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

California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

zolairenergy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#31

Post by bartvk »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #16
dheera wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with renewables I have is that "what's good for the earth" and capitalism simply don't mix. Solar was fundamentally supposed to be almost-free electricity. You put a bunch of panels up and free energy from the nearest star. The stark reality though is that the people and institutions in control of solar equipment (this includes manufacturers, tariffs, etc.) reprice their stuff to match the price of the di…

The break even for home solar is too long for me also. Every now and again I look at it, and even with subsidies it's gonna be about 12 to 15 years before I see any cost saving.

What if you drive electric?

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#32

Post by ninalanyon »

tedk-42 wrote: post #23

Garbage article. Using a measurement for power as opposed to energy is dumb with batteries

Not when you are talking about compensating for short term peaks. Of course the amount of time it can do this is also important but, unlike batteries used for shifting solar energy to night time use for instance, it is not the most important feature.

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#33

Post by dheera »

pingou wrote: post #28
dheera wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> less than 15 years But can it pay itself in a month or two? That's the bar. I cannot financially plan for even one year later. Too many unknowns. A really good coffee machine that can do lattes costs maybe $200. If lattes at coffee shops cost $8 including stupid high CA taxes and the stupid puppy face guilt tips, it pays for itself after ~35 lattes including supply costs, or just over a month. That's the bar for pr…

Well first of all TFA is not talking about individuals buying solar or anything, so do we at least agree that renewables make sense for countries/state? It seems like you have set an impossible bar for renewables so I don't know what to say to you. I do not think you'll be able to put a mini nuclear station, gas or coal one in your garden for less than the monthly electricity fee, so it's unclear to me what you are c…

I'm just saying what needs to happen in order for people to be lining up for solar in hordes and convert the country to renewable overnight.

The IRS needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, we can live without nickel-and-diming people on the income used to make their solar purchase"

The Fed needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, we can lend money to businesses at 0% interest, for the sake of supporting our country's clean future. Heck, -10% interest if you deploy today!"

The president needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, we want solar as fast as possible, we will impose 0% tariffs on panels regardless of wherever they came from"

Wall Street needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, it is saving the country from a multi-trillion dollar climate disaster, therefore we value solar companies at 100X their current valuations because that's what they are truly worth"

Solar companies need to say: "We aren't here to optimize profits; our only KPI is deploy solar as fast as possible"

The government needs to say to solar companies: "Do it! And don't worry if you're unprofitable, we value averting a 10 trillion climate crisis and will subsidize your losses from that 10 trillion loss that we averted"

Yeah, I know, it sounds impossible. Humans are shits, and they won't do the above. That's why the climate disaster is happening.

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#34

Post by CalRobert »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #8

> For the first time, California discharged just over 12,000 megawatts, equivalent to 12 large nuclear plants, of energy from its battery arrays. That’s enough to meet over 40 percent of the state’s energy demand. For how long? 100 millis, 1 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day? There is a HUGE difference. This stuff reads like PR.

Seriously, watts aren’t energy.

That’s like saying “my gas tank can hold 500 horsepower”

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#35

Post by ZeroGravitas »

energy123 wrote: post #25

A graph is easier. Here's California: https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-15 Here's Texas: https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot?date=2026-05-15

This series of graphs shows grid batteries quickly displacing peaker gas plants in Queensland over 24 months / two years.

This isn't the most advanced grid in the country, but it's just good business to displace the most expensive and dirtiest gas plants even if you still use gas for other tasks on the grid.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/open-...

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#37

Post by metalman »

This reads like the end of the fossil fueled, grid.

Managing the california grid is now completly different than any traditional grid in that peak power is managed seamlessly from solar/wind/battery power, not counting providing a significant, most?, of the daytime power, leaving just the nightime load running street lights and background loads. The stabilisation of costs, especialy durring a fuel crisis, is an invisible benifit that poorer countrys will be looking at as they plan there future grid updates, while struggling to keep the lights on right now.

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#38

Post by tristanj »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #8

> For the first time, California discharged just over 12,000 megawatts, equivalent to 12 large nuclear plants, of energy from its battery arrays. That’s enough to meet over 40 percent of the state’s energy demand. For how long? 100 millis, 1 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day? There is a HUGE difference. This stuff reads like PR.

I agree, this article is horrifically misleading.

An array of batteries discharging 12,000 megawatts for ... 5 minutes? 1 hour? 1 day? is not comparable to a nuclear power plant generating 1,000 megawatts continuously 24/7 for months without refueling.

Also batteries are storage. They do not generate electricity. They store excess energy produced elsewhere, by actual electrical generation facilities, then release it later. You can't compare batteries to actual power plants.

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#39

Post by dheera »

bartvk wrote: post #31
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The break even for home solar is too long for me also. Every now and again I look at it, and even with subsidies it's gonna be about 12 to 15 years before I see any cost saving.

What if you drive electric?

I drive an electric. It doesn't save money because the car itself is more expensive by exactly as much as you would save over the life of the car. And then the $700/year registration fees because you don't pay the fuel tax. Again, stupid capitalism.

Re: California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

#40

Post by sampo »

> California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants

From this graph we see that in the evening when solar power goes out, for next 3 hours (7 pm to 10 pm) California's battery array is as powerful as 12 nuclear reactors. Then the batteries are drained empty, and the rest of the night California survives by importing electricity from other states. And partially by running hydro power only during the nights, keeping it at zero during the day.

https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-15

Post reply on HN