# Grid storage breakthrough?



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

A battery that uses urea as a primary component of its electrolyte (yes, a chemical in pee). Reason? 100x cheaper than EMIC materials, and Coulombic efficiency of 99.7%:

http://newatlas.com/aluminum-battery-urine-power/47849/

With http://www.eosenergystorage.com/products/Eos Energy Storage having already achieved lifetime storage costs of about 3 cents per Kwh, we only need to see about one more doubling of cost efficiency (i.e. price cut by 1/2) before alternative energy from the sun is cheaper than anything else out there and traditional sources can no longer compete. The above breakthrough may be what puts it over the top, being both cheap and plentiful manufacturing could be ramped up quickly.


More technical article: http://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/834.full


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

"Energy" from the sun has always been cheap.
Its the capturing it in sufficient quantities for base load reliability .....
..and storeage for 24 hr/ cloudy day continuity,....that are the problems.
I have a feeling that grid storage for 24hr supply is never going to be feasible, and it will have to be distributed to a "user store you own" level (and pay for it !), type solution..
...at least for domestic users.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

The solution for grid storage is going to be something other than Li ion for sure. Something with a poorer energy storage density per unit mass and volume, but which is far cheaper to build than Li ion. Will it be Al-ion? Who knows- it sounds great, as all these marketing puff pieces do, but they have lots of work left to do. A coulombic efficiency of only 99.7% means that 0.3% of the electrons in each charge cycle are doing destructive chemistry on the cell- that's only 1500 cycles to failure, not 1500 cycles to a 20% capacity loss. Nowhere nearly good enough- yet. 

Frankly I think the ultimate grid-scale solution will be a flow battery, so that the storage medium is a cheap atmospheric tank and the electrodes and membranes can be replaced like the plates in a plate and frame heat exchanger when they fail. You lose some efficiency but not too much- it's still way more efficient than tons of other proposed storage options.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Moltenmetal said:


> A coulombic efficiency of only 99.7% means that 0.3% of the electrons in each charge cycle are doing destructive chemistry on the cell- that's only 1500 cycles to failure, not 1500 cycles to a 20% capacity loss. Nowhere nearly good enough- yet.


Incorrect. Coulombic efficiency relates to how much energy you put in divided by how much energy you get out - it says nothing about how "destructive" the inefficiency may / may not be. Edison batteries, for example, have a very low Coulombic efficiency but last virtually forever.



> Frankly I think the ultimate grid-scale solution will be a flow battery, so that the storage medium is a cheap atmospheric tank and the electrodes and membranes can be replaced like the plates in a plate and frame heat exchanger when they fail. You lose some efficiency but not too much- it's still way more efficient than tons of other proposed storage options.


That was what the 24M team thought also - until one of the team built a mathematical model to determine the point at which the flow model triumphed economically over the battery model. The result of that experiment convinced them to change directions 180 degrees.

On the other hand, it is hard to argue with a chemical such as Urea when it is so incredibly cheap. Even if it eventually gums up the "battery" part, perhaps they can just refurbish / replace the membranes periodically. I suspect that such a "maintainable flow battery" will indeed end up being cheaper for stationary storage.

The current average cost per Kwh for electricity in the United States (Jan 2017) is $0.134 / Kwh (page is for Atlanta, but text includes national average for comparison). I was surprised to see that - it is much higher than I remembered. Battery prices are still following the exponential decline I described years ago; if anything, they are falling faster than I expected. I can't imagine it NOT being cheaper to "go solar" by 2030, perhaps even sooner.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

End user/retail cost figures are pointless as a basis to compare the basic technology costs.Grid scale generating cost and Battery Manufacturing costs are what is required to make any sensible analysis.
In most countries, Retail energy cost is inflated to cover the cost of subsidies to renewable energy development and installations.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> End user/retail cost figures are pointless as a basis to compare the basic technology costs.Grid scale generating cost and Battery Manufacturing costs are what is required to make any sensible analysis.


That depends on what you are comparing. As a homeowner, you would want to compare the life cycle cost of installing and operating solar / battery with what you would spend buying energy from the grid for the next 20 years (the only other option). That analysis would drive your decision as to which to "buy." If enough other consumers make the decision to go solar, it can make the difference between whether or not a new grid plant is built. So, retail price is most definitely a consideration for decision making.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

But this thread and the "breakthrough battery" you linked to , are directed at GRID storage, not domestic installations.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> But this thread and the "breakthrough battery" you linked to , are directed at GRID storage, not domestic installations.


I was speaking generally. We don't know yet if this particular technology "scales down," and for that matter we don't know if it will ever be commercialized - but if it is commercialized it seems likely that small installations will also be possible for a higher cost per Kwh. The EOS site referenced does have cost of ownership based on installation size, which simply implies that smaller installations are not as cheap per Kwh as larger ones (pretty normal in life - big boxes of cereal at Costco are cheaper than small boxes at Kroger). It is also still true that from a homeowner's perspective the additional cost may make sense as compared to retail utility rates.

Cost is always king, and we are almost there...


----------



## WebbRowan (Mar 8, 2016)

As we emerge through the new era, our population grows, and so will the need for energy. Thus, its resource has to be increased and this breakthrough in grid storage will definitely help especially as a long-term measure. It will help to ensure energy resources are kept at the minimal to the very least so that demand is consistently met without fail. With more technology advances being made readily available today, it is good to know they are being put to good use for the benefit of mankind.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

I do hope the future doesn't mean minimizing our energy usage. Quite the contrary, since there is a direct correlation between cheap energy and prosperity I hope that declining costs for energy result in us increasing our use of energy tremendously, while simultaneously finding ways to use it more efficiently.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

LMAO is all I can say. Sort of like Tesla Powerwall or any product from Ellon is a SCAM.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> LMAO is all I can say. Sort of like Tesla Powerwall or any product from Ellon is a SCAM.


