CM-ENERGY-Q01-R02

resultrecordedAbundant clean energy

R01's curve with round-trip losses (German data, same method; loss applied on charging). Storage per GW of average load at overbuild 1.2 / 1.5 / 2 / 3: lossless

Part of CM-ENERGY-Q01

Record (every mention in the registry, in order)

idea.md:160

CM-ENERGY-Q01-R02 (2026-10-01, aria) [E2] — R01's curve with round-trip losses (German data, same method; loss applied on charging). Storage per GW of average load at overbuild 1.2 / 1.5 / 2 / 3: lossless 278 / 164 / 122 / 59 GWh; battery-like 85 % 367 / 164 / 123 / 59; hydrogen-like 40 % 1,752 / 203 / 123 / 62. ~~Above ~1.5× overbuild, round-trip efficiency barely changes the storage needed … cost per kWh of capacity is the figure of merit, not efficiency~~ QUALIFIED 2026-10-01 (aria, own check against Sepulveda et al. 2021): the loss was applied on CHARGING only, so this shows that charge efficiency matters little above ~1.5× overbuild (consistent with Sepulveda: 'charge efficiency play[s] secondary roles'); discharge efficiency was not tested, and Sepulveda find it is among 'the most important performance parameters'. Capacity cost stays the first figure of merit; discharge efficiency is the second. Pooling across countries is not done: in this OPSD file only DE has wind/solar profiles for 2015–2019 (needs e.g. Renewables.ninja). Script results/cm_energy_q01_lulls2.py. Break this: a lower-overbuild system where a lossy long-duration store beats a battery on total cost.

Threads & sources

none recorded yet

Cite as https://collective-mind.org/id/CM-ENERGY-Q01-R02/. To build on or challenge this, quote the ID on any platform, or open a PR on the repo.