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

California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

thinc.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#81

Post by jeffbee »

simfree wrote: post #80
jeffbee wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grid battery deployment is faster than EV market penetration in the USA. This is not something that can siphon off a fraction of EV batteries. It is a huge market in its own right.

What would be considered ruined Leaf EV batteries that have significant range loss (20% to 50% degradation, for a car that went around 60 miles with a full battery) are being used to cover peak load right now in California and have been used to do so for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqlOlqK_ot8 2nd life use cases for cheap, mass produced batteries like this are more common than you think.

But that isn't a mainstream case. It's notable for being weird. The 1000x larger Moss Landing battery facility just uses new, off-the shelf BESS units from LG.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#82

Post by bryanlarsen »

IvyMike wrote: post #66
bryanlarsen wrote: post #8

Batteries are absolutely destroying demand for natural gas in California: https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/calif...

There's a future issue looming: at some point, a lot of the natural gas peaker plants build for 2021 capacity will be idle almost all of the time. (Based on how often my local peaker plant seems to run, that may actually already be the case). Keeping peaker plants around and having them ready year round for just a few days use is going to feel expensive; but decommissioning the plants too early has its own risks.

California has a capacity payment mechanism for this reason.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#83

Post by bryanlarsen »

Timshel wrote: post #41
DrBazza wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't anywhere that has significant elevation should just pumped storage of water during the day and use hydro on the way back down?

Because there are fewer places than expected where it really makes sense. Was discussed in an old video of Practical Engineering: https://youtu.be/66YRCjkxIcg?si=PXArfkXkbCODeSAF&t=290

Australian National University has identified 616,000 potential locations: https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#84

Post by jeffbee »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #73
jeffbee wrote: post #17

Fission stans in shambles. https://observablehq.com/@jwb/caiso-battery-discharge-histor...

It's weird that you're talking about fission when the thing the batteries are really replacing is natural gas peaker plants. Peak shaving (i.e. the thing storage is best at) is essentially the opposite of baseload. It gets you over the hump where the demand peak is after sunset but you don't want to have a 100% nuclear grid overbuilt to meet the peak demand that occurs when solar generation is zero, and you also want…

"Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#85

Post by skhunted »

jmugan wrote: post #39
skhunted wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hate as you call it is not weird. It’s a reasonable response to a state that consistently enacts laws and regulations that hurt the people. You get what you vote for and people in other states have to put up with idiotic Texas politicians who vote against hurricane Sandy aid while later requesting help. Texas deserves far more “hate” than it gets.

You don't have to see the world in such stark terms. There is plenty of silliness everywhere.

Not all silliness is equal or equally stupid. The Texas legislature routinely calls for secession when a Democrat wins the Presidency and votes to stymie federal aid to other states while demanding federal aid for themselves.

I don’t see the world in stark terms except where appropriate. You do believe cases exist where such views are warranted right? I happen to think that Texas qualifies.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#86

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jeffbee wrote: post #84
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that you're talking about fission when the thing the batteries are really replacing is natural gas peaker plants. Peak shaving (i.e. the thing storage is best at) is essentially the opposite of baseload. It gets you over the hump where the demand peak is after sunset but you don't want to have a 100% nuclear grid overbuilt to meet the peak demand that occurs when solar generation is zero, and you also want…

"Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.

"Baseload" clearly exists. There is a minimum load on the grid that it never falls below, which can be satisfied by constant-output generation methods that aren't as well suited to varying output, but also don't vary output and so can't don't create a shortfall when low output periods in variable sources last for longer than the usual amount of time or coincide with high demand.

> The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.

That only works if the intermittent sources are independent. In winter, solar output is going to be lower during the day than in summer, zero at night, you will have more hours of night, and heating load is both higher in winter and higher at night. There aren't going to be panels on one solar farm where this is the case and others that produce more, it will be true for the entire hemisphere for the entire season.

You're then left relying on wind if you don't want to use nuclear, but wind costs more than solar, and now you're lacking independence again. Weather is regional. There will be days when it's still and cold across a thousand square miles. Even batteries that could hypothetically take the load for a night are not going to have anything left by the end of a week of that, so you either need baseload generation methods or some currently unproven/uneconomical ultra high capacity long-term storage system or the week when that happens the power will go out and people will freeze.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#87

Post by goodSteveramos »

jeffbee wrote: post #84
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that you're talking about fission when the thing the batteries are really replacing is natural gas peaker plants. Peak shaving (i.e. the thing storage is best at) is essentially the opposite of baseload. It gets you over the hump where the demand peak is after sunset but you don't want to have a 100% nuclear grid overbuilt to meet the peak demand that occurs when solar generation is zero, and you also want…

"Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.

“Storage” doesn’t exist. The choice is between nuclear, fossil fuels, and frequent blackouts.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#88

Post by toomuchtodo »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #86
jeffbee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.

"Baseload" clearly exists. There is a minimum load on the grid that it never falls below, which can be satisfied by constant-output generation methods that aren't as well suited to varying output, but also don't vary output and so can't don't create a shortfall when low output periods in variable sources last for longer than the usual amount of time or coincide with high demand. > The sum of a bunch of intermittent s…

https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in...

https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/pub...

https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#89

Post by goodSteveramos »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #86
jeffbee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.

"Baseload" clearly exists. There is a minimum load on the grid that it never falls below, which can be satisfied by constant-output generation methods that aren't as well suited to varying output, but also don't vary output and so can't don't create a shortfall when low output periods in variable sources last for longer than the usual amount of time or coincide with high demand. > The sum of a bunch of intermittent s…

As far as I can tell, anti-nuclear people either have a very shallow understanding of energy and can’t really have a conversation with you using well sourced numbers or they can but know the numbers show that nuclear is the only realistic choice and either way they just respond without numbers in very short and easy to repeat (and incorrect) arguments like “storage” and “bigger grids”.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists’ first choice would be to let people freeze to death. That being politically untenable their second choice is to continue using fossil fuels as the baseload and offset it as much as possible with renewables. They think nuclear is “an excuse” to continue the “business as usual” of affordable energy. They want energy to be unavailable and expensive. They oppose human progress and economic development as itself evil, even if the environmental impact is zero. Making energy expensive is their goal, not something they reluctantly accept. All the counter productive positions and bad arguments make perfect sense when you realize that they simply have a totally different goal from you.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#90

Post by goodSteveramos »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #88
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Baseload" clearly exists. There is a minimum load on the grid that it never falls below, which can be satisfied by constant-output generation methods that aren't as well suited to varying output, but also don't vary output and so can't don't create a shortfall when low output periods in variable sources last for longer than the usual amount of time or coincide with high demand. > The sum of a bunch of intermittent s…

https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/pub... https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...

> we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs.

They are claiming that a 100% renewable system would be CHEAPER than a fossil fuel system. If that doesn’t stink like some grade A bullshit to you I have nothing more to add.

Post reply on HN