Some key insights from the article:

Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.

  • psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The diagram shows that they fall short on winter mornings

    My own modelling to decide what size battery I want for my house says it’s easy almost every day, but when you have three rainy and overcast days in a row you need a battery far larger or an alternative. For me the alternative is the grid; at grid scale it’s gas generators

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If somebody has to keep that gas generator serviced only to run it on winter mornings, that electricity is going to be very pricey.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Indeed, but cheaper than enough batteries to cover those times

        In the off grid home scale one I’d size and set the generator to run for several hours in a row to fully charge the battery on days when the battery was at a sufficiently low charge entering the night, at least that’s what my current modelling suggests. Diesel gensets work best when running fully loaded for at least long enough to warm up

        I guess at grid scale you find the sweet spot where most years the gas power station and batteries are balanced to provide cheapest power averaged over the year