Excellent! Given the incessant claims about how "easy" and "cheap" it would be to convert to 100% Ruinable energy, your article elucidates many reasons why the real world data demonstrates that intermittent energy is incredibly expensive. Nonetheless, the academic zealot promoters will continue the politically approved narratives.
Meanwhile...
All time world record consumption of natural gas in 2024.
All time world record consumption of oil in 2024.
All time world record consumption of coal in 2024.
The modern world was built by, and is sustained by, the products and energies of hydrocarbons. All historical data demonstrates that all energies are cumulative and additive, not substitutes. The world burns more than 2x more wood today than it did a century ago.
IMHO, the world will consume more hydrocarbons 50 years from now than it does today. Hydrocarbons are miracle resources.
Good read! Love the invention of Variable Energy Solver (VES). I worked in rooftop solar for 13 years and often mused that the cost of the panels would become free, and that our work was still so challenging to integrate custom houses, often having to upgrade service panels, roofs, trees and even the architecture of the home in order to get a decent yield and a place to property house the energy storage systems. Transitioned my career to nuclear three years ago and haven't looked back.
Thanks. I started out being very pro-wind and solar, but over the years I started to have doubts. Developing VES was the only way I could think of to really understand the costs. Then I started looking at nuclear. It’s amazing how the truth of nuclear power is so different from the perception.
Sadly, despite much good research and information, you start from a single assumption that destroys your entire reasoning about the costs of solar power. You assume that it is used to feed the grid!
The only reason to feed the grid is so utility companies can make a profit from selling consumers electricity, including the huge costs of maintaining and upgrading the ancient grid and switching systems, and the 20% to 35% energy losses in the distribution system, and the profits for investors that want 15% returns. Oh yes, and the factbthat so many of these scientists that condemn solar power, especially in America, are funded or sponsored by fossil fuel or utility companies! So once you say, 'government scientific advisor', all the alarm bells start ringing!
The point of solar power is distributed power. If every office, warehouse, garage and commercial building had a solar roof and small battery storage system, and they were interconnected into 'mini-grids' in that locality, and they also installed electric charging points for staff and customers EV's, then you have a sustainable and cheap local power system that may still be grid-connected (usually to sell back surplus power) but would generally use the electricity during daylight hours when those businesses were operating.
If you also use the mini-grid systems for new housing developments that would be required to fit solar roofs as part of the build specification.
So, the problem isn't solar power, despite what fossil fuel sponsored scientists say. The problem is how to make profits for investors when solar power itself is actually so damned cheap!
I don’t think you understood my paper. My analysis shows that with no grid, the costs are the highest of all as you get no complementary effects. See figure 15. Losses on the current grid/distribution are not 20% to 35%, they are closer to 6%.
I have no experience of American figures, but here in Europe, solar and wind power are by far the cheapest sources, and at least some of your figures seem very high compared to European costs.
The grid losses in Britain are much higher than the 6% you quote, and in some figures for transferring electricity from offshore wind in Scotland to English consumers, 30% losses are not unusual, only compensated by the extremely low cost of wind power.
And certainly those that have costed commercial and residential mini-grids using German and Chinese equipment find the costs well below grid-provided electricity from nuclear.
I think we'll agree to differ. We seem to be living in at least different cost environments. And perhaps on different planets.
The connections from offshore wind parks to the grid aren't themselves the grid, those are feeder lines. The losses are higher because you can't easily drop large substations into the ocean, as you can with the actual grid. This is a factor not included into John's model but would make his pointer stronger if included, not weaker. Also, offshore wind is obviously not micro-grid local generation.
The costs you're citing for local generation all assume a grid as a backup. You can't compare "cost of local gen vs cost of grid" like you're doing, you have to ADD the cost unless you're willing to tolerate worse-than-Africa levels of power availability.
Solar and wind aren't cheap, they're very expensive. That's the point shown by this article. It can be hidden for a while using subsidies and legal preferences, and by ignoring what happens if you keep building them. But it's not the case. They are much more expensive than the alternatives if you assume you want to go 100% renewable. If you decide to stay where we are now and give up on increasing renewable share the cost is less dramatic, but then you'd want to remove all the subsidies (because you already accepted there's no environmental need) and then the costs are higher again. Especially considering that the low cost of solar cells is partly driven by Chinese currency manipulation; a transient political phenomenon that could go away at any time.
So you're living on the same planet to us, for better or worse, and the problem here is not different cost environments. You just aren't engaging with the arguments. And there are no "fossil-fuel sponsored scientists" misleading people about solar power. It's by far the opposite: this article doesn't touch on it, but the only real argument for renewables is climate change - and that is the claims of people who are hopelessly conflicted and corrupted by vast sums of money.
I may have missed it. Does your model include the effects of a future system where generation and storage occurs at the grid edge? Like most modelling it seems stuck on the existing system of centralised generation and transmission level grids.
My paper explains in detail that without a large regional grid that has high connectivity you don’t get complementary effects, which means more overbuilding and storage. Thus, we have a paradox, the grid is extremely expensive and disruptive to upgrade, and no wants to do it. My tables show the results with an upgraded regional grid and local generation without a large regional grid. The results are problematic either way.
I have the understanding that renewables can’t save is for many reasons; my last post opens with a list of them. I’d be happy to hear your opinion if you feel like taking a moment. I’m in search of the truth.
I agree with you on renewables, but I think nuclear power can ultimately replace fossil fuels. Nuclear power has the highest energy density of all and makes the best use of materials. However, I admit it will take a long time and be very difficult. My goal here is help uncover ways that this can be done.
Until your model has been peet-reviewed, it means basically nothing. I'm sure this will serve to reinforce the biases of a bunch of morons who are already against renewable energy, though, so good job there.
Fyi pumped hydro energy storage changes the whole equation here, by increasing storage time beyond the miniscule 19h minimum you assumed would be used everywhere. Really simpleminded analysis backed up by a fancy-sounding solver.
In my paper, I thoroughly dismantled one of the most influential peer-reviewed studies in the field. If you would like to defend it, I welcome your response. I have explained how my model works without writing a book, and I encourage anyone to replicate my results-all you need are basic programming skills. I am happy to provide additional details if needed.
Pumped hydro does not change the game. It might be cheaper in areas with ideal geology, but in most regions, it cannot be built. According to NREL, CAPEX ranges from $1,700 to $4,700 per kW for the western part of the U.S., which has relatively low population density. For 8-hour ephemeral plants, the upper end of this range is actually more expensive than lithium-ion. Additionally, pumped hydro lacks flexibility. As I noted in my paper, most developers are co-locating storage to reduce grid congestion-something that cannot be done with pumped hydro.
You rely heavily on ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority in this discussion. Why not stick to data and calculations instead?
The "paper" that you published to substack? You can't claim to have dismantled a published article without undergoing the same peer review process that it was published under. If you truly have a groundbreaking analysis on renewables that changes the game, publish it.
What you’re saying is that arithmetic, logic, and high quality sources cannot in principle contradict a peer reviewed study. Only another peer reviewed study can. Have you ever heard of the replication crisis? Most peer reviewed studies can’t be reproduced. There is a growing number of us who are tired of the establishment BS. We choose to think for ourselves. You obviously want to let the establishment do your thinking. Your choice.
I think you should look into demand side management (for industrial demand like aluminum) and also longer term storage (for household demand on the main grid), like pumped hydro and hydrogen or green liquid. My own modeling with DIETER-DIW and Pypsa shows that to transition to Netz-Zero, the main grid (transmission) decarbonizes at little additional cost in the long term in Germany or China
Demand side management is helpful for reducing peak loads, less effective for dunkelflautes, which is what you need in the long run for solar/wind grids. I touched on this in my paper. It will also not be popular with the public – they will prefer nuclear once they understand. Hydroelectric is effective, but not scalable for most of the world. I have modeled hydrogen extensively, but I have yet to publish my findings. My results show that if you use realistic assumptions, hydrogen is about the same cost as lithium-ion with overbuilding of solar/wind. The problem is you get new costs: H2 storage, electrolyzers, and fuel cells. It is easy to fool yourself into thinking these components are going to be a lot cheaper than they really will be – very similar to my point about using the cost of battery cells instead of a BESS. In addition, using curtailed solar/wind electricity to make H2 will run into the grid limitations I mentioned in my paper, unless you store locally in small (expensive) tanks.
John, Excellent analysis. For those doubting your analysis they should look at the delta between the cost of cells and the cost of a car battery pack. Cell costs are no longer the key driver, but they are the only one on a declining trajectory. Unfortunately this analysis also applies to alternative energy storage systems. It’s the balance of plant — and the grid. Microwaved power from space solar panels may find a way out of the problem. As for superconductors I dreamed of becoming a Tony Stark by developing room temperature superconductors—that was in 1965 in elementary school. Still dreaming of that grid. Thank you for you analysis. I cover some of this is my Warming Thoughts substack.