All of the Tesla vehicle owners I know are quite satisfied and none of them think it is a scam.

The Tesla Powerwall is a marketing gimmick - Musk knows full well that it is not yet cheap enough for the masses but will appeal to some wealthy tree-huggers. And why not? Many of them have no idea how the money they have came to be, so why not separate it from them and put that money into the hands of people who actually have a clue how to make it useful to humanity?


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Oh my godlessness Phantom, we finally agree on something!

There's nothing wrong with the Powerwall at all. It isn't powered by sunlight, but by hype, but that's OK. The entire Tesla business model, of separating rich tree-huggers from their money, is absolutely wonderful. And neither of us have any problem with it, because the separation of rich person from their treasure is totally voluntary. I'd way rather see one of those guys spend their money on a Tesla than a big Mercedes or some other ICE luxury vehicle- at least they're trying to do some good with their money, even if they're doing it to coat themselves with some veneer of virtue.

If there is a problem with Tesla, it's for Tesla's investors- at least the true believers who don't jump off the bandwagon in time. I'm sure early investors have sold out their initial investment and are perfectly happy to leave part of their profits in for the ride, even if that ride inevitably takes them down.

Tesla has made some bad bets and then doubled down on them several times. Their use of the small form-factor cells is a mistake, and will be their undoing unless they regret it and move away from it soon. LG Chem's per cell cost was already lower last year than what Tesla is claiming to be possible from the "gigafactory", and the per pack cost of a LG Chem pack has to be greatly cheaper than what Tesla can achieve, since the assembly of both will ultimately be robotic. Scaling up always beats numbering up- that's just simple economics at work.

As far as the original purpose of this thread, I've seen no news on it since. Many of the other latest hyped battery technologies have come to naught- including the one Dyson bought into. The withdrawls/writedowns are usually done quietly because they're an embarrassment. 

My bet long term for grid scale storage is on vanadium flow batteries or something like them. Whole electrolyte batteries like Li-ion have the disadvantage that you have to basically recycle the whole cell once it's at its end of life, whereas a flow battery system is basically like a plate and frame heat exchanger- you can replace membranes or electrodes individually if they go bad. Best of all, the storage is atmospheric plastic tanks. The power is determined by the size of the flow battery stack, but to add more storage you simply add more tankage and electrolyte solution. Much better for systems which value cycle life over storage density.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Moltenmetal said:


> Oh my godlessness Phantom, we finally agree on something!
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the Powerwall at all. It isn't powered by sunlight, but by hype, but that's OK. The entire Tesla business model, of separating rich tree-huggers from their money, is absolutely wonderful. And neither of us have any problem with it, because the separation of rich person from their treasure is totally voluntary. I'd way rather see one of those guys spend their money on a Tesla than a big Mercedes or some other ICE luxury vehicle- at least they're trying to do some good with their money, even if they're doing it to coat themselves with some veneer of virtue.


Exactly! 



> If there is a problem with Tesla, it's for Tesla's investors- at least the true believers who don't jump off the bandwagon in time. I'm sure early investors have sold out their initial investment and are perfectly happy to leave part of their profits in for the ride, even if that ride inevitably takes them down.


Actually, the over-inflation of their stock is likely due to too many "true believers" investing with their hearts instead of their heads. Same rule as above, a fool and his/her money are soon parted. But you are correct - part of Musk is selling is dreams. However, I believe he has balanced that against real market research such that he will pull it out and be profitable.



> Tesla has made some bad bets and then doubled down on them several times. Their use of the small form-factor cells is a mistake, and will be their undoing unless they regret it and move away from it soon.


That only becomes true if he cannot make the Gigafactory profitable. I suspect that one of the many improvements in the pipeline (improved anodes / cathodes, or perhaps a nonliquid electrolyte) will be employed into their manufacturing process extending the life of the plant. And, at the end of the day, the plant is just space and can be rearranged to produce something else if the tech changes radically.



> LG Chem's per cell cost was already lower last year than what Tesla is claiming to be possible from the "gigafactory", and the per pack cost of a LG Chem pack has to be greatly cheaper than what Tesla can achieve, since the assembly of both will ultimately be robotic. Scaling up always beats numbering up- that's just simple economics at work.


Here is what I believe you are missing. Demand for batteries is just about to hit the point where it outpaces production - an inevitable part of the technology adoption cycle which I believe will last for about 10 years. Thus far battery demand has been reasonable - but as soon as price drops just a little bit more it is going to explode. High demand = profits for everyone. Will LG Chem make MORE in profit? Perhaps, perhaps not - their current plants are smaller than the gigafactory, and the question is whether they can scale up in time to take advantage of the "gold rush" before a) production catches up or b) another even cheaper tech jumps to the fore. If, for example, 24M succeeds soon in "productionalizing" their product, they may steal the lion's share of the profits because their concept from the start was to enable rapid scaling (although they also intend to license the tech and I believe Musk would simply build those under license, so it all becomes fuzzy as to who will walk away with the biggest prize).



> As far as the original purpose of this thread, I've seen no news on it since. Many of the other latest hyped battery technologies have come to naught- including the one Dyson bought into. The withdrawls/writedowns are usually done quietly because they're an embarrassment.


New news this month. You may be correct, but in some sense it is irrelevant. We never know in advance which advance will succeed - but one will.



