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

311–320 of 363 posts

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

#311

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mpweiher wrote: post #310
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got so worked up? Then I suppose nuclear power is also a scam given thant 45% of the capacity in Sweden was out last week and we all know how it went for the French during the energy crisis. [1] The electricity grid is fundamentally running on marginal cost. How will you force everyone with rooftop solar and home batteries to buy horrendously expensive new built nuclear power when they can supply the…

Who is worked up? You seem to be. Why? I am just correcting misinformation and disinformation. And no, you suppose incorrectly. Intermittent renewables are a scam, because they get to privately reap benefits and socialize their costs, particularly their intermittency. They can be useful, as long as they have to bear the costs of being intermittent. That means at minimum no feed-in priority and no fixed and/or guarant…

This tells me you don't know how a grid works. You do know that the demand is variable right?

With the same reasoning nuclear power is a scam because it can't adapt to the grid demand and forces gas peakers to sit in standby. Socializing the losses, to use your words.

In California the grid shifts between ~15 GW at the minimum and 52 GW at the peak.

When studies have looked at the difference in dispatchable power required comparing majorly renewables or nuclear powered grids when meeting true a grid demand the difference is quite small.

It does favor nuclear power but the differences are not significant in the grand scheme of things when factoring in the absolutely stupid cost for new built western nuclear power.

These studies of course did not take into account 45% of the nuclear fleet being offline, they modeled it based on their average ~85% capacity factor.

Or are you suggesting that we should have peaking nuclear plants to match grid demand? So it isn't a scam for the ratepayers?

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

#312

Post by AtlasBarfed »

boringg wrote: post #258
testdelacc1 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While usage of aircon during heatwaves stressing the grid is a valid concern, I think massive increase in solar could offset it. Solar will also generate maximum energy during sunny days with minimal cloud cover, meaning there shouldn’t be a shortage of energy if there’s enough solar. Since 2022 California has energy from solar by roughly 50%, while the population has decreased. Solar is now the biggest source of ene…

It doesn't solve the problem- its the end of the day when solar has ramped down that the crises happens. Its the duck curve. Where its still hot and air conditioning is still running hard. Solar depresses the energy demand during the middle of the day. Energy storage smooths out the load profile.

I doesn't have to solve the problem.

It just has to help the problem.

Rooftop home solar+storage also doesn't have to SOLVE THE PROBLEM IN TOTALITY. It just has to help.

Energy is a cornucopia of solutions, which is a good thing. We aren't going to get everything from nuclear, it is far too expensive and can't function as a peaker (unless we had LFTR but oh well). Geothermal has a lot of potential, but it isn't perfect and probably investment heavy. Gas peaking is regrettable, but necessary currently. Solar and wind are by far the cheapest, but intermittent.

The goal should be stable, available, cheap energy. The path to that is solar + wind + battery + peaking + home solar/storage, but the grid monopolists aren't interested in cheap energy or the loss of control that home solar/storage comes with.

The fact that wind and solar are so cheap but grid prices are so expensive is an absolute SCANDAL.

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

#313

Post by standardUser »

Axsuul wrote: post #105
FridayoLeary wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much as i dislike China i feel they are pragmatic. I don't know if it's justified but i always give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't do stupid things for no good reason. Unlike Western nations who have to please voters and look good, China has no such constraints and are far more transactional. They don't care about climate emissions. At all. If they think something will be good for them and their econom…

A lot depends on long term planning but the planning better be right. In my opinion, the markets are much better than planning.

Historically yes, but tell that to our newest superpower China.

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

#314

Post by Braxton1980 »

hagbard_c wrote: post #233
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you know that's the reason? Just noticed that their profile basically taunts that they're a troll [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hagbard_c

If openness equals trolling you're absolutely right but if that is the case it does raise the question whether the site name covers the site content.

Making a claim without evidence is akin to trolling

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

#315

Post by Braxton1980 »

k1t wrote: post #189
mh- wrote: post #3

> California hasn’t issued an emergency plea for the public to conserve energy, known as a Flex Alert, since 2022. Feels like that statement deserves to be contextualized with weather data. There were a few summers leading up to that where all of the major metro areas shared concurrent record high heat days, and sometimes coincided with poor air quality from wildfires (meaning more people closed their windows and ran…

I feel like the additional unstated context is that nothing has changed. Power outages are still a common threat, it's just that now they are caused by the power companies under the guise of wildfire prevention. I don't care if my power goes out because of lack of supply or because you didn't maintain the transmission lines properly - the result is the same - I'm angry.

Shouldn't you control your emotions depending on the reason?

