Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Fair points, but you are glossing over important issues:

1. You are using the current point-in-time cost for batteries as compared to a subsidy spent over years while battery costs were dropping.

2. You do not include transmission upgrades and costs to distribute energy from centralized batteries.

3. You ignore the benefits and efficiencies of having generation and batteries distributed and close to the source of demand. It also increases resilience of the grid.

4. You assume the political will was there for government and taxpayers to bear the full cost burden of development of the batteries.

1. The subsidy was fixed per kWh at a level that has always been vastly above utility scale BESS. 2. Power usage is flatlining. There is no reason to need transmission upgrades for BESS. Successful projects are colocated at retiring generators, or at existing major grid terminus. 3. Are those benefits worth 4x the price? Noting again, that's 4x the subsidy, not even the actual installed cost which is closer to 8-12x. 4. It would have been cheaper even at just the subsidy rate.
re: Power usage is flatlining...

Where are you getting that? The 2026 AEMO plan says:

"Electricity consumption is expected to almost double over the coming decades, driven by population and economic growth, electrification across homes, businesses and industry and the emergence of new large loads such as data centres."

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp...

also ignoring that Australia is building snowy 2 which is the world's largest battery by far, due to be finished in 2027-2028.
Are you really holding up Snowy 2 as a success story? We're past 20bn on Snowy 2 now. Run those numbers against grid scale BESS, on both capacity and peak generation and get back to me - 10 years ago it looked good, now it's not favourable.
loading story #49301875