don’t need nuclear. All the solutions are sitting right there.
https://www.amazon.com/No-Miracles-Needed-Technology-Climate/dp/1009249541
Jacobson is a moron who’s work has been criticized by dozens of other scientists, that he kept suing because he does not like being contradicted.
Well I’m not going to buy the book to find out what they are so all I’m going to go ahead and say is this. Yes there are solutions such as battery storage (although they do tend to be extremely explodey) and using the power to pump water around, or using mirrors to heat up salt in insulated containers, but they are all very specific solutions that will only work in very particular situations, which we don’t always have.
Almost like we can have many solutions where one of them is workable in any given situation.
Edit: also, as for “explody” batteries, that’s a factor of certain lithium chemistries. It’s not even all lithium chemistries. Sodium and flow batteries are usually better options for grid storage, anyway, and neither has particularly notable safety issues.
In US, and EU is having similar nightmare, nuclear was last built at $15/watt. Installing solar is under $1/watt, and for 20 equivalent hours of nuclear per day (less demand at night means not full production even if available) equivalent to $5/watt-day. $1/watt capital costs is 2c/kwh for solar, and for full day production needs 10c/kwh. All before financing. Nuclear is 30c/kwh. It adds 10 extra years of construction financing, requires political bribes to suppress alternative supply whenever they decide to begin operations, uranium purchases/disposal, expensive skilled operations staff, security, disaster insurance.
Solar does need batteries for time shifting its daily supply. At current LFP prices of $100/kwh, 1c/kwh full cycle is prefinancing cost. and so 3c/kwh if triple the charging/discharging daily capacity. 6 hours of storage is a very high number in power systems. It will capture all energy from a northern summer. It will rarely fully discharge with any time shifting incentives to daytime (much higher convenience to consumers and industry) providing resilience to rainy days. A 2c/kwh value (before financing which is apples to apples comparison to nucclear) means a 5gw solar + 30gwh (much lower if enough private EVs are available for time shifting needs) battery costs 12c/kwh or $8B vs a $15B equivalent 1GW nuclear solution. Both last 60 years due to low battery charge/discharge rates and capacity cycle use, with much lower maintenance costs/downtime for life extension costs for solar/battery system vs keeping a nuclear reactor operational. No/minimal operations costs.
It’s very infuriating talking to people about this
Yes. Nuclear shills are frauds who should be frustrated in their theft of the commons.
The new tack is to conflate nuclear energy with fossil fuels. As in assuming that nuclear energy is “legacy” power generation, and that obviously we need to use modern gernation like solar and wind, and magical grid-level storage technologies that don’t exist. Also ignore that baseload power is still required, and is currently fulfilled with Natural Gas and Coal.
There is absolutely nothing required about baseload power. It’s there because the economics of generating power favored it in the past. You could build a baseload plant that spits out a GW or so all day, everyday for relatively cheap.
That economic advantage is no longer there, and no longer relevant.
Well you still need baseload. You can’t forget about it just because it’s inconvenient.
No, you don’t. It’s entirely an accounting thing.
Honestly it’s like talking to a conspiracy theorist.
What are you talking about, what’s “an accounting thing” do you even know what base load is? Go look up brownouts, actually for that matter go look up the term baseload because I don’t think you’re using it right
You don’t need baseload. You need to follow the duck curve of demand.
You had baseload because those plants used to be the cheapest one you could find. That’s not true anymore, and the model needs to shift with it.
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload
In the past, coal and nuclear were perceived to be the cheapest resources, and the prior electricity system structure relied upon large power plants without valuing flexibility. Today, low natural gas prices, declining renewables costs, flat electricity demand due to more efficient energy use, and stronger climate and public health protections are all driving an irreversible shift in the underlying economics of the electricity industry. As a result, the term “baseload”—which historically has been used to refer to coal and nuclear plants—is no longer useful.
What makes power when the sun isn’t out and the wind isn’t blowing? Nuclear, gas, or coal.
By being anti-nuclear, you force it to be gas or coal.
I agree with this assessment of battery technology, I’m curious what your thoughts on storage through other means, such as dams, kinetic batteries, heat batteries, that style of thing? I understand that it’d be a massive undertaking, but if we really put our nose to the grindstone we might be able to pull off a good amount of power storage through methods that already exist.
A country like France would need around 20 truly massive STEPs like Grand’Maison to provide for a single winter night (~60GW for ~14h). That’s 100-200km² to put under water, a massive ecological disaster, and a massive hazard.
And you must find a way to produce enough energy and find enough water to recharge your STEPs in the next 10h before the next night.
And that’s with the current France needs, having only 25-30% of its energy being decarbonized electricity, it’s getting even worse if we go to electrical heating and transports.
Powering an entire country without hydro, geo, nuclear or fossils is just plain science fiction. And hydro and geo cannot be built everywhere, so realistically, you either go fossils, or nuclear to have clean electricity.
And you can verify it empirically: even with trillion invested in solar and wind, the only countries which have decarbonized their electricity have massive hydro/geo/nuclear.
Building a dam causes massive amounts of ecological damage, plus unless you’re building it in the middle of nowhere you’re probably going to be turning people out of their homes, out of their entire towns. We could never build enough dams to be able to meet demand so even trying would be pointless. You would be destroying huge amounts of landscape for no reason.
Kinetic batteries can only store power up to a point, the more power you want them to store the larger they need to be. Again to compensate for base load you would have to have a either a lot of kinetic batteries or a few enormous ones. Plus they are maintenance intensive since they are giant spinning things, or great big heavy falling things.
Heat batteries are a good idea and have relatively little in the way of downsides, but they only work where it’s hot, not just sunny but hot. So the number of places you can build them is limited.
If only we could get hold of some astrophage or something.
