Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

canarymedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#71

Post by epups »

Toutouxc wrote: post #67
epups wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bad! So, the issue is that the US needs 3800TW of electricity every hour, and by the end of this year it will have 0.014 TW of battery capacity. It is clear that batteries are not replacing base load generation any time soon.

You're making the same mistake again. The operation in "Terawatt-hour" is multiplication, not division. It's not Terawatt-per-hour, it's Terawatt-for-an-hour. 1 TWh is the amount of electricity you consume when you run a 1 TW machine for 1 hour. Or a 2 TW machine for half an hour. Or a 500 GW machine for two hours. > US needs 3800TW of electricity every hour This alone should give you pause. "3800 TW of electricity"…

I was trying to place everything in the same unit as much as possible so that we could compare, and it appears I failed miserably.

However, you seem to be really good at it. Could you tell me which proportion of the US' electricity needs (I didn't want to say power before because then we are including things like oil) can be fulfilled with 14 gigawatts of batteries?

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#72

Post by wolverine876 »

The_Colonel wrote: post #19
wolverine876 wrote: post #7

How long does the typical battery last before it needs significant new investment (major maintenance or replacement)? In other words, how long before we need to install another 30 GW not to increase capacity, but to maintain it? I'm not a pessimist but I know that at this stage in an adoption cycle, it's all gain, but that's not the long-term reality. I'm wondering what the long-term looks like. In part, if the capac…

Tesla Megapacks come with a 15-year "no defect" and "energy retention" warranty. A 10 or 20 year "performance guarantee" is available for an additional cost. (an example of Li-Ion based storage, I assume it won't differ wildly with other producers) I think they can in principle last longer if used well. You can control the temperature, you can use weather forecast (as part of some network-wide forecast of future requ…

Warranty or not, I don't think I'm relying on Tesla's performance claims as data. I know, it's warrantied - 'but wasn't it your fault? What humidity level did you store it in? The moisture sensor says ...'

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#73

Post by The_Colonel »

ben_w wrote: post #70
The_Colonel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's sufficient that people don't expect exponential change even when it's happening reliably for ages This sort of implied that people should have been expecting exponential change. But even if you know what exponential growth is, you couldn't know in advance with certainty if it would be the case for battery storage, renewables etc.

For batteries and renewables, the growth had already been exponential for a decade or more prior to the relevant conversations and threads, but people were (even last month on HN) looking at the currently installed capacity and responding as if that was all it could ever be. (At some point the growth will slow, but that's never the criticism given in any replies I remember).

It's the same problem, you don't know when the exponential growth stops / fades.

Nuclear power was growing exponentially during 60s, 70s, 80s. Would it mean it has to continue growing exponentially through 90s and 00s?

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#74

Post by ben_w »

The_Colonel wrote: post #73
ben_w wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For batteries and renewables, the growth had already been exponential for a decade or more prior to the relevant conversations and threads, but people were (even last month on HN) looking at the currently installed capacity and responding as if that was all it could ever be. (At some point the growth will slow, but that's never the criticism given in any replies I remember).

It's the same problem, you don't know when the exponential growth stops / fades. Nuclear power was growing exponentially during 60s, 70s, 80s. Would it mean it has to continue growing exponentially through 90s and 00s?

It would be the same thing if the people I'm thinking of actually meant "I think the exponential will, or might, soon stop"; I'm asserting they didn't demonstrate any awareness of what an exponential even is, which is a precondition to be able to make the claim it was going to stop.

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#75

Post by XorNot »

pbmonster wrote: post #51
gwd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two years ago when I was considering installing a battery along with my solar panels, here was the estimations I did: 1. Additional cost of installing a 13.5kWh Tesla Powerwall was quoted as being around £12,000 2. Warranty was 80% capacity after 10 years Now, my experience with batteries in general is that once they start to go, they deteriorate pretty rapidly; so 80% after 10 years to me basically account 10 years…

Is there a reason you did the math with a 13.5kWh battery? Do you heat a large house electrically? Do you need to charge an EV at night off that battery? Most people can get away with a significantly smaller battery - if your goal is to just get a normal house through a single night. That goal can be achieved pretty economically, especially if you're willing to use grid electricity on mornings with little sun on your…

What is the point of a grid battery if you don't heat your house electrically, particularly from the point of view of climate change which is meant to be the real reason we're doing this.

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#76

Post by ChatGTP »

XorNot wrote: post #60
ChatGTP wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case , yes, why can't my energy requirements be supplanted with a fully charged battery grid, solar from somewhere else, or gas peaker or something similar? Doesn't seem like a compelling case for running coal power plants 24/7 to be honest.

For the same reason they're not now, and why you currently don't have batteries and are only just now considering solar panels: cost. For example, here's the breakdown of the Australian NSW energy regulators supply and demand dashboard: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e... See the scale on the right for demand? The bottom is 6,000 MW. That's 24/7, all year round pretty much. My home state n…

For the same reason they're not now, and why you currently don't have batteries and are only just now considering solar panels: cost.

No I don’t have solar or batteries because I only just purchased a property and ran out of time to do more work before winter arrived (snow). Maybe your point is I couldn’t have afforded it ten years ago regardless ?

Appreciate the long response. I honestly read your post as a lot of insurmountable hurdles when realistically, as you point out. We can do the numbers and we will build the solutions.

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#77

Post by rstuart4133 »

ChatGTP wrote: post #76
XorNot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason they're not now, and why you currently don't have batteries and are only just now considering solar panels: cost. For example, here's the breakdown of the Australian NSW energy regulators supply and demand dashboard: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e... See the scale on the right for demand? The bottom is 6,000 MW. That's 24/7, all year round pretty much. My home state n…

For the same reason they're not now, and why you currently don't have batteries and are only just now considering solar panels: cost. No I don’t have solar or batteries because I only just purchased a property and ran out of time to do more work before winter arrived (snow). Maybe your point is I couldn’t have afforded it ten years ago regardless ? Appreciate the long response. I honestly read your post as a lot of i…

He, like me, comes from Australia. He's quoting you figures from NSW.

South Australia is another state in Australia. Unlike NSW, SA doesn't have any native deposits of coal or natural gas, so about a decade ago SA started renewable generation. It is now running at 70% renewable. That's a yearly average, not some peak figure. A 100% renewable day is pretty normal for them. That's the highest in the OECD. In 2026, they expect it to be 85% https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/consumers/energy-grid-and...

I don't doubt they will get to 85%. XorNot's comments might be relevant for the remaining 15%, but I suspect he will find the sand moving underneath his feet. For example, he only talks about storage but a large portion of SA's stability comes from over provisioning. It's possible to over provision because renewables are so cheap. I suspect EV's will have an impact. Even if they don't contribute to the grid they can soak up all that over provisioning.

Then there is storage he doesn't consider - like hot water systems. There are other similar loads, like water desalination and aluminium production. Many of these are switched loads. And they have been switched loads forever because matching generation to load isn't a new problem. Coal (nuclear is worse) has a comparable problem to renewables - it can't be switched off quickly. They needed somewhere to dump all that power. So among other things they made aluminium with it.

Economics drove the introduction of switched loads happened when the price of power wasn't as unpredictable as it is today. Renewables have driven the wholesale electricity prices are wild in Australia. As in, on most days the electricity price will go negative, ie they pay you to draw power. At other times the price goes through the roof. We have a retail system that shields us from that of course so you get a flat(ish) price, but you can opt to go through a retailer that exposes you to the wholesale price. If you do that a battery currently has a better return than installing solar. My guess is that won't last forever, as a lot of households will install batteries, just as they have done for solar in Australia.

