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

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#91

Post by schmookeeg »

msandford wrote: post #29
baq wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in Europe and I can pick on Texas all day on energy. The separate grid is a self-inflicted gunshot wound in both feet.

How so? Would the Federal regulators have done a better job of making CenterPoint invest the right amount of money into tree trimming and placing lines underground? California is under Federal regulation and has significant problems where PG&E hasn't invested enough in reliability. If California just breezed through every natural disaster with no power outages and lower than Texas energy prices it would truly be a no…

Hello from Alameda, CA. 15.5c per kwh here except for M-F 5pm-9pm, where it is 50c.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#92

Post by DoingIsLearning »

infecto wrote: post #53
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The large scale introduction of Battery Storage is going to be a game changer for renewables Who are the major players in industry grade solutions for this? Tesla? BYD? Hitachi? Siemens?

In Texas I have seen a lot of Chinese brands. Sungrow and CATL as examples.

But you meam they are doing consumer PV+battery installations, or actual battery systems for utility companies?

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#93

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

redleader55 wrote: post #42
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can make batteries out of iron or sulfur. no rare minerals required.

You are right: there are a lot of proposals at the moment trying to replace lithium. I'm hopeful, but let's wait until they are widely adopted before claiming victory. Let's not forget the carbon and environmental cost of such alternative batteries are not known because they are not mass built and mass deployed.

I think there is a fairly big difference between these examples. solar panels need pretty complicated semiconductors. Batteries on the other hand can be made by sticking 2 random metals in a jar with some salt water. since grid storage only cares about price per capacity rather than energy density, it seems unlikely for expensive materials to win out.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#94

Post by dzhiurgis »

jopsen wrote: post #36
mariebks wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not an expert on this topic, but I think it comes down to cost and scalability. You have to construct a new project with custom specs for the exact site you’re on, and the permitting for a large environmental change is another drag. For large scale batteries, they all are a somewhat complex power electronic wrapper around mass produced battery cell cans or pouches that can be dropped anywhere. The cost declines o…

Not to mentioned all the dirty cheap second hand batteries becoming available as electric cars are scrapped. For grid storage second hand batteries might be fine. If taking them out of a scrapped car is feasible.

No grid operator going to mess with scrap batteries. Even for home player new cells are so cheap that it's not worth messing around with used ones (esp when considering liability and insurance). Might work in third world countries tho who have even more appetite for reliable power.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#95

Post by dzhiurgis »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #31
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?

Batteries installed on concrete slabs are easier and cheaper, there are only so many places pumped hydro is feasible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919052

NZ recently scraped Lake Onslow seasonal hydro storage. My estimate it was about 100x cheaper per kWh when compared with Powerwall.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#96

Post by ZeroGravitas »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #71
candiddevmike wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what's a little surprising is that July is peak demand for every region. Majority of homes use natural gas for heating in the winter. If they used electric heat instead, the difference would be enormous.

More to the point, we want them to use electricity for heat instead. Heat pumps are quite efficient and natural gas emits CO2. But contrary to air conditioning load, heating load is inverse to sunlight, so we need a way to supply that electricity at night .

Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead.

If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead.

If you then remember that wind, hydro, nuclear and (the main subject of this discussion) batteries exist, further reducing the times you need to use this displaced gas, it's an overwhelming win.

Examples like this is why electrification becomes more important than decarbonizing the last few percent of grid electricity, if the goal is to reduce carbon emisions and/or money.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#97

Post by ZeroGravitas »

goodSteveramos wrote: post #90
toomuchtodo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elec…

That's an Australian academic in 2013 making that claim, and fair play to him, the official Australian cost estimates in 2024 say:

> ‘Firming costs’ is a term often used to describe the investments needed to make variable renewables a reliable source of electricity for our power system. In the GenCost report our preferred term is ‘integration costs’.

> Integration costs include investments in storage, peaking generation, transmission and system security devices such as synchronous condensers. Modelling determines the most cost-effective combination of these investments.

> ... renewables were still found to have the lowest cost range of any new build technology.

> For more detail go to the GenCost 2023-24 report section 5.2.1 Framework for calculating variable renewable integration costs on page 65.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gen...

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#98

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

Or you burn a small amount of gas when these rare occurrences happen to coincide.

I suggest we call the periods that solar/wind/hydro/batteries can cover "baseload", as apparantly if you do so, you can pretend that the other energy being generated at non-baseload times does not matter, and simply declare victory with a job half done.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#99

Post by Timshel »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83
Timshel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Interesting but it appears to only take account the topographic feasibility of the project.

The first location I looked at (link is not working :(), it relies on building two dams on rivers (which is something we tend to do less not more) and would flood some houses ...

And there is supposedly a price estimate, but it's just an A, B, C, D or E ranking could not find some costs to make comparison with battery storage for example.

Re: California Grid Breezes Through Heatwave with Batteries

#100

Post by infecto »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #92
infecto wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Texas I have seen a lot of Chinese brands. Sungrow and CATL as examples.

But you meam they are doing consumer PV+battery installations, or actual battery systems for utility companies?

You asked about industrial players, I responded with industrial players I have seen.

https://www.power-eng.com/energy-storage/batteries/spearmint...

https://en.sungrowpower.com/newsDetail/2127/sungrow-supplies...

Post reply on HN