Not going to happen my friend. Batteries of any kind price is a multiple of the Energy source to make that battery.
Naturally. That has factored into battery prices for over 65 years. What leads you to think the trend will suddnely change now?
Well as we have all learned and not talked about is even Lithium batteries have a negative EROI meaning it takes more energy to make the battery that it ever provide the user over its life time.
Um, are you saying that all battery manufacturers are currently operating at a loss, and always have been? It's all some kind of plot to confuse us?
Batteries are just like hydrogen gas. They are energy carries, not fuel sources. That means any energy coming form a carrier is a waste of energy robbing your children's future. and would be better utilized if you just used the fuel that was used to make the carrier.
I think you've had more to drink than I have. Yes, batteries only store energy and don't produce it. That is the purpose of a battery. The question is, how much does storing and releasing energy add to the total cost of power delivered over the course of the year. If the trends continue (which is the question of this post), battery costs will become nigh-on irrelevant.
Again hydrogen comes from natural gas and is only 60% efficient. 10 units of energy input, and 6 units out. Leaving you with 4 lost units of energy forever. You are better off and cost less to just burn the natural gas to start with.
But, if they really had to burn that much natural gas just to make the battery, how did they make any money on it? This doesn't hold water.
More good intentions with unintentional consequences. As of today and I speak professionally. Anything you take off-grid is going to cost you 5 to 10 times more than buying it from the POCO the rest of your life. Not only are you paying more than you have to, but also become a heavy polluter. It took a lot of energy to make those batteries you cannot recover.
I'm not buying this line of thinking. The cost of ANY "ingredients" already includes the cost of the energy to deliver them. All energy and ingredients used in making batteries, in turn, must have been profitable or the company providing those ingredients or energy would have gone out of business.
Only way to make Hydrogen and Batteries work is using cheap reliable round the clock using nuclear power, followed by hydro. Wind is about break even, and solar is a loss of EROI.
What figures are you quoting? Even today solar generation is approaching parity with wind generation, and both need batteries to be useful when the sun doesn't shine / wind doesn't blow.
Well it's all interesting but is pretty devoid of economics and facts, and says nothing at all about whether the 65 year trend might find some hidden snag bringing it to an inexplicable halt inches short of the finish line.
This year in the U.S., levelized costs of different sources show natural gas to be the clear leader at this point in time for non-peaker plants. Peaker plants become irrelevant with battery storage, so can be ignored for direct comparison with solar, wind, etc. On the unsubsidized page of the Lazard's Report
we see onshore wind currently has an advantage over solar, but wind is declining linearly (and slowly) while solar drops in half every 3.5-5 years. The trend is what matters, not current prices. In 10 years if current trends are not suddenly interrupted, solar + batteries will be the cheapest choice.
So, returning to the original question: Do you have some fact-based reason to believe that the 65 year trends will suddenly stop in less than 10 years?