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

351–360 of 363 posts

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

#351

Post by Manuel_D »

pahkah wrote: post #163
Manuel_D wrote: post #124

One of my biggest pet peeves is when outlets talk about energy storage exclusively in terms of output and neglect to mention capacity. Does 15.7 gigawatts of storage mean 15.7 GWh? Capacity is as important, if not more important, than output.

As someone who's interested in all this, I agree it would be nice to have more precision around capacity. Especially as it relates to longer term storage. But! In this context, output is more salient than capacity. You'll see a lot of stories about grid-scale storage that use output. ( https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/854999 offers a fuller explanation than what I'll give here.) This is because grid operators are…

Output is just one factor, capacity is another. If you're building a solar plant with the assumption that storage will make it provide consistent energy output throughout the day, then the difference between 12 hours of storage and 2 hours of storage is enormous.

Some storage project list power output figures that can only be sustained for 90 minutes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Big_Battery

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

#352

Post by k1t »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #315
k1t wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure, there might be cases beyond their control - but in general if I pay them to provide a service and they fail to deliver, I think my annoyance is justified.

If they are busy counting their profits instead of focusing on providing a safe, reliable service, then I think it's reasonable to be angry with them.

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

#353

Post by kylehotchkiss »

andbberger wrote: post #146
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we’d put some desal plants in the north of the state and start feeding into the CA aqueduct and unlocking more Central Valley farmland

farming with desal water is insane. even with abundant power.

Leaving otherwise fertile farmland empty to use the lands allocated water on another field is insane, insane problems call for insane solutions

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

#354

Post by mpweiher »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #347
mpweiher wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is of course why all recent western proejcts have equal outcomes to FV3. Yes, because we stopped building . Once we start building again, those problems go away by themselves. And no, the handout of tax money you complain about is to intermittent renewables, not to nuclear. Exactly the reverse of your claims. Just look at the EDF financial reports. Nuclear produces profits that are returned to their owner, de…

How many trillions in handouts to the nuclear industry to maybe get only extremely expensive electricity? Then trying to justify it with paid off nuclear plants. So it will be profitable sometime in 2060? Until then we should just persist with horrifyingly expensive electricity as they get paid off? That sounds like a lunatic talking. There’s no feed in priority. Renewables just bid zero which is their marginal cost.…

> How many trillions in handouts to the nuclear industry to maybe get only extremely expensive electricity?

You keep posting this talking point, despite the fact that it is patently untrue, and in fact the reverse is true.

Please stop.

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

#355

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mpweiher wrote: post #354
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many trillions in handouts to the nuclear industry to maybe get only extremely expensive electricity? Then trying to justify it with paid off nuclear plants. So it will be profitable sometime in 2060? Until then we should just persist with horrifyingly expensive electricity as they get paid off? That sounds like a lunatic talking. There’s no feed in priority. Renewables just bid zero which is their marginal cost.…

> How many trillions in handouts to the nuclear industry to maybe get only extremely expensive electricity? You keep posting this talking point, despite the fact that it is patently untrue, and in fact the reverse is true. Please stop.

I love these magical new built nuclear reactors that will go down to 1/10th of the cost of all modern western projects.

While of course still being unable to compete on marginal price leading to them being forced out of the market regularly.

Just another trillion in handouts to get there! When will they get paid back? Never!

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

#356

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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.

Replying to myself because a new report came out saying the UK saved a net 104 Billion over a decade by replacing gas with wind.

The major factor was reducing the use of gas which lowers gas prices. As a result the main beneficiaries weren't electricity users but gas users paying lower prices and saving 133 Billion.

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

#357

Post by IAmBroom »

dxxvi wrote: post #83

Does it make the electricity price go down or up? It seems to me that the electricity price never goes down.

Perception isn't objective, and inflation still exists.

However, price gouging by monopolies also exist. See Enron and their intentionally caused rolling brown-outs.

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

#358

Post by IAmBroom »

BurningFrog wrote: post #62
rhubarbtree wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And smashing everything in Nuclear, whilst America turns to fossil fuels. Much as I am against autocracy and oppression, china is doing very well at improving their energy sector.

The US system of decades of environmental review before any energy project can maybe proceed can also be considered a form of oppression.

That's a great Fox News talking point.

Data, please?

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

#359

Post by IAmBroom »

Peanuts99 wrote: post #234
WillPostForFood wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is a mixed bad, they also lead the world in new coal power plants. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

China is also the world leader in closing coal power plants too.

Which is meaningless unless they are closing more than they are opening.

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

#360

Post by IAmBroom »

rexpop wrote: post #288
DaSHacka wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But unfortunately, everyone wants to live in a small subset.

Why is this unfortunate? Urban living shrinks each person’s land and energy footprint by packing people efficiently, cutting carbon emissions through public transit and walkability, preserving open natural spaces, and enabling more efficient infrastructure. It's true that concentrating populations in cities increases housing demand, but that doesn't automatically mean costs must rise—housing prices are driven by supp…

Presumably, DaSHacka means 'unfortunately' in the context of transporting power from unused US land to our urban centers.
Post reply on HN