Pumped storage is cool. We have too much energy at night and not enough at peak times. So saving some electricity up is a good idea.
One such scheme is €650m hydroelectric energy storage which will be able to store as much as 296 Megawatts (MW), with a daily storage capacity up to 2,175MWh of electricity. And employee 50 people long term.
It is just in the process of getting planning permission now. So it probably wont we operating for 7 years based on experiences elsewhere.
Pumped storage has advantages of batteries. It doesn't go on fire. And the turbines last about 50 years not the 15-20 that batteries last. The initial infrastructure costs are high but once built it is cheap.
But just on the face of it how much would a battery version of the Silvermines project cost?
| Technology | €/kW (power) | €/kWh (energy) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pumped storage hydro (PSH) | ~2,000–3,000 €/kW | ~100–200 €/kWh | Civil-heavy, very site-dependent; long life (80–100y). Costs stable for decades. |
| Lithium-ion (utility scale, LFP) | ~400–600 €/kW | ~80–120 €/kWh | Costs have fallen ~90% since 2010; China auctions hit <€50/kWh module-only. Life ~15–20y, ~6,000 cycles. |
| Iron-air (Form Energy target) | ~1,700–2,400 €/kW | ~20–30 €/kWh | Still pre-commercial; very cheap energy, but low efficiency (~60%) and expensive per kW install (slower response). Life ~30y. |
Iron-air batteries are inefficient and not widely used yet but they do get around the fire issue that worries people with lithium ion batteries. Lithium batteries have had a long term trend of more than halving in price every 5 years.
It looks to me that at the moment pumped storage and batteries are about equal. Given how batteries keep getting cheaper though it is probably the case that by the time the Silvermines project completes they will seem to be the better option.
No comments:
Post a Comment