Another myth is that hydroelectric is “green.” It’s absolutely not. The huge amount of land required to build something like the hoover dam or the three-gorges dam is massively destructive to the existing ecology. It’s often overlooked, but land use has to be part of any environmentally sound analysis.
I would say that while the Hoover Dam, or the Three-gorges dam by themselves are acceptable, they are wholly impossible solutions for grid level storage for the entire united states/China. How practical do you think it would be to build thousands of hoover dams?
Other options like kinetic batteries etc, all come down to energy density. The highest energy density options that humans can harness are nuclear Isotopes like Uranium 238, or Plutonium 239 (what powers the voyager probes) After that is lithium batteries at ~<1% density of a nuclear battery. Everything else is fractions of a percent as efficient. Sure there are some specific use cases where a huge fly-wheel makes sense to build (data centers for example) but those cases are highly specific, and cannot be scaled out to “grid-level.” The amount of resources required per kilowatt is way too high, and you’d be better off just building some more power-plants.
Unclear if you’re misinformed or disingenuous.
Hoover Dam does generate power, but it’s not an energy storage project to time-shift intermittent clean energy generation to match grid consumption. That’s known as pumped hydroelectric energy storage, and it requires having paired reservoirs in close geographic proximity with a substantial elevation difference. It’s not an ideal technology for several reasons, but it’s the largest type of grid-scale storage currently deployed. Fundamentally it’s gravitational potential energy storage using water as the transport medium.
A higher-efficiency but not yet fully proven technology also uses gravity and elevation differences, but relies on train rails and massive cars. Here’s one company leading the charge, as it were.
Nuclear isn’t a good option to balance out the variability of wind and solar because it’s slow to ramp up and down. Nuclear is much better suited to baseline generation.
There are plenty of other wacky energy storage ideas out there, such as pumping compressed air into depleted natural gas mines, and letting it drive turbines on its way back out. That might also be riddled with problems, but it’s disingenuous to claim that chemical energy storage is the only (non-) option and therefore increasing wind and solar necessarily also increase fossil fuel scaling.
Hoover Dam does generate power, but it’s not an energy storage project to time-shift intermittent clean energy generation to match grid consumption
All hydro is automatically “time shifting storage” when new solar is added to power the daytime. Just turn on the turbines at evening peak full blast, and at night. Average global capacity factor of hydro is 45% because the water reservoir is not sufficient to go full blast 24/7/365. Obviously, hydro time shifting is also highly complementary to wind.
Again, i’m talking energy density. All those other wacky ideas aren’t viable at all. Yes I know that the hoover dam is for generation, but the idea of pumped reserve power is literally identical to hydroelectric generation. The only difference is we would have a man-made solar/wind powered pump fill the resevoir, instead a natural source of solar power fill the resevoir. Either way, it’s a huge amount of land use for it to be considered “green.”
Additionally I never claimed nuclear power should be used as a peak generation, it should 100% used for baseload replacing all of our fossil fuel generators, with huge taxes being applied to carbon generators.
As an aside:
A higher-efficiency but not yet fully proven technology also uses gravity and elevation differences, but relies on train rails and massive cars. Here’s one company leading the charge, as it were.
This idea is trash and as far as I can tell the hypothetical existence of this is an oil industry fud campaign. The only viable version of this is pumped hydro, which has the land use problem I’ve already described.
Pumped hydroelectric storage obviously works with the same kind of turbines as dams located on rivers, but the land use is far from “literally identical”. For one, I agree with you that damming rivers is generally a bad thing. Large dam sites are chosen to min-max construction effort and reservoir capacity, and usually double as flood control. A grid storage project only needs to hold enough water for its daily power use, and it doesn’t need to be located directly on a water course. That’s not to say that there are unlimited suitable sites, but it’s more flexible.
Pumped hydro storage is quite green in its lack of carbon emissions and ability to time-shift green generation capacity to match grid demand timing. Land use is a consideration, but large anything requires land. You haven’t actually attacked the weakest part of pumped hydro, which is that there just aren’t very many geographically suitable locations for it.
You’ve also neglected to acknowledge the pesky spent nuclear fuel storage problem, which is unsolved and distinctly not eco-friendly. There are potentially better paths available such as the thorium fuel cycle, but they all either have no economic traction or are actively opposed by various governments (which don’t have any good solutions for existing spent fuel).
The solution to nuclear waste is recycling it, which was something France has done quite successfully. The US can’t do it because of cold-war era treaties, but realistically it’s because Nuclear power is the only thing that can threaten fossil fuel primacy in our society and obviously there are trillions of dollars in the fossil fuel status quo.
As an aside, the aftermath of Chernobyl shows exactly how eco-friendly massive radiation events are, Prypiat is a lush nature reserve now. Human activity is much worse for any given area then radiation is.Non recycled radioactive waste could be incinerated like we do with Coal and no one seems to be upset about it. /s
nuclear power is the only thing that can threaten fossil fuel primacy
Solar and wind are cheap and easy to build now, and a huge threat to fossil fuel primacy, which in turn makes them a threat to the dominance of the petrodollar as the world’s reserve currency. That’s why the Trump administration has gone all-out to quash their momentum.
Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing is theoretically possible but not politically or economically viable at present. Neither is 100,000+ year storage that has been the concept of a plan of record in the US for decades. I’m not saying that nuclear is inherently unworkable, but your net viewpoint doesn’t seem to be based in reality.
The disaster response in Chernobyl was absolutely heroic but also incredibly lucky. If the melted core had reached the water underneath the concrete pad, the steam explosion would have spread the core atmospherically with devastating results. You’re making light of the disaster that was, and ignoring how close it came to being so much larger. Furthermore, the enormous irresponsibility of the Russian military’s damage to the sarcophagus cannot be overstated. If maintaining isolation for a few decades is difficult, there’s just no chance over 100,000+ years.
But I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, so I’m done here. I hope you can find your way to more nuanced views in the future.
