Live data from Hacker News

Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

eia.gov

121–130 of 276 posts

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a close look at the title again, second word after "solar", you have to pass by "and" to get there.

I guess I earned the snark for not mentioning the batteries. Weirdly the news item doesn't tell what sort of energy storage capacity these battery installation have, only the peak power output of 14.3 GW for this year's addition. While that is certainly a gigantic addition no matter what the energy capacity of these battery installations is going to be, running the whole grid on batteries over the periods of low rene…

Plenty of batteries in the US are built out of water. They pump the water up during the day and it generates electricity at night. No lithium involved.

> Pumped storage is by far the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2020, the United States Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for around 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed throughput capacity of over 181 GW, of which about 29 GW are in the United States, and a total installed storage capacity of over 1.6 TWh, of which about 250 GWh are in the United States.

I recently visited this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianelli_Power_Plant

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#122
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how many nuclear reactors does one worker build in their lifetime? 2? 4? That's not a lot of opportunity for process improvement. France built 58 over 20 years, that's how you make it economical. India says they want to do one a year IIRC, which is probably good enough too.

Wikipedia writes: "As of early September 2022, 32 of France's 56 nuclear reactors were shut down due to maintenance or technical problems" and "In 2022, Europe's driest summer in 500 years had serious consequences for power plant cooling systems, as the drought reduced the amount of river water available for cooling."

Even after the summer heat the reactor availability in France had trouble inching above 2/3 for a number of reasons. One of them being age of the installations and related unplanned outages.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I earned the snark for not mentioning the batteries. Weirdly the news item doesn't tell what sort of energy storage capacity these battery installation have, only the peak power output of 14.3 GW for this year's addition. While that is certainly a gigantic addition no matter what the energy capacity of these battery installations is going to be, running the whole grid on batteries over the periods of low rene…

Plenty of batteries in the US are built out of water. They pump the water up during the day and it generates electricity at night. No lithium involved. > Pumped storage is by far the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2020, the United States Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for around 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide…

Pumped storage is a type of grid storage, but I don't think TFA includes it in battery storage. Pumped storage is a fine technology, but is there a lot of build potential left for it?

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#124

Calculation of battery capacity one can build for 34B 0.3k$ per 1kWh of battery storage [1] (0.3$/Wh) Battery capacity = 34B$ /(0.3$/Wh) =113.3GWh (1G$=1B$) The 34B battery capacity will be equivalent to 113hours of operation of 1GW power plant. (4.7 days) [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf

That's not the main use of grid batteries. The main use of batteries is 1) to soak up power that is otherwise not needed when there's too much of it. 2) to deliver that power back when there's too little of it. This is something that happens very often for typically short amount of times (hours). Batteries help smooth this out.

The mistake you are making is only thinking about when there's not enough power. The real challenge is dealing with the very regular situation that there's too much of it. That's energy that is wasted and lost.

Batteries improve the capacity factor of renewables (the percentage of time they are useful).

So, do electricity cables. Shortages and surpluses are highly localized. Germany for example has the problem that the demand is in the south and a lot of wind generation is in the north. So, they are curtailing wind power when there's too much wind and are firing up coal plants in the south because they lack the cables to get the power from where there is too much of it to where it is needed. When Texas had it's blackouts, other states had plenty of power. But Texas is not connected to those states by cables. So they had no way to get the power delivered. So, blackouts happened.

Long term storage is much less relevant currently and a market in it's infancy. The overwhelming majority of grid batteries is for dealing with short term dips and peaks in power generation. Most setups don't provide more than a few hours of power at best. But they can switch between charging and discharging in milliseconds and do both at high capacities.

This is why lithium ion is popular in this space. It can deliver or soak up a lot of power very quickly. You can put cells in series or in parallel depending on the use case. You add more cells to deliver more power more quickly. Not necessarily for longer. You can configure the same 1gwh of cells to deliver 100mw of power for 10 hours or 2gw for half an hour. Most of these batteries are configured for high capacity charging/discharging and relatively short storage.

There are some long term storage solutions emerging as well of course. Redux flow batteries are a good example where there's a fixed size cathode and anode and reservoirs of electrolyte that are pumped around. You can scale these by simply using larger reservoirs. They are cheap and can hold many days/weeks of power. Just add larger tanks. The caveat, is that the power delivery is a constant and typically low.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#125
post #117

The cool thing about batteries is that they are great as an investment. You can charge them when power is cheap and sell back power when you have high demand and market prices for power. Typically Peaker Plants fill this role but at much higher cost for electricity and emissions. Batteries just make much more sense for this kind of power.

