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

Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

rameznaam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 231 posts

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#111

Post by mikeash »

Animats wrote: post #45
Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind over a large area is far more constant than you might expect the problem is you need a vary large area (east - west coast) to see this. http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/04/averaging-us-east-coas... Still the major advantage to wind is it's the cheapest power out there. (Yes lower than coal, nuclear, hydro, etc.) PV Solar is also vary steady in the areas you would put it. (AKA not the South Pole.) Storage is us…

Wind over a large area is far less constant than its enthusiasts claim. Check out the California ISO wind power graphs [1] and the PJM wind power generation graphs.[2] That's real world data over areas over 500 miles across. About 4:1 variation over a day is typical. To average wind over the entire US, a big network of ultra-high-voltage transmission lines would be needed. This is quite possible; China is building on…

Stupid question: if UHV lines need roughly the space of an interstate highway, could the right of way be acquired by building them along interstate highways? There's lots of grassy medians in which to put towers, and the lines themselves are comfortably off the ground.

Dumb idea, or dumbest idea ever?

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#112

Post by mikeash »

IanDrake wrote: post #12

>This leads to what seems to be a paradoxical situation. A battery that is more expensive than the average price of grid electricity can nonetheless arbitrage the grid and save one money. That’s math. Missing in the math is logic. If enough people do this, the price will even out and the arbitrage opportunity will vanish. It's like an arbitrage trading a model that makes money when paper trading but loses money when…

The arbitrage opportunity won't vanish, but rather it will diminish until the cost of performing the arbitrage roughly equals the money you can make from it. When the peak/off-peak price differential drops such that buying more storage isn't profitable, people will stop doing it, and the price will stabilize. It's just like any other normal market: prices stabilize at something near the costs.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#113

Post by chrstphrhrt »

DennisP wrote: post #110
beat wrote: post #81

One of the best things about the solar/wind + storage combination is that it's decentralized and cheap at small scale. This makes serious electrification of remote and impoverished places viable. It reminds me of the wildfire spread of cell service in places that didn't have phones before, only on a larger and more important scale. Give a village cheap electricity, and awesome things will happen. This gets to another…

I wrote a couple pro-nuclear comments here. I'm perfectly happy with wind and solar and think we should roll it out as fast as we can, as well as nuclear. Many of the wind/solar advocates, on the other hand, are strongly anti-nuclear. Given the state of the climate that just doesn't make sense to me. All these technologies have their own advantages, and we should use each where it's most effective.

Yeah, TIMTOWTDI ftw! Same goes for any kind of social/political change. Diversity and solidarity go really well together.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#114

Post by wstrange »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #75
7952 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the main cause of failure is human rather than the actual design. Nuclear stations may be safe, but that comes at an increasing cost in money and complexity. How do we deal with the institutional failings that allowed us to build "old reactors with very shitty failure modes". Stop blaming it on the tech. I want reactors that are simple enough to be cheap and easy.

Humans will always make mistakes, even within the design process. Nuclear is a dangerous technology to make a mistake with. Diablo Canyon Power Plant was partially built backwards, by mistake. It's absurd. The company updated its plans and added structural supports designed to reinforce stability in case of earthquake. In September 1981, PG&E discovered that a single set of blueprints was used for these structural su…

All technologies are dangerous, but nuclear is one of the safest forms of power (deaths per Kwh generated).

For the sake of the environment we need to get over our irrational fear of nuclear power.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#115

Post by cwp »

DennisP wrote: post #110
beat wrote: post #81

One of the best things about the solar/wind + storage combination is that it's decentralized and cheap at small scale. This makes serious electrification of remote and impoverished places viable. It reminds me of the wildfire spread of cell service in places that didn't have phones before, only on a larger and more important scale. Give a village cheap electricity, and awesome things will happen. This gets to another…

I wrote a couple pro-nuclear comments here. I'm perfectly happy with wind and solar and think we should roll it out as fast as we can, as well as nuclear. Many of the wind/solar advocates, on the other hand, are strongly anti-nuclear. Given the state of the climate that just doesn't make sense to me. All these technologies have their own advantages, and we should use each where it's most effective.

