3 ms·

The big wattage numbers are great - but it is unclear how many watt-hours can be supplied - how many hours can California's grid run with batteries? It appears

The big wattage numbers are great - but it is unclear how many watt-hours can be supplied - how many hours can California's grid run with batteries? It appears that the batteries are 4 hour batteries. Two questions: is there excess solar capacity in the winter to charge the batteries? How do the batteries perform in the winter - total storage capacity and discharge rate? It is misleading to compare a battery array that lasts for 4 hours to a nuclear powered electric plant that supplies energy at a constant 24/7. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/01/california-crosses-10-gw-battery-storage-threshold/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/01/california-crosses-10... "Developers plan to add 6,813 MW of battery projects in the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO) domain this year, dominated by four-hour lithium-ion systems, roughly double their additions in 2023, according to an analysis of S&P Global Market Intelligence data."

jeffbee 2y ago
Because of the regulatory/economic regime the state has established, all of these plants are 4h plants, or 4Wh/W if you prefer. That's the number they need to hit to get the top-tier payout from the grid operator.
- skybrian 2y ago
  I suppose they could discharge slower, though, if eventually there's not as much demand?
csdreamer7 2y ago
> It is misleading to compare a battery array that lasts for 4 hours to a nuclear powered electric plant that supplies energy at a constant 24/7. It is misleading to compare the two: * One has no risk of a nuclear meltdown in a very earthquake prone area (California). * One does not have 60+ year long successful history of lobbying governments and establishing regulatory capture (note I wrote 'successful') * one does have issue where they do not reprocess spent fuel adding billions of risk of nuclear fuel leaking into the environment; or if they do recycle, risk creating material for nuclear weapons. * one would struggle with it's strong baseline, yet inflexible power generation without batteries to handle afternoon peaks Keeping hearing random arguments for nuclear fission power (why not tidal?) and yet the regulatory capture and earthquake issue is still present in the US. We moved away from nuclear power after Japan's meltdown for a reason. With recent Supreme Court decisions and fracking causing earthquakes in Nebraska it has only gotten worse. I do not trust the industry with nuclear power. California spent a lot of money to establish a working grid that can be used for sustainable power until we get useful fusion (or that big supervolcano hits). Nuclear power is more needed in Texas right now, with it's broken grid, than California. More information on reprocessing nuclear waste: https://www.projectoptimist.us/why-us-doesnt-recycle-spent-nuclear-fuel/ https://www.projectoptimist.us/why-us-doesnt-recycle-spent-n... https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/recycle-everything-america-except-your-nuclear-waste/ https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/recycle-everything-america-e...

jeffbee 2y ago

Because of the regulatory/economic regime the state has established, all of these plants are 4h plants, or 4Wh/W if you prefer. That's the number they need to hit to get the top-tier payout from the grid operator.

skybrian 2y ago
I suppose they could discharge slower, though, if eventually there's not as much demand?

csdreamer7 2y ago

> It is misleading to compare a battery array that lasts for 4 hours to a nuclear powered electric plant that supplies energy at a constant 24/7. It is misleading to compare the two: * One has no risk of a nuclear meltdown in a very earthquake prone area (California). * One does not have 60+ year long successful history of lobbying governments and establishing regulatory capture (note I wrote 'successful') * one does have issue where they do not reprocess spent fuel adding billions of risk of nuclear fuel leaking into the environment; or if they do recycle, risk creating material for nuclear weapons. * one would struggle with it's strong baseline, yet inflexible power generation without batteries to handle afternoon peaks Keeping hearing random arguments for nuclear fission power (why not tidal?) and yet the regulatory capture and earthquake issue is still present in the US. We moved away from nuclear power after Japan's meltdown for a reason. With recent Supreme Court decisions and fracking causing earthquakes in Nebraska it has only gotten worse. I do not trust the industry with nuclear power. California spent a lot of money to establish a working grid that can be used for sustainable power until we get useful fusion (or that big supervolcano hits). Nuclear power is more needed in Texas right now, with it's broken grid, than California. More information on reprocessing nuclear waste: https://www.projectoptimist.us/why-us-doesnt-recycle-spent-nuclear-fuel/ https://www.projectoptimist.us/why-us-doesnt-recycle-spent-n... https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/recycle-everything-america-except-your-nuclear-waste/ https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/recycle-everything-america-e...