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

Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#111

Post by Enogoloyo »

jacquesm wrote: post #74
Enogoloyo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they just switch on and off fast enough. Tesla power wall does that.

Yes, but the rest of the grid can not, except for some forms of hydro, flywheels, superconducting coils and grid scale batteries. They hydro has a fastest rate of change of about 1 minute from zero to full load and a bit slower to go back again and batteries can more-or-less match renewables for rate of change. The superconductor solution is the fastest but also the most expensive per KWh of storage. In the time befo…

Yes but we will get much more grid scale batteries anyway

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#112

Post by marcosdumay »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #108
marcosdumay wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, currently the sellers are the ones directly paying for the grid infrastructure. It makes much more sense. They are the ones that can choose what part of the grid they plug on, and they are the ones choosing if they provide the service or not.

I dont think I agree. Typically electric companies pay for the grid infrastructure and operation currently. Electricity producers like solar plants out in the desert is not paying to maintain the poles to your house.

Retail electricity companies pay only for their own grid. They aren't paying for the link between your city and the plant out in the desert.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#113

Post by s1artibartfast »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #104
bluescrn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't really build useful railways any more, though. Towns and cities are too large and too dense and too insanely expensive in terms of property prices to get new lines into or even close to. (This might be less of a problem for freight compared to moving people, but many lines are mixed freight/passenger use, aren't they?)

You're explaining why we don't build useful rail. It seems like there's a really easy first place to look in every major city. Find the biggest interstate, discriminating also by straightness and grade, pick one direction, and start building rail. Divide the other side up into two directions. There are very few places that wouldn't be left with >2 lanes of freeway for each direction, even after halving the right of w…

I actually think density would go out of style in that scenario. IF the time and cost of commuting were drastically reduced, many people would prefer a suburban lifestyle.

This reminds me of many high GDP parts of Europe where there are towns of 500-1000 people every few km, connected by rail and busses.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#114

Post by dpierce9 »

bumby wrote: post #105
dpierce9 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have lost the thread. The og parent said that political uncertainties were responsible for gas plant economic issues. You are now saying that gas plant lobbyists create more political certainty. I don’t know if that is true but it is beside the point.

I don’t think it is. If we agree that lobbyists affect political outcomes, and we can agree that some industries have entrenched lobbyists, then we can connect the two to say that lobbyists create more political certainty. That’s not to conflate “more certainty about policy” with “good policy.” It’s only beside the point if you think policy doesn’t impact energy prices, which is fairly easy to disprove. In other word…

From the parent: “Political uncertainty about the future energy system is jacking up the rate of return investors are demanding of gas plant projects without contracted revenues.”

Your argument about lobbyists creating certainty doesn’t follow. Not all people in an industry have the same interests (gas generators and gas producers both like gas but price impacting regulation will create divergences). Lobbyists may reduce certainty because, for example, a super convincing lobbyist might instigate changes to an staid regime. The cumulative impact of different, less effective lobbyists over time may wash out or it may cause branches.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#115

Post by QuarterReptile »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #113
QuarterReptile wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're explaining why we don't build useful rail. It seems like there's a really easy first place to look in every major city. Find the biggest interstate, discriminating also by straightness and grade, pick one direction, and start building rail. Divide the other side up into two directions. There are very few places that wouldn't be left with >2 lanes of freeway for each direction, even after halving the right of w…

I actually think density would go out of style in that scenario. IF the time and cost of commuting were drastically reduced, many people would prefer a suburban lifestyle. This reminds me of many high GDP parts of Europe where there are towns of 500-1000 people every few km, connected by rail and busses.

I don't think the time of commuting seems to change much: people just re-equilibrate and reconfigure to use the newly saved time/distance.

But, yes, you would expect to see significant clustering. Nonetheless, the most effective clustering since the advent of indoor plumbing is the cluster of clusters, the city, and I doubt that would change. The connectivity is just so much better than a lineal expansion of small towns along a corridor.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#116

Post by bumby »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #107
bumby wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered if anyone has ever studied what the "all in" cost of gasoline would be taking account of all those externalities.

It's pretty interesting question actually. I think for an honest accounting you would have to take into account the positive externalities as well. One way to start thinking about the question is to benchmark society before gasoline. Mass use of gasoline kicked off around 1900, with the popularization of the automobile. You can compare life now versus 1900 to get one estimate. The world definitely had problems and Wa…

I suspect you're right. That's why I think it's important to get a transition right, because it would be a shame to squander the type of bootstrapping that oil afforded us as a society.

>You can compare life now versus 1900 to get one estimate.

I think this is probably too broad because it assumes a causal connection between gasoline and all of those differences. The industrial revolution had been decades underway before cheap oil, and would have continued if oil was never found in Pennslyvania. But cheap oil definitely helped speed it along faster.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#117

Post by [deleted] »

Maxion wrote: post #64
samus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is probably smart to keep around a certain capacity of nonrenewables to provide at least some base load. Long periods of low sunshine and slow winds could deplete batteries to a critical level. Also, the turbines of big powerplants act as grid frequency stabilizer. Do grid-scale batteries use alternators or might they run flywheels?

One of the biggest challenges with renewable energy in energy grids is something called inertia. Her's a nice article: https://www.fingridlehti.fi/en/what-is-inertia/

[deleted]

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#118

Post by fmajid »

jacquesm wrote: post #98
fmajid wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Superconductor solution": did you mean "supercapacitor solution"?

No, superconductor. Effectively an electronic version of the flywheel. There is a company in the United States that has been making these for almost 20 years now, they are used for ride-through in hospitals and for windfarm output stabilization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energ... https://www.amsc.com/gridtec/renewable-interconnectivity-sol... Enjoy the read. It's interesting stuff.

It is indeed, but the refrigeration needed would seem cumbersome for most applications.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#119

Post by bumby »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #109
bumby wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you're just reading federal taxes. There are a barrage of taxes applied to fuel. California shows over $1.24 per gallon in total. Nationally it's over 64 cents/gal. That's tens of billions of dollars nationally, and more than we spend on the energy & environment in total. One of the major problems with infrastructure spending is that these numbers have barely budged in decades. Combine that lack of polit…

Fuel taxes collect $50B/year and road maintenance is $200B/year. Significant, but obviously not a roadblock.

By that same notion, we could eliminate the $50B funds to energy and the environment, no big deal. $50B is a lot and it doesn't help to trivialize it because it sounds good. Thats double what was spent on Medicare. More than double what was spent on education and social services, Dept. of Education, NASA, etc. Over 10x what was spent on the Dept. of Transportation.

The point is, it's a lot of money and that money has to come from somewhere. Most economists would say it makes the most sense to get that money from the people who most use the roads. That sounds like a mileage tax, tolls, or some other mechanism. I don't see why EVs would get a (literal) free ride here.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#120

Post by s1artibartfast »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #109
bumby wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you're just reading federal taxes. There are a barrage of taxes applied to fuel. California shows over $1.24 per gallon in total. Nationally it's over 64 cents/gal. That's tens of billions of dollars nationally, and more than we spend on the energy & environment in total. One of the major problems with infrastructure spending is that these numbers have barely budged in decades. Combine that lack of polit…

Fuel taxes collect $50B/year and road maintenance is $200B/year. Significant, but obviously not a roadblock.

If California Fuel tax is $1.24 per gallon in total (20%), which is about $0.15 per mile revenue. Tesla semi is supposably about 2kwh/mile. PG&E commercial vehicle electric rates for off peak are about $0.20 per Kwh, which translates to $0.40/mile.

If California wanted to collect similar revenue, that 0.15 would be about 35% of the operational fuel cost.

Post reply on HN