Agreed. The only objection I have to wind and solar is that they are insufficient. We should use them as much as possible, but we're going to need nuclear if we want to replace fossil fuels.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#116

Post by prostoalex »

james-skemp wrote: post #27
mathgeek wrote: post #21

One thing that kept coming to mind while reading all of this article's details on different methods for storing and selling and buying power at the peaks and valley of pricing was this: Electricity in our homes is so widespread and popular because it just works. We don't need to think short-term about how or when we use it (although we should and can if you want to). You flip a switch, the light comes on, and you fli…

Renters. Every time I hear about advances in renewable energy I get a little sad. I've rented for the last decade plus, and unless I get married and decide to settle down, will probably continue to rent for the next decade plus. Homeownership would allow me to take advantage of these sorts of advances, but so would the ability to take advantage of this as a renter. Looks like only ~35% of US households rent, accordin…

Your landlord, however, has an incentive to install solar (and claim the relevant tax credit) in order to increase the attractiveness of his rental by advertising lower utility bills.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#117

Post by melling »

dang wrote: post #108
melling wrote: post #46

Got any real numbers to back that up? I'm guessing that it just feels good to bang on your chest and make that call. The reality is probably a lot different. How are all the megacities going to get enough solar and wind power, for example? Tokyo, NYC, Mexico City, Shanghai, etc. all running from solar? How big will the grid need to be to power NYC? Anyway, I'd love to see a deeper analysis and less chest pounding.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9376627 as off-topic.

My question was not off-topic. I simply asked for some evidence to support his claim. I explained why I thought he was wrong.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#118

Post by jimmcslim »

greggyb wrote: post #67

If there's a legitimate arbitrage opportunity for individual homeowners to buy a battery and charge it overnight to cover peak costs, there should be an even stronger case for energy companies to buy larger batteries, install them in low-land-cost areas, and do the thing themselves. If these peak plants are so expensive, then a major utility can save money using batteries rather than peak plants. The cost should be l…

> but for out-of-city travel (i.e. a trip where you would need to charge before you get to your destination), you want the equivalent of a gas station, which is 1-10 minutes for a stop, not 45+.

I appreciate that 'time is money' and people want to get where they are going sooner rather than later... but I wonder if there are social benefits from a transport infrastructure that requires us to stop for 45 minutes to recharge, not just the car but the body? Could potentially result in fewer road fatalities from fatigue if technology enforces a break on drivers? And potential economic benefits for small towns to offer charging stations right by a place to buy a meal...

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#119

Post by ochoseis »

stickfigure wrote: post #101
pixl97 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the other poster said, lightning can be dealt with, but I'm very glad I don't have your problem. You are dealing with the worst possible combinations of landscape and expense. My honest answer is you need a specialist with the proper testing equipment measure the resistance to earth at your location. If it is very high you will likely need deep holes dug (reading about one mountain top location that needed 600'…

I'm certain there's a perfectly logical answer to this question, but I couldn't find it in 5 minutes of googling: Why can't the ocean be used as ground?

My guess is that it'd be dangerous for those who might be swimming when a storm quickly moves in.

Re: Why Energy Storage Is About to Get Big – And Cheap

#120

Post by foxylad »

mikeash wrote: post #111
Animats wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind over a large area is far less constant than its enthusiasts claim. Check out the California ISO wind power graphs [1] and the PJM wind power generation graphs.[2] That's real world data over areas over 500 miles across. About 4:1 variation over a day is typical. To average wind over the entire US, a big network of ultra-high-voltage transmission lines would be needed. This is quite possible; China is building on…

Stupid question: if UHV lines need roughly the space of an interstate highway, could the right of way be acquired by building them along interstate highways? There's lots of grassy medians in which to put towers, and the lines themselves are comfortably off the ground. Dumb idea, or dumbest idea ever?

Not a bad idea, although you'd want extra protection for the pylons so a truck running into one didn't take out the grid.
Post reply on HN