This is so terrible. You seemed to have forgotten the big gaping hole in your logic that if batteries are free, they will be utilised a lot more to prevent overbuild and power fluctuations
You have talked about the difference between battery and BESS. Free batteries will make many of the BESS requirements redundant because batteries are well, free
What you fail to understand is that batteries are an integral component of a BESS. The batteries are about 18% of the cost of the BESS. You can’t power a grid with batteries; you need a BESS. This is all explained in my paper.
Food for thought: even if you can entirely supply your electricity needs from fossil fuel generation, the addition of solar panels more than pays for itself. Remember that solar panels cost almost nothing to operate once installed, while the fossil fuel generators only work by burning costly gas or coal. You don’t have to pay for that fuel while the sun is shining.
Do you disagree with the general approach of electrification to replace fossil fuels? If we do that, there will be large-scale infrastructure investment costs which should be borne by the public sector. The price of solar panels and batteries has dropped so much because China’s investment in large-scale manufacturing lowered the cost through economies of scale. Why won’t this also occur with expansion of the grid, use of HVDC etc? Also emphasis on cost assumes there is a cheaper alternative.
as i said, did you not read the article ? If the grid is 100% solar/wind you still need to maintain 100% fossil fuel backups. The earth doesn't have the resource or funding to build the storage needed for a renewal grid . The cost of backup for the US alone is 30% of its GDP. your energy costs would be 10-20x what they are now. The earth also has less resources the maintain a renewal grid compared to fossil fuels.
Once you realise the co2 scam you'll jump straight off the renewables scam. The valid scientific data shows the ocean alone absorbs co2 25x faster than climate scientists will tell you.
You do realise the earth as a climate is just coming out of an ice age. it's in a natural warming cycle and has nothing to do with human emissions. Both the UK and Australian government admitted to falsifying temperature data.
The entire climate scam is a massive PR stunt. What better way to tax private and business enterprise then use a metric no
one can actually prove/disprove ?
just take a look at france, the tipping point with EVs and emissions has been reached so they now switch to taxing cars based on weight. Are you fucking kidding me ? So they force everyone out of lightweight, extremely low emission cars into super heavy zero emissions and now weight is the issue.
Before dismissing the co2 problem as a scam, I suggest you read about Earth’s previous great extinction events: “The ends of the Earth” is a good start.
looks like garbage to me, i've done the research and actually intelligent enough to see the giant holes in current climate science. Out of the 13 different models i've studied they all produce vastly different end results. For fucks sake, you can't even tell me if it's going to rain next week. If your macro models are nowhere near correct i'm sorry but your foundations may as well be dog shit.
There is serious consideration of lossless superconducting transmission of renewable-based energy (the sun is always shining somewhere). Michael Barnard wrote about it recently. Wouldn’t that address the issue? Also, a summary like you just wrote helps me to decide whether to read or just skim a long article.
Also doesn't make much point when they are actively spraying to block the sun's rays to 'fix climate change'. I wonder why the government would actively promote panels, when they are also actively preventing their efficient use. Sounds just like government stairs-dont-reach-the-landing logic to me!
One thing I think would help is to require hourly analysis to show these dynamics - annual matching studies completely miss this detail!
Worth flagging that batteries can be charged by gas, so the overall capacity you need can go lower with solar + storage + gas at the cost of higher emissions
Thanks. I'm working on adding more types of storage to VES. I'm particularly interested in Iron-air batteries as they get a lot of attention. The big problem is there is no high quality data with prices, efficiencies and life for the various storage technologies beyond lithium-ion. I can model hydrogen storage. I plan to write up the results at some point.
I think LDES in general is a misnomer for "extremely cheap storage" in general, I'm not so bullish these days until someone proves they can do it cheaper than lithium
Excellent! Given the incessant claims about how "easy" and "cheap" it would be to convert to 100% Ruinable energy, your article elucidates many reasons why the real world data demonstrates that intermittent energy is incredibly expensive. Nonetheless, the academic zealot promoters will continue the politically approved narratives.
Meanwhile...
All time world record consumption of natural gas in 2024.
All time world record consumption of oil in 2024.
All time world record consumption of coal in 2024.
