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

151–160 of 231 posts

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

#151

Post by ghshephard »

eigenvector wrote: post #57
breischl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. I was about to tell you that you're wrong, but then noticed you're an electrical engineer... so I guess you probably know more about this than I do. But, my understanding is that dispatchable is the opposite of intermittent generation (solar, wind), because you can choose when it's running or not. Also, baseload is the opposite of peaking, because baseload generators take a relatively long time to turn on/off. Th…

Well yes, it's dispatchable in that sense. If you frame dispatchable as a binary property, it's certainly dispatchable in the way that wind is not. But if you think of it from a power system planning perspective of economic dispatch (not just, can I dispatch - but can I afford it), nuclear isn't really there. Yes, you can E-stop a nuclear plant in seconds, but the cost is astronomical. Some nuclear plants like Bruce…

My company does work in the UK, and we're putting together communications system that will allow the wind generations systems to stop loading the network when the transmission lines get too hot (apparently it's less expensive to shut down the wind power x% of the time, than it is to build new transmission lines).

I'm wondering if you have any insight into what happens when our comms system sends a signal to those wind turbines and tells them to "Stop" - it has to happen fairly quickly, we have working factors of 15, 30, and 60 seconds, at which point we start escalating and instructing groups of wind turbines, and then eventually the whole farm to cease production. The wind turbines also have a keep-alive that has them auto-shutdown if they lose comms, as obviously it's far more important that the transmission line isn't damaged, than it is to stop producing energy for awhile. (From the perspective of the Distribution Utility, obviously the private turbine owners take slightly different perspective).

I see you have familiarity with wind farms, and I'm wondering if you know what the turbines do - do they free spin? Send load to ground? Come to a halt?

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

#152

Post by pkulak »

beat wrote: post #135
DennisP wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm neither pro- nor anti-nuclear. I'm not afraid of it and recognize that it has value (I really like the idea of using it for base load generation with wind/solar), but I also think it's a very limited solution, due to its expense, complexity, and political difficulties. If we can build a purely solar/wind/storage model that is inexpensive, safe, and uncontroversial, I'd much prefer that.

Well, sure. But we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

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

#153

Post by pkulak »

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?

Millions of DC volts next to a steady stream of cars and trucks?

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

#154

Post by lotsofmangos »

beat wrote: post #135
DennisP wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm neither pro- nor anti-nuclear. I'm not afraid of it and recognize that it has value (I really like the idea of using it for base load generation with wind/solar), but I also think it's a very limited solution, due to its expense, complexity, and political difficulties. If we can build a purely solar/wind/storage model that is inexpensive, safe, and uncontroversial, I'd much prefer that.

I am not anti-nuclear, I am just anti-nuclear (of the type that is useful for enriching for weapons) for the global solution to electrical power, given that for a general solution you need something that politically, you don't worry too much about your enemies having.

Look at the situation with Iran for instance. Any development of nuclear there is viewed with extreme suspicion, even while we are trying to reduce global oil dependence.

If Iran was rolling out solar and building silicon foundries, we might get into trade disputes over it, but we are not going to be that paranoid about them purifying silicon as it generally does not go boom.

edit - anyone pro-nuclear power who is not pro-nuclear power for Iran should really think on this one. A solution for electricity generation that you are scared of people having is not a good general solution.

edit 2 - I am not meaning to dump on Iran here, is just that the Iranian situation with this has been making the most news recently.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

wallyhs wrote: post #145
diminoten wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think I'm speaking to you as an authority figure?

No, but you seemed to imply that one can only learn from certain people in certain contexts. I find that I gain surprising insight from unexpected people at unexpected times. HN is not an exception.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by diminoten »

wallyhs wrote: post #145
diminoten wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think I'm speaking to you as an authority figure?

No, but you seemed to imply that one can only learn from certain people in certain contexts. I find that I gain surprising insight from unexpected people at unexpected times. HN is not an exception.

I wasn't implying anything, I was directly stating that the folks who are most beneficial to learn from aren't making elaborate posts on HN, and you shouldn't demand that they do.

You're just being lazy by demanding someone to do your research or write an article for you. Think of it from their perspective: why would they? Any reason someone might post on HN with a comment containing original or well-thought content can be better accomplished by putting that effort elsewhere, in a blog post or website article, and then posting that article as a submission to HN.

Only a small fraction of HN users even visit the comments page, not to mention the additional exposure one might achieve by getting their message out to folks who don't go to HN.

So yes, there are things to be learned from HN comments. Just not the way you're suggesting.

In other words, stop asking folks for citations on HN (or any other comments section, for that matter). You're wasting everyone's time.

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

#157

Post by sgrove »

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'm somewhat curious how these things enable very unexpected political change, a la the air conditioner and Reagan - http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-04/how-air-conditioning-g...

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

#158

Post by Animats »

ghshephard wrote: post #148
Animats wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a lightning protection consultant. Lightning protection is a solved problem - power lines, large communication towers, and wind farms are struck all the time, without serious problems. Doing it right can get expensive, but is quite possible. Grounding on hard rock is tough. There are methods for measuring ground conductivity, and in a situation like that, you'll need them.

We have a lot of our equipment tested in Florida (where they have some large testing centers) for lightning tolerance. I've been told, that you don't actually verify the equipment can be safely struck by lightning - as anything that is hit by lightning, is immediately destroyed. The objective is to ensure that equipment nearby a lightning strike doesn't suffer secondary damage (possibly from a power surge in the line…

Antenna towers get hit all the time, and the transmitters and receivers survive if installed properly. First, there's a spark gap between the antenna and ground, with big metal contacts, copper or silver, a short distance apart. That diverts most of the lightning bolt to ground. Then the feed line for the antenna has a big inductor, a coil made of heavy busbar, usually in a grounded can. This is often placed through the wall of a grounded metal equipment enclosure.

The inductance blocks a fast risetime lightning bolt, forcing the energy to the spark gap. A few hundred volts will still get through that. So following that there's a gas tube protector, which is essentially a neon tube which will ionize and short to ground. (Phone lines also have those at the central office end.) Following that is a MOV, as in a surge suppressor, to dump the remaining surge into ground. What's left after than can be tolerated by most RF electronics intended for such applications.

If this didn't work, radio wouldn't work in Florida. It's not that this stuff is expensive compared to the equipment it protects. It's that the front end stuff is big; #4 copper cables, big spark gap units, heavy ground rods, and solid metal equipment enclosures with welded seams.

Somewhere right now, a cellular tower is taking a lightning hit and restarting itself without damage.

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

#159

Post by bjelkeman-again »

ridgeguy wrote: post #150
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't it just be a feed-in tariff? And if the consumer can consume using the network they can produce, in the other direction. The cable runs both ways, no?

It can be, but that doesn't capture the value a consumer with fast response, controllable generation/storage supplies to the grid. Compensating the consumer for power or storage they supply at a particular time is complicated. Existing net metering pays a fixed rate for power supplied to the grid by, say, a solar-equipped residential grid customer. But in fact, fast response power delivered to the grid when the grid…

Thanks, very informative. The biggest challenge seem to be that the current people running both te grid and power companies are so conservative that they seem to be the biggest blocker against something line this being created.

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

#160

Post by tertius »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #95
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.

> Stop blaming it on the tech. I want reactors that are simple enough to be cheap and easy. Find a way to put people in charge who aren't irresponsibly incompetent then. Until then, nuclear isn't a feasible option.

As noted by another commenter Nuclear, per kWh produced, is actually (without adding the boogieman factor) pretty safe.
Post reply on HN