3 ms·

The Future of Energy Storage on Both Sides of the Meter

13 points by prostoalex 5y ago

kkfx 5y ago
Few considerations out of my personal experience with a small domestic p.v. system grid-connected but with lithium storage for backup: with p.v. && EVs && WFH, notice the strong emphasis on the logical and between them, using an EV as a home battery, witch means a detachable part of a domestic p.v. system is a good, logic and much needed thing for the single family, certainly not to feed the grid. The WFH part is needed, since most of us live during the day, so when p.v. produce, so to recharge we need our EVs docked during the day, specially in the late morning, witch is not really practical without WFH. If you start think something like "mh, but people who WFH with a modern home, a p.v. system etc are a very little percentage of the total population", yes that's is and that's the most show-stopping issue IMVHO. The other sparse considerations to be connected at the end of the comment: - lithium storage is not 100% efficient, that means x kWh charged are equal to y kWh available with x > y, by a not so marginal extent because we have to count not only the battery efficiency but also the typical setup of DC (from panels) to AC (p.v. inverter, around 95% bust less than 100%), to DC (battery inverter, far less efficient) + battery efficiency witch roughly means 10 kWh == 8kWh. - microgrid and battery storage are unstable, when a load start the AC frequency goes down, the p.v. inverter demand few seconds to produce more (case of ~0-injection to the grid/isolated system) and more importantly when a significant load goes down the p.v. inverter and the battery inverter to a far little extent demand time to step down production so the frequency goes up quickly sometime to a point of a microgrid shutdown due to too high frequency from p.v. inverter or DC ripple on the battery. - price of a domestic system is almost the price of a new cheap B-segment car for an operational life of the battery part from 8 to 10 years (theoretically) while panels last much more but when you have to change battery and perhaps battery inverter not changing the panels is a bit a nonsense, they are the cheapest part of the system. Long story short: IMO and IME we can't live on renewables alone except for few areas with very abundant mountain hydropower. All other storage and production systems are too inefficient and impractical to power both a single family home and a country with anything in between. Now with the artificially high energy prices for those who can having a p.v. system, a small micro-hydro etc is nearly convenient, but nothing more than that. For industry, hospitals, military we need nuclear and in that case it's a nonsense invest enormous amount of money in p.v. or eolic... At the actual state of tech IMVHO as an environmentalist, as one who have tested and at personal level is reasonably happy of the investments in renewable, energy storage beside classic hydro is just a theoretical and experimental game, nothing we can really deploy on scale so nothing we can really use on scale from here to 2030. People read "with a small p.v. you can produce 200% the energy you use", sure, unfortunately only when the Sun shine, when in an hypothetical society with a smart-enough national grid, with eolic and a bit of hydro, we can all recharge our vehicles when we mostly can't because we use them on the road, with significant grid stability issues (very frequent few minutes blackouts) and still nothing sufficient for night and industry. I'm sorry to say that such Green New Deal society is a dream, and pouring immense resources in such dream is a good way to shoot ourselves not in the food but in both feet and genitals. Those who have done that a personal scale can just repay their investments (probably) thanks to artificially high energy prices and perhaps having a certain protection against blackouts, especially to cool houses in the summer, those who have done something similar for supermarket, parking lot of modern buildings etc can similarly benefit by free energy to cool in the summer and a general reduction in consumption from the grid but nothing more. The only who really profit will be and already are the energy giants BOTH from classic oil, coal, gas and renewables with banks/private equities investing in them. The Earth surely do not see any environmental benefit, most other people will only be and already are harmed. Sorry for the length but really, try to study a bit what's up and what can happen, do you math and conclude with a bit of rationality...
formerkrogemp 5y ago
Why does this matter when more coal and more gas is being used than ever?
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Since on-grid storage is unlikely to see massive expansion [ ... ] Seems like an odd and completely unsupport premise to run into near the end of TFA.
- mcbishop 5y ago
  Word, that threw me off. And then the article came to an abrupt end.

13 points by prostoalex 5y ago

kkfx 5y ago

Few considerations out of my personal experience with a small domestic p.v. system grid-connected but with lithium storage for backup: with p.v. && EVs && WFH, notice the strong emphasis on the logical and between them, using an EV as a home battery, witch means a detachable part of a domestic p.v. system is a good, logic and much needed thing for the single family, certainly not to feed the grid. The WFH part is needed, since most of us live during the day, so when p.v. produce, so to recharge we need our EVs docked during the day, specially in the late morning, witch is not really practical without WFH. If you start think something like "mh, but people who WFH with a modern home, a p.v. system etc are a very little percentage of the total population", yes that's is and that's the most show-stopping issue IMVHO. The other sparse considerations to be connected at the end of the comment: - lithium storage is not 100% efficient, that means x kWh charged are equal to y kWh available with x > y, by a not so marginal extent because we have to count not only the battery efficiency but also the typical setup of DC (from panels) to AC (p.v. inverter, around 95% bust less than 100%), to DC (battery inverter, far less efficient) + battery efficiency witch roughly means 10 kWh == 8kWh. - microgrid and battery storage are unstable, when a load start the AC frequency goes down, the p.v. inverter demand few seconds to produce more (case of ~0-injection to the grid/isolated system) and more importantly when a significant load goes down the p.v. inverter and the battery inverter to a far little extent demand time to step down production so the frequency goes up quickly sometime to a point of a microgrid shutdown due to too high frequency from p.v. inverter or DC ripple on the battery. - price of a domestic system is almost the price of a new cheap B-segment car for an operational life of the battery part from 8 to 10 years (theoretically) while panels last much more but when you have to change battery and perhaps battery inverter not changing the panels is a bit a nonsense, they are the cheapest part of the system. Long story short: IMO and IME we can't live on renewables alone except for few areas with very abundant mountain hydropower. All other storage and production systems are too inefficient and impractical to power both a single family home and a country with anything in between. Now with the artificially high energy prices for those who can having a p.v. system, a small micro-hydro etc is nearly convenient, but nothing more than that. For industry, hospitals, military we need nuclear and in that case it's a nonsense invest enormous amount of money in p.v. or eolic... At the actual state of tech IMVHO as an environmentalist, as one who have tested and at personal level is reasonably happy of the investments in renewable, energy storage beside classic hydro is just a theoretical and experimental game, nothing we can really deploy on scale so nothing we can really use on scale from here to 2030. People read "with a small p.v. you can produce 200% the energy you use", sure, unfortunately only when the Sun shine, when in an hypothetical society with a smart-enough national grid, with eolic and a bit of hydro, we can all recharge our vehicles when we mostly can't because we use them on the road, with significant grid stability issues (very frequent few minutes blackouts) and still nothing sufficient for night and industry. I'm sorry to say that such Green New Deal society is a dream, and pouring immense resources in such dream is a good way to shoot ourselves not in the food but in both feet and genitals. Those who have done that a personal scale can just repay their investments (probably) thanks to artificially high energy prices and perhaps having a certain protection against blackouts, especially to cool houses in the summer, those who have done something similar for supermarket, parking lot of modern buildings etc can similarly benefit by free energy to cool in the summer and a general reduction in consumption from the grid but nothing more. The only who really profit will be and already are the energy giants BOTH from classic oil, coal, gas and renewables with banks/private equities investing in them. The Earth surely do not see any environmental benefit, most other people will only be and already are harmed. Sorry for the length but really, try to study a bit what's up and what can happen, do you math and conclude with a bit of rationality...

formerkrogemp 5y ago

Why does this matter when more coal and more gas is being used than ever?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> Since on-grid storage is unlikely to see massive expansion [ ... ] Seems like an odd and completely unsupport premise to run into near the end of TFA.

mcbishop 5y ago
Word, that threw me off. And then the article came to an abrupt end.