So , about US$ 4.0million per km For HP gas pipe instalation..
..that is Au$5.0 bn for 365 km, ..IE, Au$ 13.7 million per km , (or US$ 8.0 million per km )
But PV cannot supply power continuously or reliably 24/7.
They dont give any costs, even estimates, for buying the used packs, sorting, testing, adapting to their system, or final disposal / recycling ( bound to be a requirement !)
A”average house” using 3 kW would consume 26,000 kWhours in a year .
Efficiency has nothing to do with costs of fuel, construction, or operation costs.
i dont recall “production energy invested” ever being included in PV or Wind efficiency either.
If pipe were as cheap and easy as you're trying to show, new PV power production wouldn't be outpacing new fossil (almost all NG, now) worldwide at five to one.
With battery storage, it can...cleaner, quicker to build, and cheaper. PV is cheaper than new fossil *even when storage costs are factored in* Using a second life battery, many of the costs (both money and environmental ) are spread over a longer time. Installation costs are less, since (like PV) modules arrive on site ready to hook up.
No. Are you that stupid? Honest efficiency numbers include the energy cost of producing the fuel...we've been agreeing on that about hydrogen for weeks. Also the conversion efficiency , of fuel to electricity.
BTU buys packs to their specs, in lots, from specialists that are breaking down EVs. No "sorting or adapting to their system", they build racks set up to "plug and play" the packs, in modified shipping containers. When those packs are fully worn out, battery recyclers are paying them for the packs, probably at a premium, since they arrive at the recycler in large groups of similar packs, easing recycling.
Your linked article was all about storage for EV recharging stations……nothing to do with grid level storage systems.
You're confused.
No, this one,…
…..totally irrelavent to grid level storage
"When the first large wave of EVs reaches the end of its life, the number of old batteries will surge. But there’s already a huge supply. “The automotive industry produces 10 times more batteries than what the stationary energy storage sector needs annually,” Alberti says. “As a result, we have enough capacity to stabilize entire grids, balancing the output from wind turbines and PV installations across Germany and the EU.”
And i am pretty sure that whatever they do, it wont be enough to ensure reliable electricity supply from a mostly Solar+Wind grid generation supply.
Why should we use expensive and difficult to handle hydrogen, if we can bridge times with little sun and wind by simple natural gas plants?! No one will care about the CO2 pollution of this few hours per year. You don't want to accept, that renewables will cover the main amount of the energy demand in the future. Not the whole. But neither nuclear nor hydrogen power will be the solution for filling the gap. Both are way too expensive.
...and you'd be wrong, as all the evidence indicates. That you don't want to admit that, doesn't change reality.
......and we'll see cold fusion power any day now...
“Dunkelflaute. !”…..you remember that ? ,..those tricky little shortages of wind, some as long as 10 days across the whole country and even most of Europe at times.
No, i do accept that Solar and Wind can supply the main amount of electricity, most of the time, but they cannot supply ALL the electricity ALL of the time… and to do that using gas plants or batteries, would be impossibly expensiveYou don't want to accept, that renewables will cover the main amount of the energy demand in the future. Not the whole. But neither nuclear nor hydrogen power will be the solution for filling the gap. Both are way too expensive.
Errr ?..i think you may find that “all the evidence” currently suggests that no country/state with a high % of Wind and Solar has been able to prevent power blackouts and shortages , because none of them have been able to install sufficient storage or non Fossil fueled backup,
Stop dreaming. Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity. That's really no new information
www.nucnet.org
Why should this be more expensive than building your so loves nuclear power plants? It's much cheaper and much faster.... We need the power now and not in 30 years.
so you and other anti nuclear zelots keep saying…Stop dreaming. Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity. That's really no new information
who said that ?
Sorry, this is just the fact, that nuclear power is the most expensive way to produce electricity. Some countries have decided to go that way, the people are paying the bill. The electricity costs in Germany have nothing to do with the way of producing the energy, but with politics.
The real fact is, that all countries that have converted significant proportion of their grid generation to Wind and Solar, have experienced dramatic increases in the cost of electricity to consumers.
?! Where do you read that?
One, you haven't linked to anything that shows that, and two, massive increases in power needs due to AI and Crypto have driven demand up, in all industrialized countries.
You keep presenting your "all or nothing" argument, and ignoring the time it takes to bring your blue sky "someday, maybe" white hydrogen online. *If ever*