But only if they get get in before the Hydrogen generators do. They are also eyeing off the cheap power over provisioning creates. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/hydrogen They are looking at that as a natural gas replacement.

I have no idea where we will end up. But I'm pretty sure that if you only consider solar, wind, batteries and pump storage as XorNot does, then you have a very blinkered view of what the energy future hold.

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#78

Post by XorNot »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #77
ChatGTP wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason they're not now, and why you currently don't have batteries and are only just now considering solar panels: cost. No I don’t have solar or batteries because I only just purchased a property and ran out of time to do more work before winter arrived (snow). Maybe your point is I couldn’t have afforded it ten years ago regardless ? Appreciate the long response. I honestly read your post as a lot of i…

He, like me, comes from Australia. He's quoting you figures from NSW. South Australia is another state in Australia. Unlike NSW, SA doesn't have any native deposits of coal or natural gas, so about a decade ago SA started renewable generation. It is now running at 70% renewable. That's a yearly average, not some peak figure. A 100% renewable day is pretty normal for them. That's the highest in the OECD. In 2026, they…

South Australia is a much smaller energy market: https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e...

That graph actually does go to 0, but it peaks at only 2.5GW. The grid is backstopped by two state interconnectors[1] with a third under construction. The existing two have 650MW and 220MW of capacity. The new one will have 800MW of capacity. Just those two connectors sum to 0.87GW, or 34% of the peak usage of the state. The demand low overnight is less then the capacity of those interconnectors.

SA backstops it's baseload through other states (and there's nothing wrong with that, but someone, somewhere, has to have the generating capacity to provide that - if it's all batteries, then none of that helps).

[1] https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/consumers/energy-grid-and...

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#79

Post by pbmonster »

XorNot wrote: post #75
pbmonster wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason you did the math with a 13.5kWh battery? Do you heat a large house electrically? Do you need to charge an EV at night off that battery? Most people can get away with a significantly smaller battery - if your goal is to just get a normal house through a single night. That goal can be achieved pretty economically, especially if you're willing to use grid electricity on mornings with little sun on your…

What is the point of a grid battery if you don't heat your house electrically, particularly from the point of view of climate change which is meant to be the real reason we're doing this.

The difference is mostly financial. Lots of people around me install/upgrade their rooftop PV system right now, and most of them get a small battery to make it through the night. Both a new PV system and a battery is subsidized, and the money is easy to get.

Heatpump upgrades to existing houses are much more expensive, and for some reason the subsidies are incredibly complicated to get, and there's no guarantees for exactly how much you'll get approved.

Baby steps, I guess. Financial incentives (and the extreme price drop in batteries and PV modules) mean we're starting with switching normal household electricity consumption to renewables. We'll do household heating... some other time.

Re: The US grid battery fleet is about to double – again

#80

Post by XorNot »

pbmonster wrote: post #79
XorNot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of a grid battery if you don't heat your house electrically, particularly from the point of view of climate change which is meant to be the real reason we're doing this.

The difference is mostly financial. Lots of people around me install/upgrade their rooftop PV system right now, and most of them get a small battery to make it through the night. Both a new PV system and a battery is subsidized, and the money is easy to get. Heatpump upgrades to existing houses are much more expensive, and for some reason the subsidies are incredibly complicated to get, and there's no guarantees for…

I'm pretty skeptical "energy through the night" is financially viable for anyone. Whenever I've looked into it, the cost-per-kwh on a battery blows away any savings over the cost of just paying for off-peak electricity.

Which makes sense of course: if it didn't, then it would be more cost-effective for larger players to simply build grid batteries and arbitrage the power cost down to parity.

The only real value I've seen is when your selling your own battery capacity under grid-stabilization programs (where some other power company is managing virtual power plants). And I'm still fairly skeptical if that's even a sensible business model (i.e. how much real estate cost can you be saving versus the costs of installing distributed batteries as opposed to centralizing them?)

Post reply on HN