This is why you have HVDC lines.
The longest one is in Brazil, and is about 2400km long. With that kind of reach, solar in Arizona can power Chicago, wind in Nebraska can power New York, and every single existing hydro dam along the way can provide storage.
These problems are solved. We do not need new nuclear.
That is completely wrong, and only shows you haven’t kept up with developments in storage.
Show it. Tell me where the grid-level storage exists for a city like Tokyo, or NYC, or Chicago, or Mexico City, or Paris, or London. Hell pick your own city, show me where it exists right now today.
See, that’s a trap that keeps the argument within a frame where you can win. That’s not how it works.
What you’re doing is focusing on a singular solution, and then showing why it can’t solve all the problems. Each individual solution is attacked on its own, and then nuclear ends up being the only option.
Except that’s a dumb way of going about it.
Each of these solutions has pros and cons. You use the pros of one to cover the cons of another.
As one example I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Brazil has an HDVC line 2400km long. With that kind of reach, solar in Arizona can power Chicago, wind in Nebraska can power New York, and every single existing hydro dam along the way can provide storage. What you end up with is the possibility of not needing to build a single MWh of new storage or hydro dams. If nothing else, you don’t need very much. Long distance transmission is thus very important, but it tends to get left out of these discussions because it’s boring.
I’ll leave you with an excerpt from “No Miracles Needed”, written by Mark Z Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering:
On July 11, 2011, I was invited to a dinner at the Axis Café and Gallery in San Francisco to discuss the potential of renewable energy as an alternative to natural gas hydrofracking in New York State. Little did I know it at the time, but that dinner would set off a chain reaction of events that turned a scientific theory, that the world has the technical and economic ability to run on 100 percent clean, renewable energy and storage for all purposes, into a mass popular movement to do just that. The movement catalyzed an explosion of worldwide country, state, and city laws and proposed laws, including the Green New Deal, and business commitments. Ten years after that meeting, critics were no longer mocking our ideas as pie-in-the-sky and tooth-fairy-esque. They were no longer claiming that transitioning to more than 20 percent renewables would cripple power grids. Instead, the discussion had changed to what is the cost of 100 percent renewables, how fast can we get there, and should we leave a few percent for non-renewables?
This was from the first edition of the book published in 2023. So quite contrary to your claim that “there’s no practical way to build domestic batteries with this capacity using the technology of 2025”, the technology has existed for over a decade. We just need to build it. And we are building it, just not as fast as we need to.
Meanwhile, the NRC continues to stamp permits for new nuclear, but nobody is building. There’s a reason for that, too.
I can dismiss the the other solutions that are worse then pumped hydro because pumped hydro is actually the best case scenario for grid-level storage and it requires A LOT of space. Anything else, batteries, pneumatic mines etc etc are going to be worse in terms of space by orders of magnitude, not to mention the actual costs. Hand waving the need for grid-level storage by saying we would us hydro shows you don’t understand the scale of the problem.
That excerpt from that engineer is great, but WHERE IS THE STORAGE? Show it to me on a map. You can’t because it does not exist. New Nuclear plants are being built, finally, but there is a reason that no grid-level storage exists. It’s literally not possible today. There exists a pilot battery plant in Australia, and there exists a few megawatts of storage in Scotland, but these are few and far between and none of them are suitable for massive deployment.
I can dismiss the the other solutions that are worse then pumped hydro because pumped hydro is actually the best case scenario for grid-level storage and it requires A LOT of space.
It’s like you didn’t even read the bit about how HVDC makes this a non-issue.
. . . but WHERE IS THE STORAGE? Show it to me on a map. You can’t because it does not exist.
It’s in every hydro dam that’s already built in between Arizona and New York. If we even do need more, there is plenty of land to use.
How about this: I throw out everything I said about synergizing different solutions. We just have solar and storage. No long distance transmission or wind. How much does that cost to power a city?
That study has been done. Going by Lazard’s levelized cost of energy 2025 report, the most optimistic cost to build new nuclear is $141/MWh–and keep in mind that I’m giving nuclear the best case scenario here. A solar+storage solution that would provide 97% of the power needed for Las Vegas would cost $104/MWh. “But that’s sunny desert with lots of empty land around it”, I hear you say. The bigger deal is that Washington DC could have 81% of power done at $124/MWh. Northern city where it snows a lot, and it’s still more viable than nuclear.
“But 81% isn’t 100%”. No, please stop. You get to 81% before you get to 100%. This isn’t even the best way to get to 100%.
This study has a comprehensive wind/water/solar solution fighting with two arms tied behind its back, and it’s still kicking nuclear’s ass.
. . . New Nuclear plants are being built, finally
Nope, not in the US, they aren’t.
Here’s a map of NRC licenses. The green pips are the ones where licenses are already approved. Here’s the list and where they are at:
- William States - Licensed to go ahead in 2016. Canceled in 2017 with a contributing factor being the bankruptcy of Westinghouse (which itself happened because of cost overruns at the Vogtle nuclear plant build)
- Turkey Point - Licensed new builds in 2018. No news on actually going forward.
- North Anna - Licensed new builds in 2017. No news on actually going forward.
- PSEG - Issued an early site permit, but not the full license. The ESP was set in 2016 with no movement noted since then.
- Fermi - This was licensed just in the past few months. They want to have it in operation by 2032, which, lol, no it isn’t.
That’s not a list of success stories. Add the Vogtle debacle to the list and it’s all a bucket of failure.
The AP1000 design at Vogtle was supposed to prevent the need for botique engineering that had been a problem with reactors in the past. You could use one design everywhere. That was hoped to prevent all these cost and schedule overruns. It didn’t. In addition to Vogtle, it was also built in China at the Sanmen and Haiyang plants. Like Vogtle, Sanmen went over budget and over schedule, but managed in the end. There’s less information about what happened at Haiyang, but the timeline of beginning construction and reaching first criticality is roughly the same as Sanmen; we can assume it went about the same.
