13 ms·

Batteries are a thing now. And they are stepping up to the plate to fix things when coal plants are failing. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/tha

by natch 8y ago

Batteries are a thing now. And they are stepping up to the plate to fix things when coal plants are failing. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/thats-a-record-south-australias-tesla-battery-responds-to-coalfired-plant-failure/news-story/d9e02c0dbf6774ffea948a1b919f3b7f https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/thats-a-recor... >would have had rolling blackouts with millions in damage. Well. There is more than one solution to that problem. What batteries bring to the table are grid stability, which addresses exactly the types of damage problems you are talking about.

candiodari 8y ago
That'll cost one hell of a lot more than just subsidizing those power plants for a bit. Meanwhile batteries are getting cheaper. We will do this, do not worry. But give it 5 years, maybe a decade.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  How'd you figure out which solution was the lowest cost? Because if subsidizing these power plants was the lowest cost, that would probably be already happening. Normally grid operators use an economic model (including huge penalties for blackouts) to pick the solution with the lowest cost. Batteries are cost-effective in the short-term, and natural gas storage is cost-effective in the medium-term. Subsidizing expensive coal and nuclear is not cost-effective at any timescale. Add a carbon tax, then maybe nuclear might still make sense.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    As much as I propose to shut down coal plants everywhere, fast, grid operators don't have a natural incentive to keep the grid stable. It's the job of the State (in broad terms) to either force how that's supposed to work through legislation, or to nudge it with legislated incentives. If what we have now is that coal is a guarantor for base load conditions, I can see how a politician may come to the (on the surface) reasonable conclusion that we need to prop up the guarantor of base load, coal in this case, if coal was in danger of being closed due to it not being profitable anymore. This kind of thinking has a LOT of precedent in other areas. (The US subsidized corn to make starvation in case of a global blockade/war impossible. The EU subsidized farms in general for the same reason.) These stop gap measures can easily spiral out of control. What see is a severe lack of vision. We should legislate, by force or nudge, towards a bright solution with modern solutions. Batteries, a decentralized grid etc is much better option for national security than some large coal plants.
    - 3rdAccount 8y ago
      Regarding your last point. You're thinking in the long-term (5-15 years). The fuel-security concern is right now and batteries aren't going to fix this in a couple of years.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        So the vision should be something like: “we will subsidise coal with this many dollars and match that with investing in batteries “ (or whatever). Not just defending status quo.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      I was referring to those regulations/legislated incentives, actually, sorry that I wasn't very clear. Usually they're monetary and the utility gets to choose the most cost-effective way to meet these requirements.
    - 3rdAccount 8y ago
      The idea that grid operators don't have an incentive to keep the grid stable is completely false. I work with and talk to and support system operators on a daily basis and it is pretty much the only thing on their minds as they monitor the grid 24/7 and some days can get very tense. To use an analogy, you basically just said Air Traffic Controllers have zero incentive to keep planes from crashing.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        On that level yes, just like doctors care about patients. But the owner of a coal plant will not keep operating a coal plant at a loss. The plant will be shuttered. The same goes for a private hospital operating at a loss.
3rdAccount 8y ago
Agreed in theory, but we're honestly just not there yet. In fact the large grid-size batteries aren't even a 1/10 of a percent of grid capacity. Getting enough batteries to cover hundreds of GW of demand ain't cheap.
- natch 8y ago
  Coal is not exactly cost-free either. And you don't need to match the grid capacity... that's a red herring. Even a tiny fraction of the grid capacity having battery backup is enough to have a disproportionate positive effect on grid stability.
  - 3rdAccount 8y ago
    Never said coal was cost free. Economically coal flat out loses. Everyone knows that and it isn't relevant to the discussion of grid reliability/resiliency. A tiny fraction of grid capacity having battery backup would be nice. Well, technically they already have lots of batteries and auxillary power, but you're talking about really big batteries I assume. Regardless, the answer in the short term isn't get rid of coal and replace with batteries and more renewable. Indeed that will most likely happen in the long-term, but not in the ~5 year frame.

by natch 8y ago

candiodari 8y ago

That'll cost one hell of a lot more than just subsidizing those power plants for a bit. Meanwhile batteries are getting cheaper. We will do this, do not worry. But give it 5 years, maybe a decade.

greglindahl 8y ago
How'd you figure out which solution was the lowest cost? Because if subsidizing these power plants was the lowest cost, that would probably be already happening. Normally grid operators use an economic model (including huge penalties for blackouts) to pick the solution with the lowest cost. Batteries are cost-effective in the short-term, and natural gas storage is cost-effective in the medium-term. Subsidizing expensive coal and nuclear is not cost-effective at any timescale. Add a carbon tax, then maybe nuclear might still make sense.
- jacobush 8y ago
  As much as I propose to shut down coal plants everywhere, fast, grid operators don't have a natural incentive to keep the grid stable. It's the job of the State (in broad terms) to either force how that's supposed to work through legislation, or to nudge it with legislated incentives. If what we have now is that coal is a guarantor for base load conditions, I can see how a politician may come to the (on the surface) reasonable conclusion that we need to prop up the guarantor of base load, coal in this case, if coal was in danger of being closed due to it not being profitable anymore. This kind of thinking has a LOT of precedent in other areas. (The US subsidized corn to make starvation in case of a global blockade/war impossible. The EU subsidized farms in general for the same reason.) These stop gap measures can easily spiral out of control. What see is a severe lack of vision. We should legislate, by force or nudge, towards a bright solution with modern solutions. Batteries, a decentralized grid etc is much better option for national security than some large coal plants.
  - 3rdAccount 8y ago
    Regarding your last point. You're thinking in the long-term (5-15 years). The fuel-security concern is right now and batteries aren't going to fix this in a couple of years.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      So the vision should be something like: “we will subsidise coal with this many dollars and match that with investing in batteries “ (or whatever). Not just defending status quo.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    I was referring to those regulations/legislated incentives, actually, sorry that I wasn't very clear. Usually they're monetary and the utility gets to choose the most cost-effective way to meet these requirements.
  - 3rdAccount 8y ago
    The idea that grid operators don't have an incentive to keep the grid stable is completely false. I work with and talk to and support system operators on a daily basis and it is pretty much the only thing on their minds as they monitor the grid 24/7 and some days can get very tense. To use an analogy, you basically just said Air Traffic Controllers have zero incentive to keep planes from crashing.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      On that level yes, just like doctors care about patients. But the owner of a coal plant will not keep operating a coal plant at a loss. The plant will be shuttered. The same goes for a private hospital operating at a loss.

3rdAccount 8y ago

Agreed in theory, but we're honestly just not there yet. In fact the large grid-size batteries aren't even a 1/10 of a percent of grid capacity. Getting enough batteries to cover hundreds of GW of demand ain't cheap.

natch 8y ago
Coal is not exactly cost-free either. And you don't need to match the grid capacity... that's a red herring. Even a tiny fraction of the grid capacity having battery backup is enough to have a disproportionate positive effect on grid stability.
- 3rdAccount 8y ago
  Never said coal was cost free. Economically coal flat out loses. Everyone knows that and it isn't relevant to the discussion of grid reliability/resiliency. A tiny fraction of grid capacity having battery backup would be nice. Well, technically they already have lots of batteries and auxillary power, but you're talking about really big batteries I assume. Regardless, the answer in the short term isn't get rid of coal and replace with batteries and more renewable. Indeed that will most likely happen in the long-term, but not in the ~5 year frame.