The modern world was built by, and is sustained by, the products and energies of hydrocarbons. All historical data demonstrates that all energies are cumulative and additive, not substitutes. The world burns more than 2x more wood today than it did a century ago.
IMHO, the world will consume more hydrocarbons 50 years from now than it does today. Hydrocarbons are miracle resources.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-scale-of-global-fossil-fuel-production/
Good read! Love the invention of Variable Energy Solver (VES). I worked in rooftop solar for 13 years and often mused that the cost of the panels would become free, and that our work was still so challenging to integrate custom houses, often having to upgrade service panels, roofs, trees and even the architecture of the home in order to get a decent yield and a place to property house the energy storage systems. Transitioned my career to nuclear three years ago and haven't looked back.
Thanks. I started out being very pro-wind and solar, but over the years I started to have doubts. Developing VES was the only way I could think of to really understand the costs. Then I started looking at nuclear. It’s amazing how the truth of nuclear power is so different from the perception.
Sadly, despite much good research and information, you start from a single assumption that destroys your entire reasoning about the costs of solar power. You assume that it is used to feed the grid!
The only reason to feed the grid is so utility companies can make a profit from selling consumers electricity, including the huge costs of maintaining and upgrading the ancient grid and switching systems, and the 20% to 35% energy losses in the distribution system, and the profits for investors that want 15% returns. Oh yes, and the factbthat so many of these scientists that condemn solar power, especially in America, are funded or sponsored by fossil fuel or utility companies! So once you say, 'government scientific advisor', all the alarm bells start ringing!
The point of solar power is distributed power. If every office, warehouse, garage and commercial building had a solar roof and small battery storage system, and they were interconnected into 'mini-grids' in that locality, and they also installed electric charging points for staff and customers EV's, then you have a sustainable and cheap local power system that may still be grid-connected (usually to sell back surplus power) but would generally use the electricity during daylight hours when those businesses were operating.
If you also use the mini-grid systems for new housing developments that would be required to fit solar roofs as part of the build specification.
So, the problem isn't solar power, despite what fossil fuel sponsored scientists say. The problem is how to make profits for investors when solar power itself is actually so damned cheap!
I don’t think you understood my paper. My analysis shows that with no grid, the costs are the highest of all as you get no complementary effects. See figure 15. Losses on the current grid/distribution are not 20% to 35%, they are closer to 6%.
I have no experience of American figures, but here in Europe, solar and wind power are by far the cheapest sources, and at least some of your figures seem very high compared to European costs.
The grid losses in Britain are much higher than the 6% you quote, and in some figures for transferring electricity from offshore wind in Scotland to English consumers, 30% losses are not unusual, only compensated by the extremely low cost of wind power.
And certainly those that have costed commercial and residential mini-grids using German and Chinese equipment find the costs well below grid-provided electricity from nuclear.
I think we'll agree to differ. We seem to be living in at least different cost environments. And perhaps on different planets.
You're still not understanding the paper.
The connections from offshore wind parks to the grid aren't themselves the grid, those are feeder lines. The losses are higher because you can't easily drop large substations into the ocean, as you can with the actual grid. This is a factor not included into John's model but would make his pointer stronger if included, not weaker. Also, offshore wind is obviously not micro-grid local generation.
The costs you're citing for local generation all assume a grid as a backup. You can't compare "cost of local gen vs cost of grid" like you're doing, you have to ADD the cost unless you're willing to tolerate worse-than-Africa levels of power availability.
Solar and wind aren't cheap, they're very expensive. That's the point shown by this article. It can be hidden for a while using subsidies and legal preferences, and by ignoring what happens if you keep building them. But it's not the case. They are much more expensive than the alternatives if you assume you want to go 100% renewable. If you decide to stay where we are now and give up on increasing renewable share the cost is less dramatic, but then you'd want to remove all the subsidies (because you already accepted there's no environmental need) and then the costs are higher again. Especially considering that the low cost of solar cells is partly driven by Chinese currency manipulation; a transient political phenomenon that could go away at any time.
So you're living on the same planet to us, for better or worse, and the problem here is not different cost environments. You just aren't engaging with the arguments. And there are no "fossil-fuel sponsored scientists" misleading people about solar power. It's by far the opposite: this article doesn't touch on it, but the only real argument for renewables is climate change - and that is the claims of people who are hopelessly conflicted and corrupted by vast sums of money.
