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

California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 363 posts

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#241

Post by dfawcus »

Veliladon wrote: post #226
cm2187 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The batteries mentioned in the article have only a few hours of capacity, and are designed to smooth the peak usage intraday. I think many people are confused and seem to think batteries are a viable way to address the volatility of wind, where you may deal with weeks with no/low wind, or solar, which in countries with cold winters is of little help. I have yet to see a cheap scalable alternative to carbon to deal wi…

Normally this would be handled by a wider synchronized network. The EU has a continent wide synchronized network and the UK isn’t part of it. There are also other ways to store energy. For polar regions sand batteries are capable of storing heat for months. High grade heat to the point they can siphon off that heat for power generation.

The interconnectors between UK and the continent are HVDC.

As such they are essentially massive switching-mode PSUs, and there is no possibility of having a synchronised connection, as the AC has to be synthesised, following the local spinning iron.

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#242

Post by derriz »

DeepSeaTortoise wrote: post #224
energy123 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shouldn't be confused for an argument to build new nuclear power in the year 2025 when far cheaper alternatives exist. It is an observation that nuclear works really well if it already exists and the fixed costs have been paid for, and that nuclear was the best choice a few decades ago.

The only reason nuclear is more expensive than any alternative are absurd regulations, reporting duties, the practice of financing these projects on borrowed money with high interests and that many of the companies running these projects are career parking spots and accelerators for the social circles around politicians and the bureaucratic aristocracy. Complexity-wise they're about halfway between gas and coal.

I'm not sure how you are measuring complexity.

The plant and equipment required to maintain a stable nuclear reaction and extract its heat is far more complex than that required to control a coal or natural gas firebox.

This is reflected in the fact that to run 1GW of nuclear generation, on average (in the US) requires about 700 FTE to operate. The average for coal generation is about a third of that number. And the average for a combined cycle gas plant is about 60 FTE.

And nuclear fission produces low-grade heat - around 320°C - compared to coal (around 550°C) or natural gas (over 1300°C). Thus are less thermally efficient and require huge cooling towers and much larger turbines to extract the thermal energy. Which, of course, are more expensive and complex to build and maintain.

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#243

Post by dfawcus »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #236
cm2187 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The batteries mentioned in the article have only a few hours of capacity, and are designed to smooth the peak usage intraday. I think many people are confused and seem to think batteries are a viable way to address the volatility of wind, where you may deal with weeks with no/low wind, or solar, which in countries with cold winters is of little help. I have yet to see a cheap scalable alternative to carbon to deal wi…

The UK uses far more gas to heat homes than to generate electricity, and uses some for industrial purposes so it seems weird to attribute LNG use to wind, the technology that more than any other has reduced gas usage in the UK.

The increase in use of wind, being intermittent and non-dispatchable means there has to be 1-for-1 back up wind generation. That is gas.

We also have periods in the winter (so solar of little to no use), where we can have a week or two of no wind.

As the gas generators are not run constantly, they're more expensive than if they were. There are various (at least 3) UK "gridwatch" sites available, offering real time and historical generation mix. Maybe have a look.

From memory, so probably flawed, we still tend to depend upon nuclear and gas for around 40 - 50 % of our generation (nuke being low - say between 5 and 10).

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#244

Post by mpweiher »

derriz wrote: post #116
cbmuser wrote: post #63

The electricity mix in France is still way cleaner than in California: - France: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/5y/yearly - California: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/5y/year... And their kWh costs less than 20 Cents in the standard plan: - https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Of... They even offer flex prices going down as low as 12,32 Cents/kWh. Nuclear power…

Electricity prices are set by the French government not the wholesale cost or cost of production. Which is why EDF - the operator of the French nuclear fleet - regularly posts massive losses. Like the €18 billion loss in 2023. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/02/17/france-s...

Pure disinformation.

EDF is generally highly profitable while at the same time delivering cheap, reliable power. 2023 was the one exception, due to the energy crisis and its interaction with the ARENH program that forces EDF to sell power from nuclear at a fixed low price (usually way below market).

Even if it needs that power itself.

So in 2022, it still had to sell this power at 4 cent/kWh, and then had to buy that same power back from the market at up to €1/kWh.

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#245

Post by mpweiher »

oezi wrote: post #205
MaxL93 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that most of EDF's massive losses are due to the ARENH. The European Union insists that EDF must sell energy at very discounted prices, so that third-party "providers" can make an entry on the energy market. The idea was that they would eventually sell their own energy supply, but most just pocketed the difference between the dirt-cheap energy & what they charged customers, then ran away the moment…

I skimmed your posts but they don't blame EU rules. Can you point to EU regulation which caused this? ARENH looks like a mechanism by which France wanted to entice competition in end customer sales (and distribution?) of electricity.

The ARENH program originated with EU liberalization efforts.

https://fsr.eui.eu/regulated-access-to-incumbent-nuclear-ele...