> My bet long term for grid scale storage is on vanadium flow batteries or something like them. Whole electrolyte batteries like Li-ion have the disadvantage that you have to basically recycle the whole cell once it's at its end of life, whereas a flow battery system is basically like a plate and frame heat exchanger- you can replace membranes or electrodes individually if they go bad. Best of all, the storage is atmospheric plastic tanks. The power is determined by the size of the flow battery stack, but to add more storage you simply add more tankage and electrolyte solution. Much better for systems which value cycle life over storage density.


Yep, lots better where there is no convenient mountain pool for pumped hydro. I kinda like the Urea one - let's all piss on the problem! 

Here is one of my favorite sites for finding new research.

Solid Sodium and Magnesium chemistries are promising.
The ever-elusive Lithium Air battery progresses.
Discover new battery materials faster.

Bottom line? The exponential decline in battery prices has yet to abate, and in fact it still appears to be accelerating. By 2030 batteries will be dirt cheap.


----------



## ColMosby (Sep 24, 2017)

Batteries STORE energy, they don't produce energy. This seems to be the hardest thing for people to understand. You cannot make an unreliable power source reliable simply by adding batteries. Besides, molten salt reactors will be ,by far, the cheapest, safest and environmentally best method for producing power. They also have an environmental footprint which is light years smaller than wind or solar. They can also be sited absolutely anywhere - in cities, towns, anywhere - they do not need any source of water for cooling and are far safer than solar or wind and don't have the toxic wastes produced by solar panels.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ColMosby said:


> Batteries STORE energy, they don't produce energy. This seems to be the hardest thing for people to understand.


Some perhaps. There is not one single person on this forum, however, who doesn't understand the difference between a power source and power storage.



> You cannot make an unreliable power source reliable simply by adding batteries.


Depends on what you mean by "reliable." Solar is "unreliable" only in that it doesn't work at night and doesn't produce exactly the same amount of power each day. However, over the course of a year the power it will generate from sunlight can be predicted with great accuracy, and thus it is "reliable in the long term." It can also be determined mathematically to any degree of certainty you like how much storage is needed to make that power source reliable as the sole source of energy generation - the only question is "how reliable" and "what is your budget." 95% reliability can be achieved fairly easily, and a very small generator for unexpected extended weather events combined with a modest amount of power conservation can push that up to 100%.



> Besides, molten salt reactors will be ,by far, the cheapest, safest and environmentally best method for producing power.


Rubbish. I am personally a proponent of developing MSRs, but a) they don't exist yet and b) there is absolutely no chance they will become cheaper than solar + batteries for the vast majority of purposes in our lifetimes. Why? Because the most optimistic cost of an MSR (were such to exist) has a lower bound determined by physics (the cost of materials, fuel, labor to maintain), while the cost for both solar and batteries have been in exponential decline for 65 years and will not stop that decline until they are far cheaper than MSRs can ever hope to be.



> They also have an environmental footprint which is light years smaller than wind or solar.


They may become important in colder / cloudier areas of the globe, or they may not. Solar may in fact become so inexpensive that it becomes cheaper and safer to convert seawater to diesel / jet fuel and transport it than to build and operate MSRs - but in any case it is pure speculation as MSRs simply do not exist today so we cannot determine their cost.



> They can also be sited absolutely anywhere - in cities, towns, anywhere - they do not need any source of water for cooling and are far safer than solar or wind and don't have the toxic wastes produced by solar panels.


Solar panels are silicon, which is simply another form of sand. You cannot create a nuclear power source safer than that. Spread across our deserts, solar panels might actually help reverse desertification by providing partial shade to vegetation and thus be beneficial to the climate, not harmful as you incorrectly infer.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Solar is unreliable in that it is "unpredictable".
You cannot predict if you will get maximum output or something undetermined right down to zero, or for how long that level will be maintained.
Do you require an hours worth of storage or a weeks ?
If solar (or wind) is your primary power source a "small backup generator" is no use when you need to maintain a fixed supply level. So you need a back up system that has the same capacity as the solar.. Which just adds to the total cost.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Solar is unreliable in that it is "unpredictable".
> You cannot predict if you will get maximum output or something undetermined right down to zero, or for how long that level will be maintained.
> Do you require an hours worth of storage or a weeks ?
> If solar (or wind) is your primary power source a "small backup generator" is no use when you need to maintain a fixed supply level. So you need a back up system that has the same capacity as the solar.. Which just adds to the total cost.


lol didn't I just say that? 

Actually, solar will produce SOMETHING even on cloudy days. Across most of the U.S. that value averages 4 solar hours per day, which means near December 21 you only average 2-2.5 per day and on June 21 you average 5.5-6 per day. So on a really bad day in December you might only get 1 solar hour across a really bad week. 

Strategies include a hybrid system, grid supplement, or simply reducing your energy usage when the weather is bad. But yes, it doesn't make sense to have 20 days worth of battery storage simply to be prepared for the worst cloud cover in 100 years. If you really want to be green, just get a small alcohol powered generator to top off the batteries. It only has to output DC power at a voltage matched to your battery pack, so doesn't need a fancy inverter. That's not a bad idea anyway because you can use the waste heat at the time of year you most likely need the boost.

Personally, I think a natural gas generator is perfect. With a bit of right-sizing, you would probably only fire it up a few dozen hours per year - just enough to make sure it is running in peak condition.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

No, actually what you said was very different


> over the course of a year the power it will generate from sunlight can be predicted with great accuracy, and thus it is "reliable in the long term." It can also be determined mathematically to any degree of certainty you like how much storage is needed to make that power source reliable as the sole source of energy generation - the only question is "how reliable" and "what is your budget." 95% reliability can be achieved fairly easily, and a very small generator for unexpected extended weather events combined with a modest amount of power conservation can push that up to 100%.


 See, ..100% reliability can never be achieved with any practical amount of storage and a "small" generator.
You would need a generator capeable of supplying you normal power requirements continuously, or grid back up, to be 100% reliable.
But , you are also only thinking of a personal domestic situation. ....not the bigger picture including public utilities, manufacturing industries, etc etc that have to be supported when the sun is not shining and the grid is feed from Solar and wind etc.
But even on a private domestic situation there are many other problems to consider..
# Roof space suitable size and orientation for the amount of solar needed.
# local weather conditions etc
# Individuals financial resources for Solar, Battery, Generator.
# restrictions on battery or generator use for those in units etc
# local regulations regarding Solar installations.

Even in our own sunny spot down here (no clouds for weeks) i cannot utilise solar even though i have my own property and both motivated and financially able to do it, ....but my roof orientation is wrong and any usable area is 75% shaded, so it just wont work.
My own visual assesment as i drive around is that probably less than 30% of residences (excliding apartments or similar) actually have suitable roof or yard space to install a viable solar system, and then i wonder how many of those have the desire or ability to commit the necessary funds to actually do it without major rebates ?
There is already a relatively high uptake of solar here (5-10% ?). as the result of previous generous rebate and "Feed in Tarrif" offers ( now withdrawn), and i strongly suspect all the "low hanging fruit" has been grabbed such that any further uptake is going to be mainly limited to new "built in " systems.
But again.. Domestic systems are just the crumbs around the real cake of main stream grid supply, which will not work with solar and wind alone.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> No, actually what you said was very different
> 
> See, ..100% reliability can never be achieved with any practical amount of storage and a "small" generator.
> You would need a generator capeable of supplying you normal power requirements continuously, or grid back up, to be 100% reliable.


Really, not true - depending of course upon what you mean by "small generator" and "practical amount of storage."

First storage - did you catch that battery prices have been dropping exponentially in price for over 65 years and show every indication of continuing? 

Well, forget about price for a moment and throw out some practical numbers for what constitutes "good enough." 100%, first of all, is a ridiculous number - I currently experience 20-30 hours per year with no power on the grid from thunderstorms. It's no big deal. Also, as houses get smarter there's no reason to think we can't take measures if we see available power trending too low that we can't reduce usage a bit (or a lot). Third, a "small generator" doesn't need to be nearly as large as peak usage to steadily charge your pack (or at least reduce the discharge rate until the sun shines some more - and they are ridiculously cheap. Here is a 4,000 watt model (actually big enough to completely power most homes) from Home Depot for $365 - or $1 per day for a year to pay for it.

So, even suggesting that the generator is an issue within the context of a home power system is beyond ridiculous.

Somewhat over building your solar array and having, say, 3 days worth of storage would probably have you turning on your generator a couple of days per year in most parts of this nation, none at all in many parts of this nation, and within the next 5 years would probably yield better reliability than the grid for less per month.



> But , you are also only thinking of a personal domestic situation. ....not the bigger picture including public utilities, manufacturing industries, etc etc that have to be supported when the sun is not shining and the grid is feed from Solar and wind etc.


I include domestic as an example, but I'm not limiting the discussion to that. The challenge actually becomes EASIER as it scales up. Yes I realize it requires the build-out of grid storage and that hasn't happened yet - we are talking about near future, not right this instant. In any event, at the grid level we will of course need to network the storage so that power providers can tell when, and for how long, to fire up the generators to top them off. Or actually, simply to build the reserve a bit as if you top them off and then the sun comes out you lose all the sun generated capacity. We already have plenty of grid power generators, and as battery capacity grows we will simply "retire" the least efficient sources slowly.



> But even on a private domestic situation there are many other problems to consider..
> # Roof space suitable size and orientation for the amount of solar needed.


Doesn't need to be on the roof, that is simply one of the more convenient places. However, efficiency of solar is rising while simultaneously insulation is improving and home appliance efficiency is increasing. Coupled together, it is taking less and less physical area to meet solar needs.



> # local weather conditions etc


Already covered that. Most of the U.S. averages 4 solar hours per day with less in winter, more in summer.


> # Individuals financial resources for Solar, Battery, Generator.


Nonsense. Everyone already has a budget for energy that they are paying. Wrap it all into the mortgage and the additional cost per month will be less that traditional energy bills - if not today, then in a very few years.


> # restrictions on battery or generator use for those in units etc


Those in "units" I presume means apartments or some such? They would undoubtedly either be provided by the apartment management or through the local utility. Keep in mind, whether solar is employed through an individual home's installation or through utilities is really irrelevant, and I fully expect a mix of both.


> # local regulations regarding Solar installations.


Those objections are literally disappearing.



> Even in our own sunny spot down here (no clouds for weeks) i cannot utilise solar even though i have my own property and both motivated and financially able to do it, ....but my roof orientation is wrong and any usable area is 75% shaded, so it just wont work.


"Won't work" sounds like (based on only what you wrote above) an expression of your personal priorities. You COULD cut down some trees and / or mount solar on the ground. Again, it is unimportant if you choose to adapt your own home for solar vs the utilities doing so - and by the way I approve your choice not to cut down your trees. They make a nicer home. But, my point is that this is the direction we are going and, like the transition to computers from typewriters, there is literally nothing which can stop it.



> My own visual assesment as i drive around is that probably less than 30% of residences (excliding apartments or similar) actually have suitable roof or yard space to install a viable solar system, and then i wonder how many of those have the desire or ability to commit the necessary funds to actually do it without major rebates ?


Screw rebates - they are candy to the rich to help themselves feel smug. When I was young a home stereo system of any quality at all cost $4,000 in today's dollars - now a system that sounds better can be had for $100-200. This is what is happening with solar and batteries, just a little slower.


> There is already a relatively high uptake of solar here (5-10% ?). as the result of previous generous rebate and "Feed in Tarrif" offers ( now withdrawn), and i strongly suspect all the "low hanging fruit" has been grabbed such that any further uptake is going to be mainly limited to new "built in " systems.
> But again.. Domestic systems are just the crumbs around the real cake of main stream grid supply, which will not work with solar and wind alone.


Yes and no. I believe what we will see with solar (and other alternative power) is a far greater decentralization of power generation than what we see today - a diminished version of, but not eradication of, the traditional grid.

Unless some horrible flaw shows up in their work, I suspect 24M is the first battery to truly crack the price threshold where carriers will feel comfortable with the investment. Their model is easily expandable compared to traditional battery manufacture. There will be others to come, but given 24M offers a 75% potential cost savings over Tesla's offering it will be enough to open the floodgates to adoption. My only curiosity is whether they will be able to "stabilize" the goo sufficiently to make their batteries usable by vehicles, or if it will strictly be relegated to stationary storage.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

PP, i know you are a smart guy, so i wonder why you are ignoring the obvious..
Currently, ( and for the forseeable future) domestic solar only works if you either have your own battery, or use someone else's (the grid)
With your own battery you have to size it to cover the 18-20 hours the sun dont shine at least..( say 15 kWh for a typical family) AND you have to have enough solar to charge it up again during the 4-6 hrs of (maybe ?) sun...at the same time as powering your daytime needs. 
In reality , that going to be an 6-8 kW (nameplate) system...
. Commercial install will have you in for $20k OOM !
What is the payback ?.. 10-15-20 yrs (remember finance costs)
..And of course that doesnt allow for those cloudy days with no generation !
OK..just scale up the battery x2 or x3.(45-50 kWh !)... Depending on how your weather system works. and a bit more solar to help during bad weather.
...if you havent run out of roof space already, and we are up at $40k+ !
Unless you want to forget the battery and stay on grid, then the buy in cost is much more reasonable, making it accessable to more folks, but the payback 
less, however there is a good case for that if your power prices are high enough.
But then we are back to keeping the grid going at night.
Here in Australia we are a good test case, being relatively light users, 30GW peak, 20 GW min overnight, and with coal powered Generation being decommissioned progressively over the next 10 yrs.
We are already at a critical level for fossil power generation and desperately need a solution to the situation
Best storage would be pumped hydro, but we dont have much natural resources for that, although we are thinking about it (Snowy 2.. 2GW, in 2025 maybe)
So it Battery storage or Fossil (gas) generators.
Battery ? 20 GW (min) overnight, would need 360 GWh of batteries !!
And that just takes care of i night with no bad weather next day to recharge again...so as this is critical grid supply, shall we use your 3 day guide,..we are talking over a 1000 GWh of batterys.
Last Tesla cost was $ 350k per MW(iinstalled) we are looking at $350bn...
But who can supply 1000GWh of battery and how long to supply them ?
But again, we also need the solar or wind (forget that) to charge these batteries.
Even if only planning for 350 GWh charge during the average 4 hour day, we need 100 GW (nameplate, allowing for loss/efficiency etc), just to cater for the overnight demand.....and probably the same again for daytime demand.
Currently solar is $2.5bn /GW installed, so there is another $250bn.
$600bn, for a "may get you by for nights". .. Basic 20 GW. Supply system
And yes, the costs are rough and use best known current prices, because you cannot plan on significant cost changes , especialy as much of these costs will be non material, labour, management, transport etc. which could easily increase significantly over that time period.
Here, we are going to have to start the process now, not in 10 years .
Most other storage options are more expensive anyway.

My own situation..typical of the majority of local housing...
Cannot cut down trees,..they are not on myproperty and tree removal or damage is strictly prohibited , and monitored (by satelite)
I have no yard space that could be useful for even a pole mount system...and then if you have space there are also planning restrictions to deal with.
Many houses were deliberately constructed with minimal roof space facing north (to the sun) in order to minimise solar heating (metal roof is standard here).
Believe me , i have tried every option . A 1-1.5kW max system is all i can get installed, and even that is in 50+% shade.....so no ..it wont work for me here.
Bottom line, i see no way in the short to medium term, or anything other than fossil fuels (gas most likely, but maybe coal if they can solve CS properly) to keep our overnight supply operating reliably.
Wind is unreliable and needs even more "firming" with batteries than solar, and a mostly battery storage solution is un viable physically and financially.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> PP, i know you are a smart guy, so i wonder why you are ignoring the obvious..


lol I always wonder why, even after they figure out the person they are having a dialog with is smart, people immediately assume any misunderstanding is the other guy's fault?  Ok rather than bust your chops I'll say this: For whatever reason, I have failed to communicate to you my understanding in a way that you too will understand. Follow along, and feel free to challenge my assumptions - but know that I truly believe that this scenario is already inevitable within 10 years and you would have to fundamentally dis-prove those assumptions for me to change my mind (which, if you actually did it, I would actually do - unlike some others I could name).

First assumption: Every home or business has an "energy budget." A typical small home averages $150-200 per month (including all taxes) for energy. Our financial objective is to find an alternative solution or hybrid for less than $200 per month so that it is both cheaper, and so that it "disappears" into the typical mortgage and so that it operates almost entirely without use of fossil fuels. TODAY that objective is not possible (the required solution would be MORE expensive), although I would submit that SOME alternative energy could be included in today's mix as a hybrid for less than the portion of the energy bill it displaces.



> Currently, ( and for the forseeable future) domestic solar only works if you either have your own battery, or use someone else's (the grid)


Exactly. There are some edge cases where solar plus some amount of storage (used as a simple backup power source) can still come out economically attractive if you want to bother, but savings are slim.



> With your own battery you have to size it to cover the 18-20 hours the sun dont shine at least..( say 15 kWh for a typical family) AND you have to have enough solar to charge it up again during the 4-6 hrs of (maybe ?) sun...at the same time as powering your daytime needs.
> In reality , that going to be an 6-8 kW (nameplate) system...
> . Commercial install will have you in for $20k OOM !


That is true only within a limited viewpoint which you already stipulated so I know you understand it - that being it is true if and only if we are speaking exactly of today. However, in 3-5 years that same battery pack will cost half that much, and in 6-10 years 1/4 of that amount (although initially supply might be a bit limited as they spool up production). This is already inevitable without any new discoveries EVER - just assumes one of the discoveries already in the labs succeeds - heck, may not even need that if 24M achieves their goal of 75% cost reduction. On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that there will not be some more breakthroughs between now and the next 6 years. So, 6-10 years from now that same battery pack you gave in your example (20Kwh) will cost around $5k and can be expected to last roughly 20 years. Cost per month for "battery storage" = $5000 initial cost /12 months per year /20 years financed = $20 per month added to your mortgage, plus $1/mo finance charge. Assuming storage, currently the most expensive part of a total system, is half of your total cost per month for the entire installed system, your energy bill will be around $50 per month with few seasonal variations. That is probably 1/3 to 1/4 of your current bill, assuming it started between $150-200/month. So, would you add $50/month to your mortgage to ditch $200/month in utility bills? Note that while I give the example of DIY, naturally the utilities will be striving to lower their costs the same way to remain competitive and keep their customers. Personally I think that will be only a delaying mechanism - there's simply too much overhead cost in maintaining the grid to be competitive with distributed power at the point of service - but we will have to see whether their economies of scale can continue to attract customers. Whether you do it yourself or the utilities do it to keep your business, the same technologies are in play and it really doesn't matter who does it.



> What is the payback ?.. 10-15-20 yrs (remember finance costs)


 I would think most people would include it in their home mortgage (individuals), or take out a business loan for "current and future utility service." In that case the "payback" is *immediate*, because your monthly cash outlay for <home+energy> is lowered as compared to buying from the grid. Businesses could expense the cost just like they do their current utility bill, would use the same strategy (a loan, the interest of which is also deductible).



> ..And of course that doesnt allow for those cloudy days with no generation !


Correct. So, let's triple the pack and throw in a $365 dollar generator. Now the battery cost is $60/month and the cost of the generator (also in the mortgage) comes to about $1 per month averaged over 20 years. It will probably never wear out given that it will hardly ever run.

I've cut out a bunch of your post here because I believe the numbers I've provided are far more likely and because it factors in financing, which yours did not do a good job of representing the "typical financial picture."



> And yes, the costs are rough and use best known current prices, because you cannot plan on significant cost changes , especialy as much of these costs will be non material, labour, management, transport etc. which could easily increase significantly over that time period.


That is where you (and most people) aren't seeing the trends. Why do you believe the 65 year price trends will mysteriously end? Have we run out of new ideas? I really don't think so, but if you have some evidence we have run out of new ideas I'd sincerely like to hear it. If you have solid evidence of that, I will revise my entire position. I've already asked dozens of people on multiple other forums and no one has come up with a single convincing argument that we will NOT continue to see rapid price decline for batteries - just emotional "feelings" that prices have for whatever reason already gone as low as they are going to go. But, the major financial institutions and industry leaders are finally agreeing with me - read some of the articles I've posted previously or simply google "battery price trends."



> My own situation..typical of the majority of local housing...
> Cannot cut down trees,..they are not on my property and tree removal or damage is strictly prohibited , and monitored (by satelite)
> I have no yard space that could be useful for even a pole mount system...and then if you have space there are also planning restrictions to deal with.


Yep, you personally are screwed by your choice of location. Your choices will be (as before, doesn't matter for about 6 years) either a) hope the utilities will do as I've laid out above AND pass along cost savings to you; b) move somewhere else; c) perhaps some new technology (nanoantenna arrays?) will allow you to successfully harvest some bandwidth of solar energy despite your shade issues. Nonvisible light and radio waves penetrate leaves just fine, and nanoantenna arrays have the potential (not yet demonstrated, but possible) to be up to 80-90% efficient as compared to 20% efficient for solar panels.



> Many houses were deliberately constructed with minimal roof space facing north (to the sun) in order to minimise solar heating (metal roof is standard here).
> Believe me , i have tried every option . A 1-1.5kW max system is all i can get installed, and even that is in 50+% shade.....so no ..it wont work for me here.
> Bottom line, i see no way in the short to medium term, or anything other than fossil fuels (gas most likely, but maybe coal if they can solve CS properly) to keep our overnight supply operating reliably.


Well again that is not necessarily true. The grid operators will undoubtedly follow the same trends, so you can "offshore your solar panels" from your private kingdom (your home). If solar continues to decline as it has, it will get so cheap that even inefficient processes such as the one the Navy has demonstrated to create diesel from sewater could produce carbon neutral fuel for far less than today (Swift fuel, a biological vs catalytic process, is already selling aviation gasoline for $2.50 per gallon, a lot less than you pay for imported fuel in Australia - and you can produce it domestically rather than importing it just by growing more grass). So, while I have primarily focused on solar and batteries there are other clean alternative ways to capture and store energy.



> Wind is unreliable and needs even more "firming" with batteries than solar, and a mostly battery storage solution is un viable physically and financially.


Ya, I'm not a big fan of wind. Ugly, kills birds, does NOT inherently contain the potential for significant cost reductions, and most of all it is a mechanical solution requiring continuous maintenance. I consider wind a technological dead-end.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

PP, you make quite a few "assumptions" as to future tech and cost trends etc, where as i an trying to deal with the reality of today as we in Australia have an immediate situation to deal with short term, hence all the Whoo Haa over the Tesla Big battery(100MW) being installed and the Thermal Tower Project.
But, one major flaw i see in your senario is the concept of people being happy to invest or borrow funds to install domestic solar.
Of course it makes financial sense, but as i said only a minority of properties are in reality physically suitable ( mine is not a unique case) and of the suitable ones , many (60% of all residences) are rented ( why would a landlord invest more), and of the privately owned ones remaining, its a fact that here , home ownership changes every 7.5 years on average, and 50% change homes in under 4 years.
So, you have to be very committed to invest an extra $20k into a property you dont plan on staying in long, and solar is not seen a a significant selling point to most buyers...not enought for them to want to pay the extra anyway !
If you do a true cost analysis, you will find there is currently NO financial benefit from having domestic solar. Further, for us in Au, due to the way the subsidies are funded, there are huge social consequences of domestic solar use...it directly increases the cost of grid power to those who cannot afford their own installation, and ultimately destabilises the grid both physically and commercially.
As for prices, sure the cost of cells and PV hardware etc will reduce over time (PV has actually been going up recently due to manufacturing supply constraints !). But even now power back up packs are priced many times more than the cell cost, so the costs are dictated by things like labour, overheads, installation, transportation, etc....which are likely to have a pretty firm floor eventually, and if there is a significant market demand as we expect, there is no incentive for suppliers to minimise costs.
I believe we are going to need a serious step change in both conversion (solar to electricity) tech and storage/battery tech, before real progress can be made.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> PP, you make quite a few "assumptions" as to future tech and cost trends etc, where as i an trying to deal with the reality of today as we in Australia have an immediate situation to deal with short term, hence all the Whoo Haa over the Tesla Big battery(100MW) being installed and the Thermal Tower Project.


That statement is factually untrue. I'm only making exactly ONE assumption, which is an entirely reasonable one - that being that for at least a few more years the 65+ year price trends for batteries and solar panels will continue. Once again I will ask you the simple question: Do you have knowledge of some factual information which would lead you to believe that that trend is about to mysteriously stop well short of already identified theoretical possibility? If you do, I'm open to being persuaded my assumption is incorrect.



> But, one major flaw i see in your senario is the concept of people being happy to invest or borrow funds to install domestic solar.


Ok, I'm happy to accept that many people with existing homes or businesses won't upgrade right away. They couldn't anyway - supply won't spool up that quickly. However, I can state with absolute certainty that as soon as a value proposition can be made (Save money! Ditch the grid! Save the planet!) that there will be legions of salespeople out there making that pitch, and that some percentage of people will buy. New homes? Builders will offer the homes with / without pre-installed solar, and will provide prospective customers with comparisons of anticipated savings - initially uptake may be a bit cautious, but once people start hearing from satisfied early adopters most will opt for "just a mortgage" rather than deal with utilities. Have you EVER been on the phone with your utility company? Good grief!



> Of course it makes financial sense, but as i said only a minority of properties are in reality physically suitable ( mine is not a unique case) and of the suitable ones , many (60% of all residences) are rented ( why would a landlord invest more), and of the privately owned ones remaining, its a fact that here , home ownership changes every 7.5 years on average, and 50% change homes in under 4 years.


Much of what you say is true. However I'll give a counter-example: Many landlords WILL make the investment (using the bank's money, not their own) in order to expand their business model. Why not make money on the power your tenants use too? I sure as heck would. Too, you keep circling back to the idea that most existing homes are "unsuitable." I don't agree with that, but once again it totally unimportant because soon there will be "solar utilities" who sell power to customers across the grid. They will buy or lease unused plots of land away from neighborhoods, install solar and batteries in bulk, etc. Why? Profit. Apart from sex, it is the most un-stoppable and reliable human motivator on record.



> So, you have to be very committed to invest an extra $20k into a property you dont plan on staying in long, and solar is not seen a a significant selling point to most buyers...not enought for them to want to pay the extra anyway !


You are assuming that "utilities included" is not a selling point. We live in a somewhat nice neighborhood, and my wife watches prices vs "upgrades" like a hawk - from marble counter tops to renovated kitchen to painted garage floor. There will be a value on those upgrades, and the price of the home when you sell will represent some portion of the un-amortized value of the installation. Will the first wave get all of their money back? Who knows - some will lose, some will make a profit. But for those 7 years you had constant utility prices at a savings, so even if you "lose a little" you may still be ahead.



> If you do a true cost analysis, you will find there is currently NO financial benefit from having domestic solar.


Of course not silly - that's what I've said all along. We are doing analysis based on probable future pricing.



> Further, for us in Au, due to the way the subsidies are funded, there are huge social consequences of domestic solar use...it directly increases the cost of grid power to those who cannot afford their own installation, and ultimately destabilises the grid both physically and commercially.


Which is why I'm talking about solar plus battery installations only.



> As for prices, sure the cost of cells and PV hardware etc will reduce over time (PV has actually been going up recently due to manufacturing supply constraints !).


Naturally there will be ups and downs - price is never a straight line. Solar becomes more popular, price goes up until more manufacturing drives price back down. Supply and Demand works every time. What matters is the long term trend.



> But even now power back up packs are priced many times more than the cell cost, so the costs are dictated by things like labour, overheads, installation, transportation, etc....which are likely to have a pretty firm floor eventually, and if there is a significant market demand as we expect, there is no incentive for suppliers to minimise costs.