There’s a very clear reason why this is happening, and it comes down to this chart:
https://energyskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Why-large-projects-fail-Flyvberg.jpg
This is a list of megaprojects and their tendency to go overbudget. Everything from rail to mining to airports. The third worst budgetary offender is nuclear power at a mean cost overrun of 120%. It managed to be better than Olympic Games, at least. The very worst is the related issue of nuclear storage at a whopping 238% mean budget overrun.
Way down at the bottom, you will find solar, power transmission, and wind. Solar projects have a mean overrun of 1%, energy transmission 8%, and wind 13%.
That should make it very clear why the list above has approved licenses with no actual movement. Who the hell would want to put their money into that? You can invest in wind or solar, have a very good chance of it staying within budget, and it will be making revenue within 6-12 months. You put that in nuclear, and you better hope that other investors will pitch in when the budget doubles, or else you have to do it if you hope to see your money again. In the very best case scenario, you’re not going to see a cent of revenue for at least 5 years, but probably more like 10.
Meanwhile, old nuclear is being taken offline because it’s too expensive. If it’s not even worthwhile to keep what we have, what hope is there for building new?
It’s not a matter of regulation, either. The industry would really like it to be, but they’ve been putting their thumb on that scale for a while now. Even with that, nobody wants to finance this shit.
It’s not just that nuclear is expensive. It’s a boneheaded thing to drop money into at all.
It’s in every hydro dam that’s already built in between Arizona and New York. If we even do need more, there is plenty of land to use.
This is the key factor I’m talking about. There is not “plenty of land” for hydro storage, and flooding the amount of land required to provide grid level storage is an ecological disaster. Plus your analysis of mega-project like nuclear plants going over budget and over-time absolutely applies to any grid-level storage project you would need to go 100% solar/wind.
But just for fun, how much space would the grid level storage projects take up? I’ll let you use Hydro because it’s the best case scenario that exists today as far as energy density.
But beyond that what is your point, that humans shouldn’t build big projects, and any attempt to do so is “boneheaded?” Capitalism can’t build big projects I agree, but the problem isn’t the projects themselves it’s the profit-motive.
There is not “plenty of land” for hydro storage, and flooding the amount of land required to provide grid level storage is an ecological disaster.
We already built it. Good bye.
Pumped hydro exists.
Do some quick math. How much pumped hydro in terms of acre-feet would be required to power a hypothetical city like Chicago at night? Where would this theoretical reservoir be built?
That’s a completely unnecessary way to do things. The mistake you’re making is that this specific way must provide all power.
It doesn’t. You combine methods for a reason. The wind blows at times when the sun isn’t shining, and vice versa. We have weather data stretching back many decades to tell us how much a given region will give us of each. From there, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither is providing enough. Have enough storage to cover that lull, and double it as a safety factor.
Getting to 95% water/wind/solar with this method is relatively easy and would be an extraordinary change. Getting all the way to 100% is possible, just more difficult.
Do the math, how much grid-level storage do you need to power a city like chicago assuming zero baseload generation.
acre-feet
I can’t stop laughing at this as a unit of measurement
I guess if you don’t understand units of water per area, then there is no reason to expect you to be able to do any kind of critical analysis about why “pumped hydro” is a problem.
Dude, people can laugh at a term while still being able to do “critical analysis” 🙄 “foot pound” sounds funny too. People can giggle about Uranus and still be astronomers.
I am not American, so why would I use an American unit of measurement?
You can use whatever moon-units you want. I prefer to use people-centric units.
Ok, if you want an approximate American unit equivalent to a megalitre think of it as cube that can fit a blue whale
It’s easier to visualize than 325 kilo-gallons.
But is extremely limited to specific areas with the right geography that are also relatively close to a population centre.
Not if you do HVDC lines. Which are a good idea, anyway. In fact, we might not need to build a single new bit of hydro if we have a good set of HVDC lines.
It isn’t so much limited by the geography but is made far more cost effective because of it. A long valley with a narrow exit means you don’t need to build much dam and store a vast amount of water.
As far as distance from populated areas, I dunno, I live in the UK so its kinda close enough not to matter too much.
First of all nuclear energy is a fossil fuel.
Yikes. If words have no meaning, then sure. But there is no world where radioactive elements that come from stars have anything to do with fossil fuels that come from decayed biomass.
I’m pro-nuclear energy in theory. But I’ve got to ask - where do you get them spicy rocks from? Do you have to dig them up from a mine? Do they regularly replenish themselves? Does the energy generation have to be constantly checked for pollution leaks?
OK, they may not literally be fossilised bio-matter - but the end result is pretty much the same. Scar the landscape as you dig, release pollutants as you refine, hope you don’t run out of material, make sure someone else pays to clean up the mess.
Yes mining still exists. Unlike how Solar Panels and Wind Turbines grow like plants and replenish year over year with no other industrial process required right?
But again, you don’t appreciate the energy density that is contained in a reactor fuel. The volume of material is minuscule compared to coal. While oil/gas are a lot better then coal energy density-wise, they have the significant downside of greenhouse gases and causing global warming.
What I want to do is find out what the maximum size battery I would need in order to store all of summer’s electricity for use in winter.
I mean, I think that it’s probably not a good idea for this guy to try to go fully off-grid if he has access to the grid, but for the sake of discussion, if one were honestly wanting to try it and one is in the UK, I’d think that one is probably rather better off adding a wind turbine, since some of the time that the sun isn’t shining, the wind is blowing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/322789/quarterly-wind-speed-average-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Wind speed averages in the United Kingdom are generally highest in the first and fourth quarters of each calendar year – the winter months.