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#246

Post by mpweiher »

disentanglement wrote: post #202
ziotom78 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What strikes me is the fact that nuclear power has received an incredible amount of backslash after the Chernobyl incident (a few thousands deaths) and the Fukushima incident (one disputed death), but hydroelectric power is considered a "good" source of energy despite a few incredibly deadly incidents: - Banquiao (China, 1975): between 26.000 and 240.000 [1] - Derna (Lybia, 2023): between 6000 and 20.000 deaths [2] -…

Did you really just attribute the deaths from a bombing raid on a dam during WW2 to a hydropower incident?

Is Fukushima generally attributed to the Tsunami or to nuclear power?

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#247

Post by mpweiher »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #214
cbmuser wrote: post #63

The electricity mix in France is still way cleaner than in California: - France: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/5y/yearly - California: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/5y/year... And their kWh costs less than 20 Cents in the standard plan: - https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Of... They even offer flex prices going down as low as 12,32 Cents/kWh. Nuclear power…

Even the poster boy for nuclear is reducing nuclear output as its fleet ages and filling that gap with renewables (reducing its electricity emissions from 2005 when their nuclear peaked too). So it apparently doesn't matter what your existing grid is, coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, of whatever mix, the thing you should be building now is mostly solar, wind and (not quite caught on globally but just about to make a very b…

France?

France is increasing its nuclear output. And planning to build new plants. (Expanding nuclear generation was prohibited by law up until March of 2023).

The added renewables help to make the nuclear plants more efficient and profitable, by taking up a good amount of the variable demand.

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#248

Post by mpweiher »

alecco wrote: post #221
KptMarchewa wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>almost bankrupt company "Published on February 3, 2023" Since then, in 2023 and 2024 EDF posted over 10 billion a year profits.

In 2022 they lost 18bn because they had to repair widespread "stress corrosion cracking". And it was nationalized.

Incorrect.

It was always a public/nationalized company. It started 100% owned by the government. In the 2000s, around 15% were sold to pension funds, so way over 80% in the hands of the state, which by EU rules (and common sense) makes it a state company.

The floating shares were bought back in order to facilitate the nuclear expansion plans.

The losses in 2022 were largely due to the energy crisis because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which interacted rather nastily with the French ARENH program that requires EDF to sell 25% of its power output for 4 cents/kWh, no matter what the market rates. And no matter if it needs that power itself.

When the energy crunch hit in 2022, wholesale electricity rates rose up to €1 / kWh. So EDF had to sell its electricity for 4 cents, then buy it back at 25x markup for €1.

Oh, and the government actually increased the ARENH quotas to more than 25%, because it used EDF to subsidize consumer/industry energy prices, something that was done by the states directly in other countries.

The problems with a part of the fleet, largely due to deferred maintenance during COVID, also didn't help.

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#249

Post by epistasis »

cbmuser wrote: post #63

The electricity mix in France is still way cleaner than in California: - France: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/5y/yearly - California: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/5y/year... And their kWh costs less than 20 Cents in the standard plan: - https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Of... They even offer flex prices going down as low as 12,32 Cents/kWh. Nuclear power…

California has been an oil state from the beginning. To this day there is urban oil extraction over various parts of LA:

https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-...

It is only very recently that California started trying to decarbonize.

When France did their amazing nuclear build, it was for energy independence, not for decarbonization purposes. It was a very forward thinking move, even if it wasn't as cheap initially imagined and ended up being stopped before fully completed. It was a national security project.

However nuclear is cheap when the high upfront capital costs have been paid off, and it's down to just the operating expenses. Building it is oppressively expensive, however, especially as labor costs have risen in the many decades since the 1970s while.

As France's nuclear fleet ages out and needs to be replaced, it seems unlikely that they will be able to pull off a build of a second fleet. Their efforts at prototyping the next design, the EPR, have been fairly disastrous, with builds at Flamanville and in Finland going very poorly.

I suspect that Germany & California's current route to decarbonization through renewables will be followed by France in the coming decades.

Re: California invests in battery energy storage, leaving rolling blackouts behind

#250

Post by nullc »

hunterpayne wrote: post #166
bradlys wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a public company, not run directly by the government. It has a monopoly dictated by the CA government. They have no interest in doing good service but instead in making money. They don’t have to really answer to anyone. Supposedly the CA government could implement things to improve the lives of Californians that would influence how PG&E operates but CA politicians are bought off by this corporation. So, there we…

PG&E is a utility. The amount of profit they make is decided by the state regulators. And the idea that PG&E buys CA politicians is laughable. The state worker's unions pension funds control CA state politics. They are the ones that donate the most money, PG&E doesn't even get a seat at the metaphorical table. PS The largest and 3rd largest holders of US equity are those CA public sector union pension funds. They hav…

> The amount of profit they make is decided by the state regulators

Which set things up so the money PG&E makes is a linear function in the money PG&E wastes. -- the regulations set a fixed profit margin, so to make more money PG&E need simply waste more money and pass the cost onto the public which is exactly what they are doing.

Post reply on HN