I may have missed it. Does your model include the effects of a future system where generation and storage occurs at the grid edge? Like most modelling it seems stuck on the existing system of centralised generation and transmission level grids.
My paper explains in detail that without a large regional grid that has high connectivity you don’t get complementary effects, which means more overbuilding and storage. Thus, we have a paradox, the grid is extremely expensive and disruptive to upgrade, and no wants to do it. My tables show the results with an upgraded regional grid and local generation without a large regional grid. The results are problematic either way.
This article could literally be a Master’s Thesis.
If more and more solar and wind was the answer, electricity prices in Germany and California would be dirt cheap. They are not!!!!!
Natural gas to nuclear is the only logical solution
N2N
Robert Bryce
Nice article, thank you.
I have the understanding that renewables can’t save is for many reasons; my last post opens with a list of them. I’d be happy to hear your opinion if you feel like taking a moment. I’m in search of the truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gnug315/p/our-planet-sized-gordian-knot
I agree with you on renewables, but I think nuclear power can ultimately replace fossil fuels. Nuclear power has the highest energy density of all and makes the best use of materials. However, I admit it will take a long time and be very difficult. My goal here is help uncover ways that this can be done.
Until your model has been peet-reviewed, it means basically nothing. I'm sure this will serve to reinforce the biases of a bunch of morons who are already against renewable energy, though, so good job there.
Fyi pumped hydro energy storage changes the whole equation here, by increasing storage time beyond the miniscule 19h minimum you assumed would be used everywhere. Really simpleminded analysis backed up by a fancy-sounding solver.
In my paper, I thoroughly dismantled one of the most influential peer-reviewed studies in the field. If you would like to defend it, I welcome your response. I have explained how my model works without writing a book, and I encourage anyone to replicate my results-all you need are basic programming skills. I am happy to provide additional details if needed.
Pumped hydro does not change the game. It might be cheaper in areas with ideal geology, but in most regions, it cannot be built. According to NREL, CAPEX ranges from $1,700 to $4,700 per kW for the western part of the U.S., which has relatively low population density. For 8-hour ephemeral plants, the upper end of this range is actually more expensive than lithium-ion. Additionally, pumped hydro lacks flexibility. As I noted in my paper, most developers are co-locating storage to reduce grid congestion-something that cannot be done with pumped hydro.
You rely heavily on ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority in this discussion. Why not stick to data and calculations instead?
The "paper" that you published to substack? You can't claim to have dismantled a published article without undergoing the same peer review process that it was published under. If you truly have a groundbreaking analysis on renewables that changes the game, publish it.
What you’re saying is that arithmetic, logic, and high quality sources cannot in principle contradict a peer reviewed study. Only another peer reviewed study can. Have you ever heard of the replication crisis? Most peer reviewed studies can’t be reproduced. There is a growing number of us who are tired of the establishment BS. We choose to think for ourselves. You obviously want to let the establishment do your thinking. Your choice.
I think you should look into demand side management (for industrial demand like aluminum) and also longer term storage (for household demand on the main grid), like pumped hydro and hydrogen or green liquid. My own modeling with DIETER-DIW and Pypsa shows that to transition to Netz-Zero, the main grid (transmission) decarbonizes at little additional cost in the long term in Germany or China
Demand side management is helpful for reducing peak loads, less effective for dunkelflautes, which is what you need in the long run for solar/wind grids. I touched on this in my paper. It will also not be popular with the public – they will prefer nuclear once they understand. Hydroelectric is effective, but not scalable for most of the world. I have modeled hydrogen extensively, but I have yet to publish my findings. My results show that if you use realistic assumptions, hydrogen is about the same cost as lithium-ion with overbuilding of solar/wind. The problem is you get new costs: H2 storage, electrolyzers, and fuel cells. It is easy to fool yourself into thinking these components are going to be a lot cheaper than they really will be – very similar to my point about using the cost of battery cells instead of a BESS. In addition, using curtailed solar/wind electricity to make H2 will run into the grid limitations I mentioned in my paper, unless you store locally in small (expensive) tanks.
John, Excellent analysis. For those doubting your analysis they should look at the delta between the cost of cells and the cost of a car battery pack. Cell costs are no longer the key driver, but they are the only one on a declining trajectory. Unfortunately this analysis also applies to alternative energy storage systems. It’s the balance of plant — and the grid. Microwaved power from space solar panels may find a way out of the problem. As for superconductors I dreamed of becoming a Tony Stark by developing room temperature superconductors—that was in 1965 in elementary school. Still dreaming of that grid. Thank you for you analysis. I cover some of this is my Warming Thoughts substack.