The UK is one of the worst places in the world in terms of solar potential:
But it’s one of the best in terms of wind potential:
Right but he’s not serious, he’s just doing a “in theory, what would it look like?”
I could probably get away with putting solar panels on my roof but I think my neighbours would have something to say about a wind turbine. They’re pretty loud.
Ugh! Just tell your neighbors to shut up or at least keep it down.
WHAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY NEW WIND TURBINE. YOU SHOULD SEE MY ELECTRIC BILL!
Small wind turbines are really, really poor. You need to go high to access the good air-streams and wide to get useful efficiency out of the turbine. Any wind turbine you put on your roof will vastly under-perform for the cost spent on it.
I’d be pretty comfortable saying that buying enough battery storage to power-shift a year of power is more expensive.
O, absolutely. The reality is the only reasonably economic way to do off-grid is with solar, battery, and a diesel or propane generator to top off the batteries when solar isn’t cutting it.
There is another option. Reduce your energy usage so much that you barely need anything. Cabin in the woods with wifi?
That’s not really a viable option, you need to be able to wash your clothes, and make your dinner, and cool your food, and have light to see.
Sure it’s possible to reduce it, but there is a limit where it becomes extremely inconvenient.LEDs use very little power, with the cabin in the woods idea I would think its fairly safe to say a log fire is used for cooking, same thing to heat some water for cleaning. Fridge really doesn’t use much power if you look for something energy efficient, or just don’t have one. Its not like you can’t live without it.
I would have thought saying cabin in the woods kinda implies not having some things and living a simpler lifestyle?
Bio-chemical reactor toilet?
Sure, why not. But I was thinking a 4/5G router takes very little power, then a steam deck doesn’t take that much either. If that is all you need, few hundred w solar panels and a decent sized camping battery will probably do just fine. You don’t need to store a years worth of energy in one go if you can produce more than you use which helps during lower output times.
Then if your employer is mandating return to office, charge the battery there. Make the fuckers pay for it.
Then if your employer is mandating return to office, charge the battery there. Make the fuckers pay for it.
based
“I’ll go absolutely barebones on electricity usage. Just a router and my gaming console!”
I don’t think it’s a good idea to opt out of something like a fridge or lighting.
Not true, a wind turbine is dirt cheap for the power it can generate compared to solar panels.
Here the problem is regulation that makes it impossible if you have neighbors within 500 m.
If it wasn’t for regulation a wind turbine would be a clearly better investment than solar panels.
A huge advantage with turbines is also that it tend to generate power when you need it the most for heating your house.That’s because they are big mechanical whirring machines. Solar panels are dead quiet and don’t throw intermittent shade and have a very low risk of causing damage in the surrounding. There’s good reasons they are forbidden for the average household to put on top of the chimney…
they generate about 3,800kWh per year. We also use about 3,800kWh of electricity each year
Obviously, we can’t use all the power produced over summer and we need to buy power in winter. So here’s my question: How big a battery would we need in order to be completely self-sufficient?
O, god, it’s going to be huge. You really can’t do the off-grid thing unless you have enough power production to satiate you over any given 3-day moving window. Trying to store power from summer until winter is going to be too expensive, instead buy more panel.
This isn’t even going into the fact batteries lose charge slowly. So any power generated in summer will be much diminished by winter, even if you have big enough batteries.
Seems to me his panel capacity is to small anyway.
We have 11 kWh panels, and yes in the summer we routinely produce 4 times more than we use, and we have a 7.5 kWh battery But November December and January it’s not even close to enough.In the Winter you can easily have a week with near zero production:
Our Import / export from grid last year:
November 215 / 59 kWh
December 300 15 kWh
January 268 / 34 kWhDespite we have almost 3 times the capacity, and produce more than twice what we use per year, and we have a decent battery and believe it or not, even the shortest day we can produce enough power for a whole 24 hour day if it’s a clear day! But we can also have clouds for 14 days!
But for those months we imported 783 kWh and exported 108 that could have been used with bigger battery. But the net import was still 675 kWh!! For those 3 months, and that’s the minimum size battery we could have managed with, and then we even need 10% extra to compensate for charge/discharge losses.TLDR:
Minimum 740 kWh battery in our case, and that’s without heating, because we use wood pellets.That means it would require at least the equivalent of 10 high end fully electric car batteries. But also a very hefty inverter, which AFAIK ads about 50% the price of the battery.
PS: Already in February we exported more than we imported.
(Author here) As I say in my post, our roof is full. We have 16x 320 Watt panels - 8 on each side of the roof.
OK I didn’t see that, that’s bigger than I expected, we make about 12.5 MWh per year on our 11.2 kWh panels = 1.1 MWh per kWh capacity.
Your system is 5.1 kWh but you only make 3.8 MWh per year = 0.75 MWh per kWh capacity.
Meaning we have 50% higher yield per kWh rated capacity!So our production remains 3.3 times higher than yours, despite we only have twice the capacity.
But our panels are pretty optimally placed towards the south.Considering you are further south compared to us, I’m surprised your yield is so low, despite London is infamous for being cloudy.
Damn, those winter numbers mean full off-grid is quite difficult with pure solar. A propane or diesel generator to occasionally top off the batteries would be required for winter.
It is not remotely close to economically viable to go off grid, and the exports of solar power to the grid pay for the connection anyway.
The reason to have a battery is that it lasts through the night, or even with a smaller system, it can handle dinner time, which is the most expensive time of day to buy electricity.
Now if you live in some remote area without a grid, a generator is a way better option than a huge battery.
Maybe if you live somewhere very sunny, like Spain and especially southern parts of USA you can probably do it with a modest battery that can handle a couple of days.
In the summer we can make enough electricity on by far the most cloudy days, but in the winter, the sun can’t penetrate the clouds nearly as well.
