2 ms·

I think the article is not so much about how more difficult it is to price the energy of a gas peaking plant but instead about changing strategies by developers

by creer 3y ago

I think the article is not so much about how more difficult it is to price the energy of a gas peaking plant but instead about changing strategies by developers of such plants. There is the temptation to switch to battery plants now rather than later. There is the change in the equation that such plants used to be mostly priced by the energy provided (in contracted amounts) and that now they are more charging for contingency / continuity service. That is they are charging for a different service: not paid by the kW/hr but by the capability to produce on demand. And then subsidies, permitting, environmental concerns also are changing: easier to build batteries, hard to build gas. And lenders having to follow in the change in profitability mechanism.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> There is the temptation to switch to battery plants now rather than later. But this is the problem, right? They don't serve the same purpose. The battery plant allows you to store surplus solar generation during the day and use it at night. That's useful, but it's not the same thing -- because if it's cloudy for an extended period of time, you don't have surplus solar generation during the day, and your batteries are empty. What then?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Batteries can store energy from any source, with solar, wind, nuclear and hydro being top candidates as all might produce in excess of demand.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The source isn't really the point. If you normally have 200GW of solar generation but it's cloudy so now you have 10% of that, you don't have surplus generation of any kind. The remaining power plants can't even cover the current load, the batteries are being discharged rather than charged and when they run out, what do you do?
    - seec 3y ago
      I think most people are delusional about this, including the operators talked about in the article. I believe this is mostly posturing and people trying to find ways to get some of that sweet subvention money flowing for renewable tech and associated. In other words, there are some profits to be made and for this they need to pretend that they don't know better. Because as you said, this is not sustainable. The numbers don't work, if we only build battery with renewables someone has to lose power somewhere some of the time. I worked around a small model with rather optimistic assumptions with zero concern for cost and a focus on efficient consumption to determine what would be required to make a single 1–2-person habitation completely sustainable off grid but with most of the modern confort. I used past weather data and sunshine/wind values. It doesn't work. The number of batteries you need is ridiculous and unrealistic when you scale up the model, that's before considering costs that are just insane. I think renewables are a good technology especially because we can use the peaks to our advantage and work/organise society around that. In particular car battery charging and air conditioning are 2 very good candidates. Realistically we still need reliable technology to ensure baseload at all times, especially at night. Personally, I think nuclear is just that but just saying that word is so political that people lose all rationality it seems, so we get sucks in meaningless debates and projections... In a weird twist, most pro-renewables are also anti electric car, I swear ideological people are really unbelievable. I think the world became too political in general (a feminine way of "solving" problems) but in particular the field of energy is overrun by politics; which is kind of funny when you consider that the core skill to make everything work is rationality. But I guess when we will get grid shut down like in South Africa they will agree that batteries don't work. It will be too late though...
    - creer 3y ago
      If that's the situation, then you have just demonstrated that you can't do it like that. Solar plus battery. That's fine. You look for something else. For example you get a contract to fund a gas-powered humongous plant from the companies whose mandate it is to not run out of power. (but you probably can't get gas for that plant on a one-off basis - you'll have to store.) The point is to do that use case planning (and fund a plant based on the results.) Hopefully nobody is really getting themselves in that situation.

by creer 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> There is the temptation to switch to battery plants now rather than later. But this is the problem, right? They don't serve the same purpose. The battery plant allows you to store surplus solar generation during the day and use it at night. That's useful, but it's not the same thing -- because if it's cloudy for an extended period of time, you don't have surplus solar generation during the day, and your batteries are empty. What then?

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Batteries can store energy from any source, with solar, wind, nuclear and hydro being top candidates as all might produce in excess of demand.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The source isn't really the point. If you normally have 200GW of solar generation but it's cloudy so now you have 10% of that, you don't have surplus generation of any kind. The remaining power plants can't even cover the current load, the batteries are being discharged rather than charged and when they run out, what do you do?
  - seec 3y ago
    I think most people are delusional about this, including the operators talked about in the article. I believe this is mostly posturing and people trying to find ways to get some of that sweet subvention money flowing for renewable tech and associated. In other words, there are some profits to be made and for this they need to pretend that they don't know better. Because as you said, this is not sustainable. The numbers don't work, if we only build battery with renewables someone has to lose power somewhere some of the time. I worked around a small model with rather optimistic assumptions with zero concern for cost and a focus on efficient consumption to determine what would be required to make a single 1–2-person habitation completely sustainable off grid but with most of the modern confort. I used past weather data and sunshine/wind values. It doesn't work. The number of batteries you need is ridiculous and unrealistic when you scale up the model, that's before considering costs that are just insane. I think renewables are a good technology especially because we can use the peaks to our advantage and work/organise society around that. In particular car battery charging and air conditioning are 2 very good candidates. Realistically we still need reliable technology to ensure baseload at all times, especially at night. Personally, I think nuclear is just that but just saying that word is so political that people lose all rationality it seems, so we get sucks in meaningless debates and projections... In a weird twist, most pro-renewables are also anti electric car, I swear ideological people are really unbelievable. I think the world became too political in general (a feminine way of "solving" problems) but in particular the field of energy is overrun by politics; which is kind of funny when you consider that the core skill to make everything work is rationality. But I guess when we will get grid shut down like in South Africa they will agree that batteries don't work. It will be too late though...
  - creer 3y ago
    If that's the situation, then you have just demonstrated that you can't do it like that. Solar plus battery. That's fine. You look for something else. For example you get a contract to fund a gas-powered humongous plant from the companies whose mandate it is to not run out of power. (but you probably can't get gas for that plant on a one-off basis - you'll have to store.) The point is to do that use case planning (and fund a plant based on the results.) Hopefully nobody is really getting themselves in that situation.