Live data from Hacker News

'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

houstonchronicle.com

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#11
When there is a voltage or frequency disturbance on the grid, caused by lightning strikes or equipment failures, ERCOT expects power generators to “ride through” the disturbances and continue producing power. But inverter-based resources such as wind, solar and batteries — especially the oldest ones — may sometimes not be able to ride through the disturbance and could “trip” > offline and disconnect from the grid. This could lead to a domino effect of other generators tripping offline, which could in a worst-case scenario result in the “rapid collapse of part of or all the ERCOT system,” according to ERCOT. ERCOT has experienced a growing number of these inverter-based resource failures, particularly in West Texas. In 2021 and again in 2022, more than 1,000 megawatts of solar resources tripped offline near Odessa, prompting the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), an international regulatory authority, to recommend ERCOT rectify the risk.

Interesting read: Inverters don’t have spinning mass like turbines that can deal with fluctuations in the grid (simplified) (as we learned from Grady’s Practical Engineering) and they follow the grid, but can’t build a grid. But we also learned from him that modern inverters can actually build a grid and behave like a “mechanical generator”.

So as I understand it, a lot of existing renewable suppliers have to do some retrofitting, which is probably expensive, so now we are here.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#12
Some interesting facts:

* ERCOT (Texas) has more renewables generation than every other ISO, including CAISO (California)

* ERCOT is setting new renewables records almost every month, as new renewables sites come online.

Source: https://www.gridstatus.io/home

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#13
There is an unfortunate tunnel vision focus on renewables when the real goal should be deep decarbonization. The reason is obvious when you realize that people of a certain generation (who are in power now) don't like nuclear energy because 'nuclear' was the bogeyman while they were growing up. They are dragging the rest of us down with them into an era of unstable and unreliable power at huge expense.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#14
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is also going negative quite often now. Instead of dropping prices and encouraging usage during those times they curtail. The utility model is completely broken. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60822

Or, California just needs to increase its battery storage capacity some more. (This week they announced storage systems now already have over 10,000 megawatts in capacity — "about 20% of the 52,000 megawatts the state says is needed to meet its climate goals.") https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-battery-storage-increas...

That will be a tough game to chase long term as batteries need to be removed and replaced regularly. Assuming the storage capacity needs continue to grow, CA would need to replace larger and larger stocks of batteries on the scale of 5-15 years depending on what kind of warranty the battery manufacturers are providing.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, California just needs to increase its battery storage capacity some more. (This week they announced storage systems now already have over 10,000 megawatts in capacity — "about 20% of the 52,000 megawatts the state says is needed to meet its climate goals.") https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-battery-storage-increas...

That will be a tough game to chase long term as batteries need to be removed and replaced regularly. Assuming the storage capacity needs continue to grow, CA would need to replace larger and larger stocks of batteries on the scale of 5-15 years depending on what kind of warranty the battery manufacturers are providing.

Batteries don’t have to be the traditional ones we use and think of.

They can be things like pumping water up a hill and releasing it to spin a turbine or using rocks storing heat.

The storage capacity can be added, it’s just don’t going to be banks of lead or lithium batteries

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#16
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is also going negative quite often now. Instead of dropping prices and encouraging usage during those times they curtail. The utility model is completely broken. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60822

Or, California just needs to increase its battery storage capacity some more. (This week they announced storage systems now already have over 10,000 megawatts in capacity — "about 20% of the 52,000 megawatts the state says is needed to meet its climate goals.") https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-battery-storage-increas...

"10,000 megawatts" is not a measure of storage capacity.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#17

There is an unfortunate tunnel vision focus on renewables when the real goal should be deep decarbonization. The reason is obvious when you realize that people of a certain generation (who are in power now) don't like nuclear energy because 'nuclear' was the bogeyman while they were growing up. They are dragging the rest of us down with them into an era of unstable and unreliable power at huge expense.

I am in favour of nuclear but a politically unpalatable solution is useless for decarbonisation.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#18

There is an unfortunate tunnel vision focus on renewables when the real goal should be deep decarbonization. The reason is obvious when you realize that people of a certain generation (who are in power now) don't like nuclear energy because 'nuclear' was the bogeyman while they were growing up. They are dragging the rest of us down with them into an era of unstable and unreliable power at huge expense.

That only really holds true if disruptions in the carbon cycle are the fundamental root cause.

Carbon seems extremely important no doubt, but I've never personally bought the idea that the health of the entire planet can be boiled down to a single, analytical metric. I've also yet to be convinced that, even if it truly is all about carbon, we understand the problem so completely that we know how to intervene precisely without breaking anything else or causing unexpected side effects.

We've seen a noticeable increase in ocean temperatures in the last year or two and I've seen compelling data pointing to it being caused by ultra-low sulfur emissions regulations in marine shipping. People thought they were doing the right thing, they just didn't account for the cooling effects of sulfur in the atmosphere. We could easily do the same with global interventions in the carbon cycle.

I'd much rather see us leaning into a reduction in interventions wholesale. Its much harder to break things when you just stop causing so much damage.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#19
post #2

If you're reading this and the cost prohibitive part of this story doesn't make sense you have to understand how far forward the Texas grid is when it comes to renewables. There have been many occasions where the cost of power in Texas has gone negative. (see: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/understanding-negative-pr... ) For this to happen there are a lot of factors that come into play but it indicates a downward…

The overwhelming sentiment is still negative towards Texas and it's energy management decisions from many people who you'd assume cared the most about efficient energy generation and it's effects on the earth. It turns out Texas is ahead in a lot of trends that are related to efficient energy usage, but for mostly practical reasons in combination with a willingness to try something new -- and people seem to have a ve…

It's true that technology helping sell more cheetos probably puts upward price pressures on engineering in essential industries.

One solution is to tax ad engineers and subsidize essential ones, or allow utilities to raise the prices enough to pay for this competitive workforce.

Re: 'Catastrophic grid failure' a possibility for Texas solar/wind/battery storage

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will be a tough game to chase long term as batteries need to be removed and replaced regularly. Assuming the storage capacity needs continue to grow, CA would need to replace larger and larger stocks of batteries on the scale of 5-15 years depending on what kind of warranty the battery manufacturers are providing.

Batteries don’t have to be the traditional ones we use and think of. They can be things like pumping water up a hill and releasing it to spin a turbine or using rocks storing heat. The storage capacity can be added, it’s just don’t going to be banks of lead or lithium batteries

And for lithium batteries, maintaining an overcapacity drastically increases the lifetime by reducing the depth of the cycle. e.g., you get vastly more cycles at %50 DoD vs %80. This would increase the lifespan to be many decades
Post reply on HN