4 ms·
> Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence. California has more than 1.5 GW of utility-scale chemical batteries interconnected to
by ghouse 5y ago
> Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence.
California has more than 1.5 GW of utility-scale chemical batteries interconnected to it's grid with another 1 GW anticipated to enter service by the end of the year. Most of these batteries can sustain full output for four hours. This is in addition to the more than 3.0 GW of pumped hydro "batteries."
1 GW is roughly the output of one nuclear power plant.
Source: I develop power plants in the western US.
- mrjangles 5y agoIf you develop power plants then how come you don't know the difference between energy and power?
- Manuel_D 5y ago1GW is roughly the output of one nuclear reactor (most plants have 2 or more) for one hour. We'll need at least half a day's worth of storage, likely much more if we want to use wind for a significant portion of power generation.
- pydry 5y agoI remember people saying something similar about the amount of deployed solar and wind shortly after it became cost competitive. There used to be a tiny amount deployed but it was the cheapest form of power. Then over the course of a few years there was a lot. All that really matters is A) is it cost effective B) will there be scaling problems C) will there be political impediments.
- coryrc 5y agoSolar is not cost-effective today for applying power after the sun sets (duck curve) or at night. Wind is not cost-effective at supplying power on calm days. If they were required to build the rest of the system to be reliable (longer interconnects, batteries, etc) it suddenly wouldn't be cost-effective, this explaining why energy cost continues to go up while this supposedly cheap power ramps up.
- pydry 5y agoCombined solar+battery is not just cost effective at dealing with the duck curve it is downright cheap. Hawaii canceled an inter-island grid interconnect because of this.