Admittedly London is south of where I live, which is close to the most southern part of Denmark, but on the other hand London is infamous for grey weather with heavy clouds.You could probably get by with a gas generator and only run it 2-3 times/year in many areas. It’s not 100% green, but it could get you off grid for a fraction of the price.
Power the generator with vegetable oil. There are multi fuel generators that are designed to work well with that kind of fuel. You could also use them for heating which is very useful in Northern regions where you usually need heating and electricity during winter.
Diesel generatorsare significantly better on fuel consumption than a gas one and diesel takes alot longer to go bad than gasoline.
Diesel generators run fine on heating oil, which is cheaper since no fuel tax and has longer shelf life.
Stabil 360 additive to fuel.
they generate about 3,800kWh per year. We also use about 3,800kWh of electricity each year.
Holy shit. I think we used that much last month, which is higher than average but not that high for August around here.
How ? Is it just AC ?
We oscillate between 300 and 800kwh per month and it’s with an old water heater, an electric car charged at home, a dryer and electric oven.
Older house, poor insulation, 19 year old heat pump/AC, and hot summers.
You leave 5,278 LED light bulbs on 24/7?
…maybe.
I mean it’s probably their kids doing that.
glad I’m not the only one that noticed that.
last time I checked I was using around 4600-5800kwh from May to August. the rest of the year its 3300-4200.
I live in a dual zoned 5200sqft home and my average power bill is around $900.
I’ve had solar sales try to talk me into solar panels but once they see my consumption they stop answering my calls lol. could be because I told them I’ll buy once I can get net zero.
could be because I told them I’ll buy once I can get net zero.
I’m not following your logic. You aren’t willing to accept any savings unless you can completely zero out your power bill? Judging from your consumption I’m assuming a good chunk of that is for cooling your home? If so that means you’re likely in a pretty great place to harvest solar power. You’d reach payback of your investment on your array much faster than most, and be saving money for probably 35 years or more with little to no additional investment.
Making some guesses for how much your electricity rates are, and how much you’re consuming (assuming much from cooling), you might be a full payback in less than 7 years if you took advantage of the tax credit. Then, every month after that you’d be gaining money back.
my house is over 120 years old. it still has knob and tube in half the house. I have even found gas lines for the old sconces, that were “conveniently” used as grounds for said knob and tube in some places. the house is a nightmare, electrically speaking. the only new-ish electrical are the HVAC systems, the 200amp panel, and the basement (where the rack lives).
for me to get proper solar installed, it would cost more than the house cost to buy. For me to find it in any way cost effective, I would need my $900 a month power bill to pay for the $200k loan on top of my mortgage.
As someone who electrically renovated houses without beeing an electrician. If you find an electrician who is willing to work with you: do a full planning of the house. (What lines go where etc) ask them to go over this, and pay them for their time. If all goes well this will cost them an evening or three (depending how many flaws they find in your design). Do the wiring and drilling raw sockets yourself. Buy the top sockets wholesale, then have the electrician make a fixed price for installing sockets and wiring your fuse box , it will be much cheaper.
appreciate the sound advice. I’ve rewired plenty of houses that I’m comfortable with DIMS and know most of the NEC.
the problem is time and effort. I’m getting older and just don’t have the drive I used to have 20 years ago. the biggest problem is the house is still mostly original plaster lathe which is a huge pita for running new electrical across four floors. add to that the other litany of projects I have to do plus daily life/work. it’s a lot.
if I was 10 years younger I’d probably start one room at a time, but I’m old enough now that I look forward to taking my daily naps before bedtime.
I reserved myself to a modest retirement when I bought this house because I knew the risks going in.
Plaster Lathe. My old nemesis. Probably with reed or peat for stabilization, so it explodes everywhere once you touch it… Wish you the best of Luck.
Also: napping is important at our age.
That house sounds like a terrible investment.
lol. all houses are terrible investments, too volatile.
Wtf?? Are you running a crypto farm or something?? $900 is insane
that’s an average btw. last months bill was $1100.
this month is already at $960 and we’re only halfway through the month.
this year has been lower than previous. I had new insulation installed last November.
highest bill I have ever seen was around $2200 which is over my monthly mortgage.
no crypto farm. though it would probably be higher if I was.
Thats awful, im so sorry. Our entire house is usually $200ish but it jumped to $400ish because they put in a data center nearby and are using residents to subsidize it
I have personally never seen a bill of more than 60€ per month. I have some friends living in bigger houses, not apartments, and they tell they can get over 100 fairly frequently, the bigger ones more in the North can get over 200 in the winters, but even still, I’ve never even heard of anything reaching 300.
But I’m in my thirties and don’t really know anyone from beyond upper middle class. That might help explain my experience if it happens to be the outlier, but just reading the responses to this, I might not be the outlier here.
Anything four figures is just crazy surreal to me. I can not even imagine what it takes to reach that kind of electric usage. Or maybe it’s just extremely expensive, not the usage itself being crazy? I would think living in a place where sustaining one’s existence requires that kind of resource usage would be very hostile against settling and building in general?
But if it’s just personal usage rather than the regional climate or whatever, and an insane price of electricity isn’t the main reason, then I don’t even know what to say. That’s crazy.
it’s kind of a mix of everything.
I grew up poor. like, “take a nap for dinner” poor. I was afforded great opportunities that allowed me to become comfortably wealthy, as in I can freely go to the store and just buy groceries without concern. This is important because I always promised myself that when I grew up I would live comfortably.
I keep my house between 68F-72F year round. I don’t open my windows because I have terrible allergies (that my kids have also inherited). at least half of my bill is just heating and cooling. the other half is likely a mix of the servers and the regular appliances.
I have family ranging from 30-60 years old. when I told them how much I spend on power their eyes popped out. they don’t run their hvacs as much as I do, and actually use their windows and attic fans. they also don’t have the allergic reactions I have either so 🤷.
in my old home, 1600sqft, our highest bill was around $300, and that was still high for the area. our neighbors were average between $100-$150. they were in their 70s though, so likely they didn’t use their hvac as much either, nor the technology I was running.