It's still an extreme niche market, only rich yuppies and buppies are buying so they can charge anything. We are still in the Innovators phase of the cycle - once we are full into Early Adopters it will be more commodotized and prices will level out. Also I expect a whole bunch of DIY sites will pop up, kind of like this one, helping less affluent get the benefits for far less money.



> I believe we are going to need a serious step change in both conversion (solar to electricity) tech and storage/battery tech, before real progress can be made.


Nah, and that's the beauty of it. It's all about price, and once we hit the right point the floodgates open. Just like people switched from typewriters to computers - it is an unstoppable pattern of human behavior.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PhantomPholly said:


> There is not one single person on this forum, however, who doesn't understand the difference between a power source and power storage.


Unfortunately, that is not true. See *Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...* for examples.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

brian_ said:


> Unfortunately, that is not true. See *Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...* for examples.


Haha! Ok, maybe a few...


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> .............
> It's still an extreme niche market, only rich yuppies and buppies are buying so they can charge anything. We are still in the Innovators phase of the cycle - once we are full into Early Adopters it will be more commodotized and prices will level out. Also I expect a whole bunch of DIY sites will pop up, kind of like this one, helping less affluent get the benefits for far less money.
> 
> Nah, and that's the beauty of it. It's all about price, and once we hit the right point the floodgates open. Just like people switched from typewriters to computers - it is an unstoppable pattern of human behavior.


Yes its all about price....the price of utility supplied power.
If the subsidies were removed , and power returned to being a basic economic necessity for modern civilised life, rather than a "business oportunity" for providers, then no one would bother with rooftop solar.
Power should be like water or sewerage, or garbage disposal, a civic service provided at cost not something you have to supply yourself.
Every time we see a weakening or failure in one of these utility supplies (garbage , water etc) its a sign that the civilised structure is failing and we are going backwards not forwards with social progress.
Or maybe you think we should be re-installing backyard "pit dunnys" and rainwater filtration systems....(works still in the country, but a bit tricky in suburbia !).
No sorry, every subsidised domestic (and commercial) solar install just jacks up the price of power to all consumers and edges the grid system a little closer to disruption....so i hope those floodgates do not open.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I agree that the necessities for civilized life, in a wealthy country like the US, should be provided at minimal or no cost to its citizens, according to their ability to pay. So, this should include clean air, clean water, food, health care, housing, energy, and transportation. And these necessities should be priced based on the ultimate costs, such as environmental damage and worker safety. That requires government oversight, regulations, and even complete de-privatization. It is apparent that private enterprise will ultimately work against the health and welfare of people in favor of increasing the wealth of the 1%, so this is something I support.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Yes its all about price....the price of utility supplied power.
> If the subsidies were removed , and power returned to being a basic economic necessity for modern civilised life, rather than a "business oportunity" for providers, then no one would bother with rooftop solar.


I'm truly confused by what you are saying. I absolutely agree with you we should not subsidize ANYTHING, and certainly not alternative energy. My whole point is that within about 5 years clean energy will be cheaper than the alternatives WITHOUT subsidies - so get rid of 'em. The savings in bureaucracy alone would probably leave prices unchanged or lowered overall. 



> Power should be like water or sewerage, or garbage disposal, a civic service provided at cost not something you have to supply yourself.


Where I live sewage is far cheaper done locally (septic tanks) in all but urban / industrialized areas. I understand the need to regulate garbage because otherwise unscrupulous firms would simply dump it in the woods - but out here in the "country" we have almost a dozen pickup providers to choose from, and it keeps the cost low and the service reliable. The fastest / cheapest way to commoditize power is to open the field to competition - including rooftop solar and batteries, which has been my central point in this whole thread. Central control of such things has never once proven superior to consumer choice - and even if you don't choose rooftop solar (for whatever reason), the threat of lost business forces the utilities to remain cost-competitive.



> Every time we see a weakening or failure in one of these utility supplies (garbage , water etc) its a sign that the civilised structure is failing and we are going backwards not forwards with social progress.


Every time we see a weakening in such things it can always be traced back to centralized control / government crony corruption. Why some people demand we should double down on that failed idea boggles the mind.



> Or maybe you think we should be re-installing backyard "pit dunnys" and rainwater filtration systems....(works still in the country, but a bit tricky in suburbia !).


As I mentioned we have septic thanks - good for 3 more years before servicing if zombies attack and never a need to go out in the rain. Also we have an equivalent emergency water system - but commercial water is so cheap here we've never used it. With two hot water tanks (only use one, the other is backup that came with the house) we have fresh water for over a week pre-stored. Too, we have a portable $300 dollar water filter reputedly sufficient to keep us and 3 large dogs healthy for over a year if zombies attack (don't actually expect that, but out here it's entirely likely we could have a major pipe break and be without for a few weeks - and we hate bottled water). No reason you can't use a portable system like that - it is good for any water source up to and including swamp water as long as it isn't salt water, and what comes out is probably cleaner than what comes out of your tap today. As a side note we also have a whole house filter - it's probably excessive to filter shower and garden hoses, and I would have limited it to just the taps if we had built the house ourselves but no choice as an add-on. City dwellers especially should consider central filters if you value your health - city water is terrible. A bit pricey up front but cheaper in the long run than bottled water, and probably cleaner too.



> No sorry, every subsidised domestic (and commercial) solar install just jacks up the price of power to all consumers and edges the grid system a little closer to disruption....so i hope those floodgates do not open.


See my initial response - there is no need for subsidies, and if anything it harms the economy and anything that does that ultimately slows the adoption of solar.


----------