This is so terrible. You seemed to have forgotten the big gaping hole in your logic that if batteries are free, they will be utilised a lot more to prevent overbuild and power fluctuations
You should read my article before commenting. I thoroughly explained the difference between the cost of batteries and the cost of storage (BESS).
You have talked about the difference between battery and BESS. Free batteries will make many of the BESS requirements redundant because batteries are well, free
What you fail to understand is that batteries are an integral component of a BESS. The batteries are about 18% of the cost of the BESS. You can’t power a grid with batteries; you need a BESS. This is all explained in my paper.
That is actually among the primary purposes of this article.
Food for thought: even if you can entirely supply your electricity needs from fossil fuel generation, the addition of solar panels more than pays for itself. Remember that solar panels cost almost nothing to operate once installed, while the fossil fuel generators only work by burning costly gas or coal. You don’t have to pay for that fuel while the sun is shining.
did you actually read the article ?
Do you disagree with the general approach of electrification to replace fossil fuels? If we do that, there will be large-scale infrastructure investment costs which should be borne by the public sector. The price of solar panels and batteries has dropped so much because China’s investment in large-scale manufacturing lowered the cost through economies of scale. Why won’t this also occur with expansion of the grid, use of HVDC etc? Also emphasis on cost assumes there is a cheaper alternative.
as i said, did you not read the article ? If the grid is 100% solar/wind you still need to maintain 100% fossil fuel backups. The earth doesn't have the resource or funding to build the storage needed for a renewal grid . The cost of backup for the US alone is 30% of its GDP. your energy costs would be 10-20x what they are now. The earth also has less resources the maintain a renewal grid compared to fossil fuels.
Once you realise the co2 scam you'll jump straight off the renewables scam. The valid scientific data shows the ocean alone absorbs co2 25x faster than climate scientists will tell you.
You do realise the earth as a climate is just coming out of an ice age. it's in a natural warming cycle and has nothing to do with human emissions. Both the UK and Australian government admitted to falsifying temperature data.
The entire climate scam is a massive PR stunt. What better way to tax private and business enterprise then use a metric no
one can actually prove/disprove ?
just take a look at france, the tipping point with EVs and emissions has been reached so they now switch to taxing cars based on weight. Are you fucking kidding me ? So they force everyone out of lightweight, extremely low emission cars into super heavy zero emissions and now weight is the issue.
Before dismissing the co2 problem as a scam, I suggest you read about Earth’s previous great extinction events: “The ends of the Earth” is a good start.
looks like garbage to me, i've done the research and actually intelligent enough to see the giant holes in current climate science. Out of the 13 different models i've studied they all produce vastly different end results. For fucks sake, you can't even tell me if it's going to rain next week. If your macro models are nowhere near correct i'm sorry but your foundations may as well be dog shit.
That book isn’t climate science, it’s paleontology. Not based on models, not part of a political agenda, just science
There is serious consideration of lossless superconducting transmission of renewable-based energy (the sun is always shining somewhere). Michael Barnard wrote about it recently. Wouldn’t that address the issue? Also, a summary like you just wrote helps me to decide whether to read or just skim a long article.
Rethinking Power: Superconductors, Supergrids, and Supernode’s Bold Bethttps://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/rethinking-power-superconductors-supergrids-and-supernodes-bold-bet-5413664a3887
Also doesn't make much point when they are actively spraying to block the sun's rays to 'fix climate change'. I wonder why the government would actively promote panels, when they are also actively preventing their efficient use. Sounds just like government stairs-dont-reach-the-landing logic to me!
This is well done! I love the three phases.
One thing I think would help is to require hourly analysis to show these dynamics - annual matching studies completely miss this detail!
Worth flagging that batteries can be charged by gas, so the overall capacity you need can go lower with solar + storage + gas at the cost of higher emissions
Thanks. I'm working on adding more types of storage to VES. I'm particularly interested in Iron-air batteries as they get a lot of attention. The big problem is there is no high quality data with prices, efficiencies and life for the various storage technologies beyond lithium-ion. I can model hydrogen storage. I plan to write up the results at some point.
I think LDES in general is a misnomer for "extremely cheap storage" in general, I'm not so bullish these days until someone proves they can do it cheaper than lithium