Fair enough, that’d explain it. I did expect air conditioning to be a big part of it, kind of makes a lot of sense that you do run servers as well.
Still, that’s a huge bill to eat each month.
is that per-month, or for the whole span?
per month.
I assume that’s HVAC. Makes more sense to fix that before solar.
You also lose some energy to heat while charging and discharging. And depending on load profiles, you might not be able to load all of your excess solar power at once (depends on how many Watts the battery can be charged at) or fulfill your power requirement with battery alone (depends on how many Watts your battery can deliver).
I’m a fan of small scale wind, if there’s climate and space for it. 20hrs a day of a (small) 500w adds up really quickly compared to more panels, especially in grey winter weather. The problem is that there’s a bigger difference between megawatt scale solar vs homeowner scale, and megawatt scale wind vs homeowner scale, so there’s limited investment.
Wind isn’t great small scale. You rarely can get high enough for constant wind energy. They are noisy. They don’t produce a lot. In many or even most cases solar will be better than wind.
I’d go so far as building both sun oriented and a solar “fence” line going north/south to get more non-peak solar before putting up small-scale wind.
As is mentioned in the article 😉 What is also mentioned is the fact that battery prices are going down. Soon it seems they’ll be down to $10/kWh!
There’s also alot of new battery tech on the way.
There will be a market for batteries at home, and they will exist with the best suitable tech for it - and it’s probably not lithium.
How many years, I dont know. What will it be, and who will do it, no clue. Otherwise my stock portfolio would look better if I knew these things haha.
I wish the second-hand battery market were more lively. Using half-worn car battery packs seems optimal for home use.
Using half-worn car battery packs seems optimal for home use.
I’m not putting cobalt based (NMC or NCA) batteries bolted to the inside my house. Thats nearly exclusively what car battery packs are. Thermal runaway is too great a risk to bolt that much energy to a wall in the house. I am comfortable with LFP in the house though.
It is. Some of them are getting snapped up to help with powering factories.
I think this is car companies using the incoming battery packs from replacing worn out packs. Time to look it up…
https://www.autoblog.com/news/toyota-just-found-a-clever-new-use-for-old-ev-batteries
This is the article I was thinking of. It’s more of an idea than a common use case to use old packs to help power factories.
Sodium batteries?
BTW that’s the wish for trend line, $10/kWh right?
I mean… they are at ~$16/ kwh right now, so…
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/CATL-75AH-220Ah-Grade-a-Sodium_1600972483761.html
No?
I have seen some wild priced on Ali, in your link the 75Ah and the 210Ah are priced the same, so I guess it’s for the smaller one, 30€ for ~0.225kWh or 133€/kWh.
Could be wrong ofc, but it sort of fits what I thought it would roughly be.
I mean even ~133/kWh…
Whats an average, perhaps even gratuitous, level of consumption per household? 24kwh if you are running a clothes drier and an AC nonstop? Lets go nuts, say you are a DIY enthusiast and hosting your own servers, so 36kwh daily.
3192€-4788€ to be and you can be effectively energy independent with a small solar system.
Triple that and you are truly energy independent are any where south of the English channel. I mean obviously its money out of pocket, but its a fixed cost that you pay now, instead of a variable cost that continuously goes up. It just seems basic.
Sure, but at 16€/kWh well that’s a whole other ballpark. Buy one 36kWh for < 600€, put it in your car, charge at work 😋 style of different.
How big a battery would we need in order to be completely self-sufficient?
Exactly. Haven’t read all details of the link,so I react your comment, and have immersed myself a bit in this earlier.
You need to change your way of thinking and energy usage. Start with your daily energy supply and then change your energy consumption pattern to day time use Then, with for example a dynamic energy contract or if you can spare solar energy, buy or store cheap electricity in your storage ( battery ). The energy management system ( charge / uncharge and which cells) is very important.
Also, realize that battery life is tied to charge cycles and need replacing like every 10 years when talking about the better quality Lithium battery . Sodium systems could and maybe should be used in parallel, if you want more storage, safety and longevity (20 years).
It is yet all quite expensive, though imo having a half day reserve like 5 - 10 kwh, battery, would already create more independence (at around € 3K to € 10 K in Europe) .
Basically why the grid exists to begin with. You’re not supposed to be solving these engineering problems on a household budget inside a single home.
You’d be better off simply reducing your consumption or finding alternative methods of power (nat gas or maybe wind or geothermal) during the longer winter nights.
If you really want to go crazy, you should consider investing in a bigger home with better insulation and roommates. An apartment/condo block can at least leverage economies of scale, if you’re dead set on DIY. More people benefiting from the setup dilutes the cost per person.
I recently got a solar system and came to the conclusion that if you can sell power back to the grid (not everyone can) for some reasonable percentage of what it costs to buy it, then it will always be worth it to be connected (assuming you already are).
Quite simply, if you have enough solar capacity to get you through the winter (no house is going to have months of battery storage), then you will always be creating far more than you need in the summer. Selling this excess will easily cover any costs associated to being on the grid.
Also at current prices batteries are good for backup power only, it’s always cheaper to sell excess power to the grid in the day and buy it back at night than it is to have battery capacity to get through the night. I worked out it would take 40 years for our battery to pay for itself (assuming the battery kept a constant battery capacity for 40 years…) but less than 10 years for the rest of the system to pay for itself.
I’m paying 50c per kWh for grid…its bad. And that’s if I don’t go over the limit. There’s 4 teirs so it gets more expensive per tier.
Wait, it gets more expensive when you use more?
Exceptionally. Yes.
What an odd pricing structure! I would normally expect higher usage to mean lower prices per unit.