Last time I ran the numbers for this, price arbitrage alone using lithium batteries is not gonna be profitable. Current lithium batteries are just too expensive, store too little energy and degrade too quickly for true grid-scale storage. That’s why they typically offer services, other than price arbitrage, that actually makes building them make sense. There’s still no equivalent of a peaker plant using non-hydro sto…

Lots of energy companies across the globe seem to be disagreeing with you and are installing massive amounts of battery storage. Gas peaker plants are getting used a lot less on grids where this happens.

Reason: your numbers and assumptions are probably wrong.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#126

This is nameplate capacity: the power a generator can deliver, full on, under ideal conditions. Solar and wind always look great when measured in nameplate capacity, which is why this is done. If you want to know how much electricity they will generate, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. Nuclear, for instance has a capacity factor of 0.9 in the US: it delivers 90% of its nameplate capacity in a given year.…

In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…

This discussion makes me realize we could have a 100% renewable energy grid and discussion will still be pushed with the same old “arguments” against renewable being feasible. Ridiculous.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#127

I'm surprised that wind is such a small part of the US's projected future energy mix. Does anyone know why? Wind power works overnight, it leaves a lot more usable land than solar does, and there's a lot more capacity to be exploited. It's strange even considering the political backlash against wind power in some areas.

The US is a bit behind in catching up with the rest of the world on this front. There are some positive exceptions like Texas where they figured out quite early that it's cheaper to power refineries with renewables than with fossil fuel. So, Texas has a lot of solar and wind at this point. And why not, it's a sparsely populated state that is very suitable for tapping into both.

The complacency in the rest of the US of course has a lot to do with the fact that there's a very loud and active pro fossil fuel lobby that kept insisting coal was the future even while a lot of coal plants were going out of business. A lot of states invested in gas plants instead of wind generation because of that too. And now that renewables are clearly cheaper, a lot of those investments are starting to look pretty bad.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#128
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, PV solar capacity factor is about 0.24 (partly because lots of people live near very sunny regions like California and Texas). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory claims that in some parts of the US utility-scale solar capacity factors are 0.33 [0]. Wind is about 0.36, Hydro also 0.36, Nuclear about 0.93 [1]. If you apply these capacity factors to the nameplate capacities (ignoring batteries), you get…

Of course those capacity factors hide one important bit, the dispatchability. While the capacity factor is the same in this list for wind and hydro, the wind and solar generation are naturally capped by nature. When demand exceeds the natural availability of these, you need to dispatch some extra generation. Hydro and natural gas are well suited for this, coal can do it even if dirtily. Nuclear generation could be ma…

The problem with running nuclear in a dispatchable fashion (apart from technical problems) is not the marginal cost, but the upfront capital cost. Dispatchable capacity needs to have relatively low upfront cost, because it's seldomly used. The marginal cost is less important.

Nuclear has a high capital cost, it's a really complex tech.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#129
post #59

This is nameplate capacity: the power a generator can deliver, full on, under ideal conditions. Solar and wind always look great when measured in nameplate capacity, which is why this is done. If you want to know how much electricity they will generate, you have to multiply by the capacity factor. Nuclear, for instance has a capacity factor of 0.9 in the US: it delivers 90% of its nameplate capacity in a given year.…

Why does nuclear not deliver closer to its ideal power output? Are nuclear plants really down 10% of the time?

Not an expert, but it's my impression that it's common to have reactors shut down about one month per year for refueling and maintenance. Of course, this can be planned so it's not a big deal.

The plants do have a worse correlated failure mode which is when something bad is discovered in one plant, it can shut down multiple plants because the safety is based on making sure to an extremely high degree that nothing can go wrong - like grounded air planes. Something like Fukushima can shut down plants all over the world temporarily until plans have been revisited and extra precautions possibly put in place.

Re: Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how many nuclear reactors does one worker build in their lifetime? 2? 4? That's not a lot of opportunity for process improvement. France built 58 over 20 years, that's how you make it economical. India says they want to do one a year IIRC, which is probably good enough too.

French nuclear power is still not particularly economical and they didn’t build as many plants as originally planned because of it, nor do they plan to build a sufficient number of new plants to sustain current capacity over the next decades. France justifies the expense with their nuclear bomb program that benefits from a strong civilian nuclear industry.

French nuclear power has a levelized cost of about $70/MWh - which is about the same cost as the levelized cost of solar or wind in France, without most the headaches of intermittency. (Remember the average French person lives further north than the average Canadian...)
Post reply on HN