[probablypower]

Batteries don't provide meaningful flexibility on a continental scale. They're useful in localised frequency control or microgrid flexibility.

An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.

The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.

[abdullahkhalids]

> An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Solution: I can't compute the space and materials, but can estimate the cost.

Norway has 1240 storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 87 TWh [1], which yields an average of 70 GWh/reservoir.

Last year, in China, a 16 GWh battery storage plant received an average bid price of $US66.3/KWh [2]. From this we can compute that a 70 GWh plant should cost $US4.65 billion.

A bit on the high side, but can battery prices fall by another order of magnitude? Then again, this is for replicating one reservoir. Replicating 1240 would be a 5 trillion dollar endeavor.

[1] https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftpr...

[2] https://reneweconomy.com.au/mind-blowing-battery-cell-prices...

[bryanlarsen]

That's why I said 100% renewable was hard and expensive. A grid that gets 5-10% of its energy from natural gas, but can get 100% of it's power from nuclear + gas during a dankelflaute provides optimally cheap + secure power.

> The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.

That's something batteries are extremely good at.