1 reply to this topic

[eds]

New natural-gas peakers,
. . . will become increasingly rare in:
. . . . . .   4 Years, and no longer built in,
. . . . . . 10 years.

“Time, and time again,
. . . in adjacent sectors like solar, and
. . . even in energy storage,
. . . technology costs have the capacity to fall faster,
. . . than almost anybody expects,”

Consider a gas peaking plant planned for Oxnard.
. . . The California Independent System Operator found the peaker plant,
. . . would be more expensive than storage,
. . . in an analysis that used prices from 2014.
After GTM pointed out the discrepancies,
. . . between those costs, and
. . . current industry pricing,
. . . NRG Energy, the plant’s developer,
. . . suspended its construction application.

1-18-2018 Source:  #Energy Storage vs. Peaker Plant

Attached Files

•  Chart.jpg   36.52K   0 downloads

[James Richard Bailey]

In the long run, batteries will only be part of the energy storage solution. When it comes to storing industrial levels of energy, hydrogen comes up the winner. When stored at moderate pressure levels, leakage is not an issue, especially when compared to self discharge of batteries. It could be transported over long distances in existing existing natural gas pipelines without loss of potential, unlike electricity which succumbs to loss by resistance. Hydrogen can be used directly to heat and cool with no conversion loss. Refer to this site for an expanded exploration of the topic.
http://www.daveworld.biz