Live data from Hacker News

Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

reuters.com

151–153 of 153 posts

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#151
post #30

We should take a moment to acknowledge the Power MOSFet in this story. For a guy who paid money for his first germanium transistor generating grid scale power with transistors is TOTALLY amazing.

Can you explain this? I agree that Power MOSFets played a major part, but what are you referring to?

In the 60s and 70s it was impossible to generate really large amounts of power with the bipolar transistors that were available. Large transmitters for example were still using Vacuum tubes into the 1990s.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#152
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who worked in a gas plant and although it might take seconds once the plant is running (I don’t know), it takes multiple minutes to start it after being off. In comparison, scaling from 0% to 100% load on battery storage takes 0,1 seconds, according to Tesla.

Gas plants can't really change how much they are generating in seconds. What they actually do is use the inertia of the spinning machinery, when the grid frequency drops (which is usually one of the first symptoms of load exceeding demand) the big spinning generators don't change speed instantaneously, they instead come under higher load and and convert more of their kinetic energy into electrical energy and help pro…

Gas plants can change load in seconds by increasing or decreasing fuel flow. You can consider the generators as operating at the local grid frequency, and power being the product of torque and frequency, so they just change torque to change load, which is done through fuel control. Aeroderivative gas turbines can go from near 0 to full load in less than 30 seconds, which is obviously an eternity compared to battery system inverters with sub 150ms settling times.

You are right that load isn’t independent of frequency, though. For those who are interested, in a simplistic and hand-wavy explanation, the torque imbalance between generation and load causes a change to the frequency. The net torque = torque of generation - torque of load = I*alpha, where alpha is the derivative of omega, or the angular frequency of the grid, and I is analogous to the inertia of the grid. If there is more generation torque than load torque on a generator (and the grid), the frequency increases and vice versa. Keeping the net torque constant, increasing the inertia makes the grid frequency derivative smaller for the same imbalance between generation and load, which is why it was typically desirable to have higher inertia synchronous generators.

What you were describing around changing fuel to maintain speed is typically frequency droop, which is where generators change their power as a function of the frequency, which is a distributed scheme for all generators to independently act to drive the torque imbalance to 0, with some insensitivity proportionality constant. For example, in California, gas turbines are assigned a droop value within the range of 3 to 5%, which means a 3 to 5 % reduction in frequency should result in a 100% increase in power, and vice versa. The total power should be provided in less than 30 sec typically.

For those that are really motivated to understand the interplay between generation, load, and frequency, look up the swing equation in the context of power system stability.

There is another aspect of synchronous generators that enable them to act to stabilize frequency independently, called the inertial response, which also has to do with their rotational energy. A generator at some frequency has KE = 0.5*J*omega^2 where J is rotational inertia and omega is angular frequency. If the frequency changes, it has a change in kinetic energy = 0.5*J*(omega1^2 - omega2^2) which is equal to some power for some period of time (= P*delta_t). This shows that as a generator sees a change in frequency, the shorter the duration, the larger the amount of energy is converted to power. Essentially, generators have an inertial response that act to inject power the faster frequency is falling, and vice versa, which is a self stabilizing function for grid frequency.

This loss of synchronous inertia as generators are replaced by inverter based resources (IBRs) is why managing grid frequency stability becomes more difficult. Various techniques are used to abate the loss of inertia, including emulating the swing equation within inverters to make them behave as synchronous generators and provide that inertial response. This is typically called grid forming with virtual synchronous machine.

Re: Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants

#153
post #15
post #9

It would be neat to see an alternate universe where there was zero corporate welfare for petroleum and for solar/wind/tidal/hydro. I imagine that in such a world, renewables would have become the default sometime in the 70s and millions of lives would have been saved due to fewer oil wars and cleaner air.

Have you run the numbers on this, or are you just imagining? In the 70s, solar and (to a lesser but still substantial extent) wind were still extremely expensive, impractical for large scale use. As were the batteries that are needed to smooth out periods of low renewable generation. I'm an absolute supporter of renewables, and I'd love to see support for fossil fuels phased out, but it's been a long climb to reach t…

Just imagining. The thing is, there’s so much subsidy involved in oil to keep it cheap that the price of oil without subsidy would have greatly encouraged earlier development of renewables. The price on renewables then would have fallen. The primary issue facing anything competing with oil is precisely the subsidy factor. If prices are not allowed to rise naturally as oil becomes increasingly expensive to extract, any competitor is not only attempting to assail the infrastructure already built for oil, but also the artificial price of oil. Today, many are motivated by doing “the right thing” but many more haven’t the money to do “the right thing”. Telling those people to abandon oil and use something more expensive might actually mean death for those people. This all could have been avoided had the petrodollar and the subsidies that came with it never happened.
Post reply on HN