I guess that gives you a large incentive to have at least a little solar, as there would be a big financial benefit.
We can’t, but we can do net metering, meaning we can offset costs but not get paid. So the best investment is to pay nothing through Dec. 31 and keep costs manageable at the start of the year (net metering ends with the calendar year).
Net metering is great, much better than being paid for the surplus.
With net metering the grid is basically an free, infinite, 100% effective battery.
Only while there’s a surplus. Our net metering arrangement effectively forfeits any surplus at the end of the year. It obviously can vary by region and how much you’d get from surplus vs specifics of the net metering policy, but I think getting paid for surplus is simpler and easier to plan around.
I disagree, but in not in your situation so I can be wrong.
Unless you are producing way, way more electricity than you can use I think net metering is a great arrangement for the customer. (Not so much for the utility company)
The electricity is usually bought by the utility company at a much lower cost than what the customer is paying. Because the generation cost is only a percentage of the cost, there is taxes, maintenance of the grid …
For example in France we pay 0.1952€/kWh, but the utility is buying the solar electricity produced by household at 0.04€/kWh.
Meanwhile with net metering your electricity is virtually bought at the same price as what you are buying your electricity for.
Ah, I didn’t realize the payout was so low. If it was half the purchase price, it could be better than net metering.
Net metering is potentially better, as you are effectively getting free night usage based ob day generation. My setup pays me, but I get paid 20c per Kw (NZ dollar) and pay about 30c to buy, so there’s a 10c difference. Just as long as whatever you lose on 31st Dec is not too high, you’d be better off than me.
Basically why the grid exists to begin with
Agreed this is the best option. Economy of scales and our consumers wishes should dictate the Grids plan to incorporate cheap energy ( and emergency) storages.
And, also like you said, change your energy life style and insulate your house wherever you can.
I’m very ignorant on this subject, but couldn’t you just sell excess to grid and get it back for a minimal markup? Seems like a good governmemt incentive to even supplement an even exchange program. Scaling things to everyone having their own giant batteries seems like a waste of the existing infrastructure.
(Author here) Yes, this is how it works in the UK. I sell my excess electricity back to the grid. The selling price is a bit smaller than the buying price.
I’m very ignorant on this subject, but couldn’t you just sell excess to grid and get it back for a minimal markup?
Sure, but it depends on the incentives in your country. Afaik, excess energy could be sold, but you’ll have to checkout your local incentives and energy suppliers for specifics. In most parts of Europe, the are scaling down the prices for excess energy. Therefore, battery systems are being forwarded in some cases as sort of solution for solar panels maintaining like ca. 80% +? integrity efficiency over 20 to 30 years.
For example, I read that in The Netherlands the solar panel market has crashed completely or is crashing. Note here that saturation of the market ( many existing solar panels) can also cause that.
You need to find out;
- energy usage
- insulation options and materials
- costs /benefits
- energy contracts and energy incentives.
- check out current physical electricity wiring and fuses in the house
- DIY or professional?
- budget etc
TLDR: dont buy solarpanels if you want to be rich. And buy them according and after you’ve done everything possible to insulate your house, whether in the colder or warmer climates. The efficiency, added value, and comfort reached by insulation outweighs everything else. Then , after doing that, check your kwh usage, and buy solars according to that.
Hope this is helpful, but seems you need to go outthere and do some exploration on the topic.
(Ed: layout)
And buy them according and after you’ve done everything possible to insulate your house, whether in the colder or warmer climates.
In the USA there are silly rules that you can only get 120% capacity of your last years worth grid consumption as solar installed. So if one were to follow your advice and do all the energy efficient improvement prior to solar, then you would be restricted to getting a much smaller array. I understand why they have the rule, but its easy to circumvent by just having artificially oversized consumption for a year in your house, and you can then get the larger array you want before then doing all the energy improvements post-array installation.
In the USA there are silly rules that you can only get 120% capacity of your last years worth grid consumption as solar installed.
Yes , I can see how that impacts the process. indeed checking the rules and doing some prior info digging is essential.
It’s also important to check whether solar overcacity is worthwhile in the UsA. Her3 it is not( anymore).
It’s also important to check whether solar overcacity is worthwhile in the UsA. Her3 it is not( anymore).
I’ll say generally speaking in most places it isn’t, however, once you go solar, you may increase your electricity usage as you move away from carbon based energy. Before solar we had natural gas furnace heating and two gasoline cars. Now we have two EVs and a cold climate heat pump with zero natural gas and zero gasoline consumption. So I wanted the larger solar capacity to cover the increases in electricity we knew we’d have.
Its worked out pretty well. We have fairly large electricity bills ($400ish) in Jan and Feb, a small bill in March, and usually a tiny bill (under $10) in April. Then no bills for the rest of the year. Also keep in mind that is TOTAL energy costs, no gas or gasoline bought anymore.
nicely done.
Factorio has prepared me for þis challenge…
I don’t need to get through winter, I just need to get from dusk to when the cheap energy is starts. Currently that’s about 4kwh - or a small portion of my car battery before or recharges on the cheap rate.
battery and solar at the home level is what makes the most sense.
60% of the planet lives between the subtropics and tropics. There is way more than plenty of sunlight hitting our earth to support all of our energy demands, and any naysaying around battery technology is missing the forest for the trees.
Need to wire the whole world. Let’s go.
The most straightforward path to world peace is to increase the global supply of energy to the point of negligibly low prices
I like the idea that the real reason for all of the atrocities is that people don’t have enough power to play Xbox.
I believe it would attribute to cheaper of free energy and to more peace. I am agreeing with you.
And I imagined a all encompassing " worldgrid" across all continents and islands. We did it with phone networks, now we should do energy.
You can plug your system into a free platform like opensolar, which allows you to play with the design to see what the effect of upgrades would be during the course of the year.
