Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The huge difference between solar and tidal energy is the predictability. Tides can be predicted in advance - you always know exactly when and how much electricity you'll get. That's really valuable in a world of increasingly volatile electricity supply.

Solar will probably be far cheaper per installed MW (although capacity factor will be much lower), but batteries are still a long way from being cost effective. The cheapest batteries right now cost $100/kWh or $100k/MWh. Battery costs are still falling, but the curve is levelling off.

That price means that time-shifting 1 MWh of energy a day for 10 years would add $27 per MWh to the cost of electricity (ignoring ongoing maintenance costs, and assuming a 1MWh battery can do 4k cycles). The company behind this is forecasting $50/MWh of generation. Solar on its own right now sits at $30/MWh, although presumably that's for places with relatively high capacity factors.

The limitations are obvious - this is very geographically constrained. I suspect there will be a small place for this type of technology in the renewable mix - especially in remote and northern places. Then again, offshore wind is already sitting at below $50/MWh and doesn't have the same geographic constraints - so maybe it's a better bet.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: