3 ms·
California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- remarkEon 5mo agoThis is a seriously impressive achievement. I wish there was a more comprehensive engineering deep dive, but I wasn't able to find one. So why is California's electricity the most expensive in the country?
- dn3500 5mo agoCalifornia imports a third of its electricity, and that's expensive. It gets almost another third from natural gas. They've been changing rapidly from fossil fuels and nuclear to renewables and that's pretty capital intensive. And there have been some huge costs associated with the wildfires. There's a bit more technical info on California battery storage here: https://www.ess-news.com/2025/04/11/california-battery-dominance-coming-into-view/ https://www.ess-news.com/2025/04/11/california-battery-domin...
- londons_explore 5mo agoIt appears expensive electricity is mostly a policy decision. Schemes to support low carbon energy, strict emissions controls etc. Let everyone do what they were doing in 1980, and prices would be rock bottom by now.
- remarkEon 5mo agoYeah I don’t understand why the first priority of any policy maker isn’t to make the cost of electricity as low as possible. We certainly have the technology to do this.
- dheera 5mo agoThe problem with renewables I have is that "what's good for the earth" and capitalism simply don't mix. Solar was fundamentally supposed to be almost-free electricity. You put a bunch of panels up and free energy from the nearest star. The stark reality though is that the people and institutions in control of solar equipment (this includes manufacturers, tariffs, etc.) reprice their stuff to match the price of the dirty electricity. And then they reprice their stuff again to assume that everyone loves to borrow money. At that point it becomes not worth it at all. No, I don't want a solar installation to pay for itself in 15 years. I want equipment that gives me free electricity starting next month. If it costs less than a months' worth of electricity and I won't have an electricity bill starting next month, I'm interested. If not, it's outside my budget and planning horizon.
- MattPalmer1086 5mo agoThe break even for home solar is too long for me also. Every now and again I look at it, and even with subsidies it's gonna be about 12 to 15 years before I see any cost saving.
- bartvk 5mo agoWhat if you drive electric?
- dheera 5mo agoI drive an electric. It doesn't save money because the car itself is more expensive by exactly as much as you would save over the life of the car. And then the $700/year registration fees because you don't pay the fuel tax. Again, stupid capitalism.
- pingou 5mo agoHow do you explain that solar got 50% less expensive in the last 10 years? Why would people and institutions in control of solar equipment reprice their stuff to match the price of dirty electricity? You think there is no competition? Or you confuse it with the system that has been put in place where the price of electricity in the grid is set up by the most expensive producer at the time (which does make sense although you can argue against it). Solar installation should pay for itself in less than 15 years in most cases, half the time according to that article: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/10/03/average-u-s-residential-solar-project-breaks-even-at-7-5-years-said-energysage/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/10/03/average-u-s-residenti... (and residential solar is much less cost-effective than large-scale solar farms).
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoIn general, imports are cheaper than the alternative, because if you have local gas plants that aren't maxed out, then you'd use those rather than pay more to import. Some quick googling suggests this holds in California too.
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoPaying for wildfires is a big part of it. Another less obvious thing is that Californians don't use much electricity due to mild climate and efficiency programs. Fixed costs therefore get spread across fewer units. This is a topic in some nations where electrification is seen as a way of driving down per unit electricity costs even as you use more for heating or transport.
- louwrentius 5mo agoJust for a moment, try to imagine how much wind, solar and battery storage can be bought with the money required to build just one regular nuclear power plant (gigawatt output). The real thing delaying the energy transition is politics, we have the technology. And on a really small scale, here in NL we can build our own home battery storage systems with cheap 15kWh or 32kWh battery kits from China. Combine that with dynamic energy contracts it's amazing. A 15kWh setup is maybe 3500 Euro, and 32kWh around 4500 Euro. Lasts at least 15+ years counting battery cycles.
- Tuna-Fish 5mo ago> Just for a moment, try to imagine how much wind, solar and battery storage can be bought with the money required to build just one regular nuclear power plant (gigawatt output). Assuming the most expensive nuclear power plant in the world, assuming the solar is free and you are only paying for the batteries, assuming costs in line with the cheapest grid-scale battery storage in the world, about 6.5h worth of that nuclear plant's output. That's on the right scale to power California with renewables alone! That's within sight. Anywhere less sunny, powering things with solar and batteries alone would still be very expensive.
- Symbiote 5mo agoHinkley Point C in the UK is costing £48bn at current prices, providing 3GW. Building 3GW * 2 hours of battery storage at current prices is £1.75bn, so for the same money we get about 48 hours of storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... https://www.lzyess.com/news/1571.html https://www.lzyess.com/news/1571.html
- kubb 5mo agoWell, how much is it? Nuclear costs are front loaded.
- stavros 5mo agoNuclear isn't the enemy here.
- throwaway2037 5mo ago> For the first time, California discharged just over 12,000 megawatts, equivalent to 12 large nuclear plants, of energy from its battery arrays. That’s enough to meet over 40 percent of the state’s energy demand. For how long? 100 millis, 1 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day? There is a HUGE difference. This stuff reads like PR.
- internet_points 5mo agoTwo to four hours per day. Source: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... under Additional Information about the Data: > The use of the terms megawatts and kilowatts as descriptive of battery energy storage is to effectively convey the instantaneous power contribution of battery storage as comparable to the power produced by grid-level generators. We recognize that energy capacity in the context of energy storage typically refers to the total energy a battery can hold in watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, megawatt-hours, etc. However, for statewide planning and reliability purposes, understanding the peak power capability of battery energy storage systems allows for the integration of data with the nameplate capacity of traditional power generation units serving the grid. It is in this context that battery systems are able to be effectively compared for their ability to serve the grid over short periods of time, typically two to four hours per day depending upon system conditions.
- throwaway2037 5mo agoHat tip. This is a perfect follow-up. This confirms to me: Yes, it is a major achievement. Batteries with capacity of 24-48 MW-hours is HUGE! Probably none of this infra existed 25 years ago. I wonder: What is/was the total cost (in 2026 dollars) to build this battery infra?
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoThis rollout occured in the last 10 years. Some legislation in 2010 set small targets for 2020 and it grew rapidly from there.
- dragontamer 5mo agoWeird units. Batteries are normally talked about in terms of energy storage, not power. IE: Batteries overall have 0 power. Everything they make had to come from somewhere else. Actually, because of losses in the 20%ish range, it's probably more accurate to say that California's Battery Array is __COSTING__ 2 nuclear power plants worth of power in electrical waste. ---------- Talk about GW-hrs of storage. You know, the value people actually cares about?
- asplake 5mo agoIn practice, it can be very relevant. With my own household solar/battery system, I am sometimes frustrated more by limits on how much current I can draw, not by capacity. I could add more batteries, but it seems that the inverter is the limiting factor. And 12MW of inverter is impressive, no?
- dragontamer 5mo agoNo? Natural Gas would crush these numbers at far less $$ invested. All of this crap is apples vs bananas. It's all fake made up metrics Strangely enough: natural gas is probably the better comparison because at least natural gas is a peaker / grid stabilization technology. Batteries are energy storage while nuclear I base load. It's the most nonsensical comparison I can possibly think of. ------- Energy storage should be compared vs energy storage. How is a battery vs compressed air? How is Li-ion vs Lead Acid? How is Pumped Hydro vs Li Ion?
- internet_points 5mo agoThey use power units to make it comparable with the non-storage sources, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48157824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48157824
- dragontamer 5mo agoYes. People misuse units to compare apples with bananas. Bad comparisons are bad.
- 5mo ago
- ztcfegzgf 5mo agothis seems misleading. the article claims: 12,000 megawatts, equivalent to 12 large nuclear plants, of energy from its battery arrays. but for how long is this battery array able to produce this amount of power? compared to the nuclear plant, where the answer is years. watts are power, not energy. for example, a tea kettle might require 2kilowatts. this does not tell you how much does it cost you to use the tea kettle, because it does not tell you how long the tea kettle is consuming 2kilowatts.
- aquir 5mo agoWe need something like this in the UK given the constant abundance of renewable energy.
- edent 5mo agoWe already do. https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/latest-list-top-largest-commercial-battery-energy-storage-system-projects-database-uk https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/latest-list-top-larg... https://electrek.co/2026/05/11/uk-delivers-europes-largest-vanadium-flow-battery-system/ https://electrek.co/2026/05/11/uk-delivers-europes-largest-v...
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoUK is up there in the world rankings for batteries. I think they have slightly more grid batteries installed than California. UK have more people, but less money and less electricity used so I'd say they're doing better than California on battery deployment.
- tialaramex 5mo agoI do not think so. There is BESS here and it's hard to be sure from the available data but it sure looks like less than 10GWh of BESS, maybe much less. There is now more BESS here than pumped storage, which was installed as a Black Start† rather than specifically storage but it's just not very much compared to California from what I can see. So maybe I'm wrong about how much capacity it is, because the Pumped Storage is like 20GWh top to bottom. † Most modern power stations perversely need electricity in order to start them, so if your whole grid goes offline you're fucked, you go dark and your civilisation is now on a clock - a Black Start facility is a station which can go from black (no electricity) to running. In the case of Britain's pumped storage that's because "all" we need to do is allow the water to run through the generator. Once one or two Black Start sites are up you can use that power to start the other generators and restore supply to residents, and things get back to normal in a few hours. [Edited to say that since we know there's about 20GWh of PSH the larger BESS can't be as small as I thought unless it's run a lot harder...]
- tedk-42 5mo agoGarbage article. Using a measurement for power as opposed to energy is dumb with batteries
- noosphr 5mo agoI can build a capacitor bank in my garage that produces more power than a nuclear power plant. For a millisecond.
- ninalanyon 5mo agoNot when you are talking about compensating for short term peaks. Of course the amount of time it can do this is also important but, unlike batteries used for shifting solar energy to night time use for instance, it is not the most important feature.
- energy123 5mo agoA graph is easier. Here's California: https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-15 https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-15 Here's Texas: https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot?date=2026-05-15 https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot?date=2026-05-15
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoThis series of graphs shows grid batteries quickly displacing peaker gas plants in Queensland over 24 months / two years. This isn't the most advanced grid in the country, but it's just good business to displace the most expensive and dirtiest gas plants even if you still use gas for other tasks on the grid. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/open-electricity.jpg https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/open-...
- jojobas 5mo agoThe only problem with that is that coal plants are increasingly priced out at midday and no alternative exists for overnight.
- maxldn 5mo agoI feel like batteries, while they won’t work for weeks, exist overnight as well.
- fmajid 5mo agoCoal plants were mostly displaced by natural gas, but several states still rely on them for base load. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54919 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54919 Independently of its horrendous impact on the environment, more people die from coal mining accidents every year than in the entire history of nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl).
- rickydroll 5mo agoNot to mention that the waste product from coal-burning power is radioactive. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/21557305 https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/21557305
- 7734128 5mo agoWhy are green articles always written so poorly? 12 GW of power is great however. Most nuclear reactors are about a gigawatt, but most nuclear power plants have multiple reactors. 3-6 GW per plant is perhaps a more likely measure.
- tialaramex 5mo agoCalifornia's demand commonly goes from 18GW to 30GW in the same day. Lets take your smallest "Nuclear plant" idea, if California owns 6 of those they run all the time but it needs 12GW extra at peak, where does that come from? If California owns 10 of those they run intermittently, you're still paying to have ten but not getting almost twice the benefit so your prices soar. So the way you'd presumably fix it would be to... build loads of storage and own say 9 of these 3GW nuclear plants, drawing from batteries at peak then refilling them overnight. But wait, that's already what California did that you're unhappy about - so what gives? Then we notice that in reality although you think "most nuclear power plants" would produce 3-6GW in fact California doesn't own ten, or eight, or six, but one such plant and it produces... drum roll... 2.2GW nameplate.
- sampo 5mo ago> California's demand commonly goes from 18GW to 30GW in the same day. That extreme intra-day variation is also partially caused by California's cheap solar power: Cheaper prices draw demand to those hours. In other locations, (some) people (partially) adjust their consumption patters to follow the cheap wind energy hours, and this leads to different consumption patters. Less intra-day variation but but inter-day variation. If California's prices were wind-dominated (typically a little more wind at nightime), or nuclear or burning dominated (stable), it would not cause such large variation in the intra-day consumption pattern. This electricity price figure is readable, but 10 years old, so today the variation in California must be larger than it shows: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32172 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32172
- metalman 5mo agoThis reads like the end of the fossil fueled, grid. Managing the california grid is now completly different than any traditional grid in that peak power is managed seamlessly from solar/wind/battery power, not counting providing a significant, most?, of the daytime power, leaving just the nightime load running street lights and background loads. The stabilisation of costs, especialy durring a fuel crisis, is an invisible benifit that poorer countrys will be looking at as they plan there future grid updates, while struggling to keep the lights on right now.
- sampo 5mo ago> California's Battery Array Is as Powerful as 12 Nuclear Power Plants From this graph we see that in the evening when solar power goes out, for next 3 hours (7 pm to 10 pm) California's battery array is as powerful as 12 nuclear reactors. Then the batteries are drained empty, and the rest of the night California survives by importing electricity from other states. And partially by running hydro power only during the nights, keeping it at zero during the day. https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-15 https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso?date=2026-05-15
- ZeroGravitas 5mo agoThe net storage graph clearly shows they aren't drained empty after 3 hours. They keep their remaining charge for the more expensive morning peak rather than compete with cheap imports overnight (there's a graph showing the cost over the time range too).
- sampo 5mo agoGood point, and good financial strategy. But the morning discharge seems to be about 5%–7% of the evening discharge, so I assume the batteries near empty.
- ViewTrick1002 5mo agoIt is a direct correlation with the electricity price. As the evening peak is saturated the morning peak will follow. Followed by the night.
- greenavocado 5mo agoWhile we're sleeping splitting hairs about whether it's possible to pull 12 megawatts from a D cell battery for 2 attoseconds I'll throw my hat in the ring and claim that nuclear pellets are batteries if we redefine what a battery means (just like that other recent article about heritability was redefined)