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

#316

Post by mpweiher »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #311
mpweiher wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is worked up? You seem to be. Why? I am just correcting misinformation and disinformation. And no, you suppose incorrectly. Intermittent renewables are a scam, because they get to privately reap benefits and socialize their costs, particularly their intermittency. They can be useful, as long as they have to bear the costs of being intermittent. That means at minimum no feed-in priority and no fixed and/or guarant…

This tells me you don't know how a grid works. You do know that the demand is variable right? With the same reasoning nuclear power is a scam because it can't adapt to the grid demand and forces gas peakers to sit in standby. Socializing the losses, to use your words. In California the grid shifts between ~15 GW at the minimum and 52 GW at the peak. When studies have looked at the difference in dispatchable power req…

The one who doesn't know how the grid works is you.

Some demand is variable. But a lot (usually most) is not. So having reliable base generation is highly valuable and not having that base-load generation ramp up and down is a feature, not a bug.

Intermittent generation is not variable, it is intermittent. Whereas to meet variable demand it would need to be dispatchable. Look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation

Intermittent renewables are not dispatchable. Not even a bit.

The US nuclear fleet's CF has hovered over 90%. France's is only in the high 70s or low 80s because they do extensive load following (the stuff you say nuclear can't do...they've only been doing it for four decades or so).

France took its fleet offline in the summer of 2022, because that is where demand is lowest and generation from intermittent renewables is highest, for example Germany typically has to give away lots of electricity (or even pay consumers to get rid of it) because of their guaranteed feed-in.

In the end, France had to import only 4% of its electricity even in 2022, and most of that was in the summer, again where electricity prices are lowest because of high generation and low demand. And during all the other years it tends to be largest exporter of electricity in Europe if not the world.

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

#317

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mpweiher wrote: post #316
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tells me you don't know how a grid works. You do know that the demand is variable right? With the same reasoning nuclear power is a scam because it can't adapt to the grid demand and forces gas peakers to sit in standby. Socializing the losses, to use your words. In California the grid shifts between ~15 GW at the minimum and 52 GW at the peak. When studies have looked at the difference in dispatchable power req…

The one who doesn't know how the grid works is you. Some demand is variable. But a lot (usually most) is not. So having reliable base generation is highly valuable and not having that base-load generation ramp up and down is a feature, not a bug. Intermittent generation is not variable, it is intermittent. Whereas to meet variable demand it would need to be dispatchable. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disp…

Love it. Just pretend that you can separate the grid into a ”baseload” portion and ”everything” else.

Like I said, on a yearly basis the Californian grid goes from 15GW to 50 GW.

That your nuclear grid will collapse when a cold spell hits leading to people freezing to death is fine.

Thats a socialized loss! Someone else will need to solve it!

I love that you completely ignored the Swedish example from last week.

And then with a sleight of hand ignored that the French nuclear issues persisted throughout the entire energy crisis winter.

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

#318

Post by jrflowers »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #228
jrflowers wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By my estimate (GPT5) You know treating a thing that makes stuff up as a source of truth is the same thing as making stuff up right? You might as well have written By my estimate (as revealed to me in a dream)

But is he wrong?

I would be more inclined to check and see if someone’s dream revelation was correct than be a human search engine for people that don’t want to use one.

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

#319

Post by DeepSeaTortoise »

derriz wrote: post #242
DeepSeaTortoise wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Kind of my fault, I specifically thought only about the powerplant + fuel part.

Of course nuclear is much more complex as a whole, because it comes with at least two, sometimes three different business sections attached by default: Production and sale of rare isotopes, on-site laboratories and research and recycling of spent fuel.

It's hard to beat gas. The small double digit MW plant in my town literally has only one on-site full-time employee. My guess the only reason the FTE hits even 60 (didn't check) is because there are so many small installations.

Coal has a lot of fuel processing on-site just for its own demand, the mostly very sensible environmental regulations add a lot of complexity to processing the flue gasses and this adds A LOT of moving parts.

Nuclear can be built simple enough that people are literally thinking about dropping it down a mile deep hole, barely the width of a US-standard human. On the "hands off" scale it can't beat gas, barely anything but solar, geothermal and nuclear thermal electric can, but it could beat coal and hydro and possibly even wind via scale. Just how often should one have to send a report to some oversight body on the number of functional overhead lights and whether the change in microclimate didn't displace any rare insect species before one can say: "You didn't read the last 20, you're not getting another one."

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

#320

Post by [deleted] »

Qwertious wrote: post #235
nharada wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah I get what you’re saying but is that a thing? Like CATL has had lines before that aren’t making a profit?

It's not a thing; people are just stuck in the 2000s and think that China can't beat the West technologically and therefore must be cheating.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN