US Grid Adds Batteries At 10x the Rate of Natural Gas In First Half of 2024 (arstechnica.com) 231
Longtime Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Ars Technica, written by John Timmer: While solar power is growing at an extremely rapid clip, in absolute terms, the use of natural gas for electricity production has continued to outpace renewables. But that looks set to change in 2024, as the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has run the numbers on the first half of the year and found that wind, solar, and batteries were each installed at a pace that dwarfs new natural gas generators. And the gap is expected to get dramatically larger before the year is over.
According to the EIA's numbers, about 20 GW of new capacity was added in the first half of this year, and solar accounts for 60 percent of it. Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida. There were two projects that went live that were rated at over 600 MW of capacity, one in Texas, the other in Nevada. Next up is batteries: The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period, meaning over 20 percent of the total new capacity. (Batteries are treated as the equivalent of a generating source by the EIA since they can dispatch electricity to the grid on demand, even if they can't do so continuously.) Texas and California alone accounted for over 60 percent of these additions; throw in Arizona and Nevada, and you're at 93 percent of the installed capacity.
The clear pattern here is that batteries are going where the solar is, allowing the power generated during the peak of the day to be used to meet demand after the sun sets. This will help existing solar plants avoid curtailing power production during the lower-demand periods in the spring and fall. In turn, this will improve the economic case for installing additional solar in states where its production can already regularly exceed demand. Wind power, by contrast, is running at a more sedate pace, with only 2.5 GW of new capacity during the first six months of 2024. And for likely the last time this decade, additional nuclear power was placed on the grid, at the fourth 1.1 GW reactor (and second recent build) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The only other additions came from natural gas-powered facilities, but these totaled just 400 MW, or just 2 percent of the total of new capacity.
The EIA expects a bit over 60 GW of new capacity to be installed by the end of the year, with 37 GW of that coming in the form of solar power. Battery growth continues at a torrid pace, with 15 GW expected, or roughly a quarter of the total capacity additions for the year. Wind will account for 7.1 GW of new capacity, and natural gas 2.6 GW. Throw in the contribution from nuclear, and 96 percent of the capacity additions of 2024 are expected to operate without any carbon emissions. Even if you choose to ignore the battery additions, the fraction of carbon-emitting capacity added remains extremely small, at only 6 percent."
According to the EIA's numbers, about 20 GW of new capacity was added in the first half of this year, and solar accounts for 60 percent of it. Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida. There were two projects that went live that were rated at over 600 MW of capacity, one in Texas, the other in Nevada. Next up is batteries: The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period, meaning over 20 percent of the total new capacity. (Batteries are treated as the equivalent of a generating source by the EIA since they can dispatch electricity to the grid on demand, even if they can't do so continuously.) Texas and California alone accounted for over 60 percent of these additions; throw in Arizona and Nevada, and you're at 93 percent of the installed capacity.
The clear pattern here is that batteries are going where the solar is, allowing the power generated during the peak of the day to be used to meet demand after the sun sets. This will help existing solar plants avoid curtailing power production during the lower-demand periods in the spring and fall. In turn, this will improve the economic case for installing additional solar in states where its production can already regularly exceed demand. Wind power, by contrast, is running at a more sedate pace, with only 2.5 GW of new capacity during the first six months of 2024. And for likely the last time this decade, additional nuclear power was placed on the grid, at the fourth 1.1 GW reactor (and second recent build) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The only other additions came from natural gas-powered facilities, but these totaled just 400 MW, or just 2 percent of the total of new capacity.
The EIA expects a bit over 60 GW of new capacity to be installed by the end of the year, with 37 GW of that coming in the form of solar power. Battery growth continues at a torrid pace, with 15 GW expected, or roughly a quarter of the total capacity additions for the year. Wind will account for 7.1 GW of new capacity, and natural gas 2.6 GW. Throw in the contribution from nuclear, and 96 percent of the capacity additions of 2024 are expected to operate without any carbon emissions. Even if you choose to ignore the battery additions, the fraction of carbon-emitting capacity added remains extremely small, at only 6 percent."
Progress.. (Score:2, Funny)
Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida.
I'm surprised this woke activity was even allowed there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Progress.. (Score:2)
There are a lot of subsidies to be siphoned from solar installs. It is not profitable to build and maintain long term especially once batteries come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty much purely economics, batteries, solar and wind keep getting cheaper and the fossil fuels are not.
Government investments and the power of mass production are making it possible.
Re: Progress.. (Score:3)
Texas is actually fairly friendly to these kinds of unregulated renewables projects. They have far less regulation, so faster and easier to build. But more importantly ERCOT has no capacity market or real planning structure. They've set up their market on the premise that if the potential upside of straight wholesale energy sales is high enough (flash back to them hitting the $9000/mwh cap) then new generation will be built in anticipation of that and existing generation will stay online. This is really, re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only joke? Another rich target mostly missed...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're aware, of course, that the majority of new batteries going into EVs and grid power are LFPs, right? No cobalt?
That companies like Natron are targeting grid storage with sodium-ion? No cobalt? No lithium?
You're aware... nah. Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Natron selling sodium ion batteries at scale yet?
Re: Progress.. (Score:2)
Supposedly they entered mass production in May this year: https://newatlas.com/energy/na... [newatlas.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good sign. It'd be a shame for people to be building out grid scale battery projects using Lion batteries instead...
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium ion batteries don't necessarily require cobalt. Unfortunately I don't think the improved sodium batteries we've heard so much about are ready yet for grid scale deployment.
Re: (Score:2)
Sodium ion batteries aren't perfect either. But they fix several of the worst problems with Lion batteries to the point where solar and wind become far more practical and economical.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Seeing them as greedy is actually a rationalization of much uglier motives. They'll happily forgo a business opportunity if it protects their power and privilege over other people. The TX energy mafia is participating with renewables because they haven't figured out yet that the change will destroy them. There's no controlling renewables the way they controlled fossil fuels. When they do figure it out, their
Re: (Score:2)
The typical investor doesn't have a campaign.
The people drilling for oil/gas or building solar chase money. Sometimes politicians give it to them in the form of subsidies, sometimes enough to change what they would do anyway.
I assume in Texas it's because they have a lot of solar due to the nature of the state being ideal for it, now the subsidies come in because of an overly solar reliant grid (which with batteries it will become less so).
I actually don't know in Florida, it is sunny, but is there tons of
'Continuously' (Score:3)
Given this is Texas of the "it got cold so gas stopped" brittle grid, none of their generation capacity should be considered 'continuous'
Re: (Score:3)
If your state has a severe weather event that hasn't happened in 150 years, it will cause infrastructure damage where you live too. California has its own share of rolling blackouts, this isn't just a Texas thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If your state has a severe weather event that hasn't happened in 150 years, it will cause infrastructure damage where you live too. California has its own share of rolling blackouts, this isn't just a Texas thing.
By "150" years you actually mean 10, then you would be right. The Texas grid nearly failed in 2011 [npr.org]during a winter storm. The situation was dire enough that a post-mortem was commissioned. [usatoday.com] The conclusion was the Texas grid was not prepared for severe winter conditions. Recommendations were made to winterize all operations. These were the same recommendations made in 1989 after another severe winter storm. Texas however being heavily deregulated could not/would not force energy operators to winterize. So in
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that there was a major freeze in 2011 that caused rolling blackouts, it was *not* as severe as the storm of 2021. It's also true that many of the improvements triggered by the 2011 freeze, still had not been completed by 2021. If you think such major infrastructure projects can reasonably be completed in 10 years, you haven't seen major infrastructure projects. And I'd ask, why is California still suffering wildfires caused by poor grid maintenance, after decades of promises by PG&E to f
Re: (Score:2)
Texas compared to the itty bitty 'can't charge your EV due to lack of jouice' grid that is Kalyfornya is an apples to oranges comparison.
That certainly is what Texans "think", but the fact is that most EV charging occurs at night when there is a ton of spare grid and generation capacity.
That night the data was fascinating. Texas had about 8000+ MW of available grid power at that instance while itty bitty Kaly had just 2200+ MW.
Great, you don't understand what you're reading, shock amazement. We throttle generation so that we don't have spare capacity online, because that is wasteful, except during the day when the solar kicks in of course. Then the plants that don't follow load gracefully have to keep running, which is why prices can go negative on a sunny day. It's not because sol
Batteries work after the sun sets (Score:3)
It's because of razor sharp analysis like this that keeps me coming back to slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you could have just read it on Ars Technica where it was originally posted. This is nothing but a comment site.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can comment, you'll just be downvoted to oblivion if you're wrong - same as here. You'd only get banned if you were deliberately, willfully, regularly and maliciously wrong, but surely no AC would be like that.
Re:Batteries work after the sun sets (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but here, "wrong" is only mostly determined by politics rather than facts or logic. At Ars, it's almost always determined by politics rather than facts or logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Those Lying Numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
What would have been more helpful and less deceptive would be to mention something about how battery backup is only good for maybe four hours of continuous output at the rated capacity. So, 20GW of constant power versus
Re:Those Lying Numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Utility-scale batteries are in competition with gas peaker plants, which generate electricity that is enormously expensive and they also pollute.
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is ...? Can you not find polluting power plants everywhere in America?
BTW, if you're referring (literally) to the company Silicon Valley Power, they use a mix of:
>38% from eligible renewable resources as defined by the California Energy Commission, 34% from large hydroelectric, 16% from natural gas, 9% from coal, and 3% from unspecified sources.
I mean, just like anywhere else in the country, they probably could be doing better ... but 38% isn't bad, and they're aiming for 50% by 2026.
Re: (Score:2)
So a Texas grid where NatGas can supply up to 60% or so of demanded power on gloomy days and solar/wind can supply up to 75% or so (rated capacity, though combined they rarely exceed 20k-25k MW on perfect days for whatever reason, maybe distribution link capacity) is not a good thing?
Hint: In Texas, NatGas rated capacity and combined solar/wind rated capacity are very similar to each other, though NatGas power generation has proven MUCH MORE consistent even during very recent extreme cold weather. Or is MSM
Re: (Score:2)
and solar/wind can supply up to 75% or so (rated capacity, though combined they rarely exceed 20k-25k MW on perfect days for whatever reason, maybe distribution link capacity) is not a good thing?
Very likely, if they had more batteries, that would improve considerably. Batteries on either end of an under-rated transmission link can ensure that it always runs at full capacity, even when there isn't demand. When high demand does arrive which is mostly for short periods if at most a couple of hours, the batteries at the demand end supply it and mean that the percentage of supply that originates from renewable sources is increased. In the meantime, if the renewable sources at the other end are generatin
Re: (Score:3)
Most grid scale batteries won't be LI because, as you say, they are only really viable at the 4-6 hour duration. They can do 10-20-40 hr but become wildly expensive and not a little bit dangerous lol.
The type of battery used is extremely important to how long they can be used to discharge. Iron-Oxide batteries can do a MW per hour for 10 hours. But it's not peaker suited as it's slow and deep draw. But a LI in front of it now can be a rapid response with larger backup system to recharge between peak d
Re:Those Lying Numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure how prevalent these will become, but compressed air batteries look interesting. And they can be put in places where pumped hydro isn't feasible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
heh, watched that earlier today. The adiabatic ones seem really promising. Being able to store and reuse the thermal side effect of heating, to mitigate the cooling on return, makes them quite independent to operate.
Battery storage is absolutely the future, but the definition of 'battery' is going to be very very diverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone in England sent me a link about these huge mechanical flywheels that they are using to bank excessive wind production in order to flatten the curve. That is a mechanical version of how a capacitor works. I think those are worth looking into as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, take it up with the EIA, whose rationale was provided in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are a source of electricity for managing the grid by allowing power produced when it isn't needed to be used when it is. If grid management is part of your criteria then you include them.
But if you are talking about where the power initially comes from, batteries don't produce any power at all. They can be used to replace natural gas peaker plants, but the extra power that charges them has to be cheaper than the peaker plant. Power is usually cheapest at night, not when the sun is shining for sola
Re: (Score:3)
The "cheapest at night" paradigm is actually changing because of solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in your part of the world. Where I am, wholesale prices have been zero or negative the whole of today, since the sun came up until it went down - while it rarely drops much below 20c/kW at night. This is a regular occurrence on sunny days, even in winter. Too much cheap power is a genuine problem here (at least in the grid, not so much at the retail level), but a much better problem to have than too expensive or not enough.
And yes, we're installing batteries faster (per capita) than almost anywhere, b
Re: (Score:2)
An honest accounting of this would be simply not to count the same power twice. They should report the annual GWh fed into the grid from batteries, but should not count those GWh as production for solar and wind. The intermittent sources plus the batteries that smooth them out are together one source.
Re: Those Lying Numbers (Score:2)
It was the EIA that mixed them, and provided a rationale for why. The article merely reported it. So take it up with the EIA.
The EIA is staffed by engineers and analysts who spend their careers working on energy systems, so Iâ(TM)m more inclined to take their rationale at face value than your critique.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can consider the EIA creditable or discredited, I couldn’t give a fuck. But the only people to explain why the EIA decided to include batteries are the EIA, whatever you think of their explanation.
Re: (Score:3)
Batteries should be measured in Megajoules or Kilowatt hours
1 KWhr = 3.6 MJ
Re: (Score:2)
I see no rationale for their use of using watts to rate batteries, please explain.
Mostly batteries are used to supply a short peak of huge demand. Possibly only for a few minutes as other sources such as hydro power are turned on or some hours as a grid is overloaded until demand comes back down again.
Especially used in the first mode mode, the limit on the battery is often not the storage capacity of the battery, which might last for quite a bit longer. The limit is the amount of absolute power it can deliver. It can have plenty of stored energy, but if that can't be delivered fast enou
Re: (Score:2)
Ask them, not me
Batteries are often not "clean" energy (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason batteries are being installed along with solar has nothing to do with making power available when the sun sets. The reason they are being installed with solar is that the investors in the project are eligible for investor tax credits, including the cost of the batteries.
In fact in many/most/all cases the batteries are used to triage power based on its cost. You charge the batteries during times of the day when power is cheap and dispatch for peak demand when power is expensive. Its the buy low, sell high process. At this point there are very few places where power is most expensive at night and cheapest during the day. Its far more likely the batteries will be charged at night.
If they are charged during the day the additional power produced to charge them is not going to be solar. Solar is going to be used whether there are batteries or not. The extra power used to charge them may be from wind or nuclear. Or it might be coal or natural gas. In any case, it will be purchased based its cost, not its emissions footprint. And it will be dispatched when power is most expensive, whether the sun is shining or not.
This is typical Ars Technica, half-baked theories from people with limited knowledge of what they are writing about.
Re: (Score:3)
>If they are charged during the day the additional power produced to charge them is not going to be solar.
This assertion makes no sense. It's like you've imagined "solar power = exactly N units of output" ... but of course the capacity of solar is only limited by the infrastructure (eg. how many solar panels you put up).
Even if it what you wrote was true, a power company could add one more solar panel (and related infrastructure) and then they'd have one panel's worth of electricity for recharging batte
Re: (Score:2)
Its actually pretty simple. I have an immediate demand load I need to meet. I have a base load plant that can't be shut down below x amount of power. I have a bunch of solar panels that will generate power when the sun shines that can't be shut down. Those are going to be used first to meet the immediate load. Most of the time, most place, right now, that will not be enough to meet the load during the day. So I need to use other sources, because I don't have any more solar.
Now I have a battery that I need
Re:Batteries are often not "clean" energy (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a base load plant that can't be shut down below x amount of power. I have a bunch of solar panels that will generate power when the sun shines that can't be shut down.
Neither of those things are true, or at least not for most modern cases. So-called "base load" power typically comes from gas (easy and fast to ramp up & down), coal (can be ramped, but slowly), and nuclear (can be ramped, but usually too expensive to do so). Solar panels are trivial to disconnect completely, and modern inverters can regulate the precise amount of power produced - controlled remotely by the utility, even for domestic/rooftop solar. Same with wind. This controlled supply is common in my market.
until I reach the point that solar is producing more power than needed for the immediate load I can't use it to charge the battery
All grids balance supply and demand, so any additional supply will be excess, unless you displace some other supply (or increase load to match). But as you said, you can charge your battery from any source, so long as it's available and not too expensive. Batteries can time-shift any cheap energy to peak times, solar is only preferred because it's clean and so damn cheap.
building those new solar panels needs to be cheaper than just charging the battery with power off the grid from existing legacy power sources at the lowest price available any time of the day
Yes, that's kind of the point. Solar is now the cheapest power source of all time [popularmechanics.com], which accounts for it (and wind) being the fastest-growing [carbonbrief.org] of all time. In my area, building new solar has been cheaper than just operating an existing coal plant for about a decade now. Of course everyone wants to shift some of that super-cheap energy to more expensive times, hence the current fuss about batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
If the batteries are charged during the day they will be charged with solar power. There is more of it than there is demand now, and from a purely economic point of view it is more profitable to charge the battery and discharge it later than to export to the grid during those periods.
Typically these installations don't even have the capability of charging from the grid, they are only able to divert solar/wind power into the batteries.
If the available tax credits are not tied to sourcing energy from renewabl
Re: (Score:2)
The reason batteries are being installed along with solar has nothing to do with making power available when the sun sets.
*snip*
In fact in many/most/all cases the batteries are used to triage power based on its cost. You charge the batteries during times of the day when power is cheap and dispatch for peak demand when power is expensive. Its the buy low, sell high process.
So ... charge it when the sun is high and demand is low, and discharge when the sun sets? How did you not make it through three sentences without contradicting yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they are being installed with solar is that the investors in the project are eligible for investor tax credits, including the cost of the batteries.
What you are missing is that the reason that the tax credits are available is that everyone is afraid of power grid failures like those that happened in Texas due to failure of natural gas plants. Adding batteries increases grid stability in the abstract and what that means is that peaks of generation availability can be absorbed so that later troughs can be filled in.
The price of electricity is a clear signal about what's going on about demand vs. supply. Negative prices typically happen because of lack of
Re: (Score:2)
The reason batteries are being installed along with solar has nothing to do with making power available when the sun sets. * * * In fact in many/most/all cases the batteries are used to triage power based on its cost. You charge the batteries during times of the day when power is cheap and dispatch for peak demand when power is expensive.
Think, just a moment, about what you wrote. With more and more solar installed, power tends to be cheap when the sun shines, and more expensive when it sets - espeically in the late afternoon and early evening. So, sure, batteries will be used whenever it makes economic sense. However, that just happens to be largely driven by solar power.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason batteries are being installed along with solar has nothing to do with making power available when the sun sets.
False.
The reason they are being installed with solar is that the investors in the project are eligible for investor tax credits, including the cost of the batteries.
Yes, and those subsidies are being made available so that we can have power available when the sun sets.
If they are charged during the day the additional power produced to charge them is not going to be solar.
No, if they are charged during the night, the additional power produced to charge them is not going to be solar. You have that exactly backwards.
Solar is going to be used whether there are batteries or not.
You just know absolutely nothing about power generation, huh? Like, literally zero? And you also forgot the stupid fucking party lines you're supposed to squawk out like a good little parrot, about how solar is destroying our energy mix because it is driving costs negative during the day due to overproduction? You know that cannot happen without overproduction, right?
Right?
The extra power used to charge them may be from wind or nuclear.
Wait, I thought anti-solar wingnuts were in love with nuclear? Pick a lane.
In any case, it will be purchased based its cost, not its emissions footprint.
Yes, and the solar is the cheapest thing, so it will be used.
This is typical Ars Technica, half-baked theories from people with limited knowledge of what they are writing about.
You know less than nothing. Maybe you should see if they are hiring? It would do my heart good to know that they are also laughing at your ignorance and stupidity.
TL;DR: FO TROLL
Nice numbers to hear (Score:2)
The reality though is batteries should not be counted with generation, and you could even make a case for the lesser of batteries and solar should be counted equal to raw gas installations for a comparison on dispatchable power. It is great to see solar starting to finally take off in states like Florida and Texas with ample sunshine and a need for local resiliency.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course batteries aren't "generation" in that sense, but they do count as dispatchable supply as far as grid operators are concerned (and dispatchable load too, which is great for soaking up "excess" renewables). And even at small capacity levels they're really useful for frequency control services, since they're so fast.
And they're not tied to solar in any way; of course they can charge from any cheap energy source, solar is really cheap but so is wind, and even nuclear can be cheap to charge from if you
Duh? (Score:3)
Texas and Florida? (Score:4, Insightful)
How come California, the home of all the climate activists, is doing so little in this area compared to the hard right Texas and Florida.
Funny that...
Re: (Score:3)
How come California, the home of all the climate activists, is doing so little in this area compared to the hard right Texas and Florida.
Funny that...
Because California's power grid isn't falling over due to decades of poor investment. California is a net exporter of power and already has 55% non GHG (GreenHouse Gas) production. 17% solar, 10% wind, 11% hydro and 10% nuclear with the rest being made up by biomass and geothermal. Seems California is way ahead of the likes of Florida and "no power if it gets a bit chilly" Texas.
Funny that.
Re: (Score:2)
California is a net exporter of power
California shouldn't be exporting electric power from 45% fossil fueled power plants. The state is in a better position to revamp its power grid and then double/triple its solar plant capacity than the rest of the country incompetently trying to eradicate fossil fuel generation. That would make CA's EV vehicle pollution mandates more sustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
California is a net exporter of power
Not according to an EIA report from earlier this year [eia.gov]. While it's well-established that California is the nation's largest importer, the report makes it clear that California is also a net importer, to the tune of roughly 10% (emphasis mine):
California imports more electricity than any other state and typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state. However, in 2023, in-state utility-scale electricity generation equaled about 90% of California's electricity sales, and the rest of the state's power supply came from out of state. Wildfires in California and surrounding states threaten both imports of electricity and transmission within the state.
Seems California is way ahead of the likes of Florida and "no power if it gets a bit chilly" Texas.
I'd actually suggest that bickering about which state is better is pointless tribalism. California gets some things wrong (e.g. wildfires due to PG&E's failure to properly maintain the lines, its reputation for rolling brownouts because supply can't meet demand, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CA just invests in good smoke detectors.
Actually, it doesn't. It just lets swaths of forests ignite before sending out fire crews to contain the wildfires.
Re: (Score:2)
TX and FL get blown to bits from hurricanes on a regular basis.
As someone who has lived on the Atlantic coast in Florida and the Gulf Coast in Texas, I disagree. Prior to Hurricane Andrew, sure, but after Andrew, building codes in Florida were updated to basically require that every home be built like a bunker. There's no wood frame construction: it's all reinforced concrete/cinderblock for the walls. The actual glass in windows (i.e. we aren't even talking about storm shutters) was required when I moved away to take direct impacts at upwards of 75 mph from 2x4s planks
Re: (Score:2)
One answer: lower regulatory burden.
California's green energy projects have to go through a web of regulatory hurdles before they are approved. In Texas and Florida, it's much less burdensome to get a project underway. It's no accident that Texas has 3x more wind power than California, and add more solar each year than any other state.
Re: (Score:2)
How come California, the home of all the climate activists, is doing so little in this area compared to the hard right Texas and Florida. Funny that...
I would take this to mean you have done zero research because a Wikiipedia [wikipedia.org] has easily obtained numbers. Between 2009 and 2022, California renewable energy usage went from 12.0% to 35.8%. And that data has not been updated for 2023 which has California at 54% [eia.gov]. By "so little" you mean the majority of California energy is now based on renewable sources.
Re: (Score:3)
The debate is about the level of renewable installation in CA v TX and FL, using the statistics for installations this year...
No that is not the debate. The debate you proposed is that CA "is doing so little". Pointing out that CA's installations numbers is easily researched which you did not do. That did not prompt you to actually look at the numbers. From the EIEA report [eia.gov]: ". Texas and Florida made up 38% of U.S. solar additions. . . . Battery additions were concentrated in four states: California (37% of the U.S. total), Texas (24%) . . " Texas and Florida had the most additions last year, but CA led in the number of battery i
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
The cool thing (Score:2)
Example. In my area, we've installed a number of solar farms. Over time, they expanded. Now batteries are being installed to make their output 24/7/365.
I know we have a lot of extremely pro-nuc people in here who aren't afraid to claim that it is impossible to use anything else, but in reality, between solar and wind, nuc can no longer compete. NatGas is a transition fuel, but eventually that will be phased out for power gener
Power grid battery installations are still stupid (Score:2)
You're taking away battery raw materials from the market that's needed for EV cars. It will just make EVs more expensive, leaving consumers to choose ICE vehicles instead. If you want to generate "green" power at night (or when its raining), build a nuke power plant. Build solar installations in regions where its mostly sunny; it will still replace natural gas power plants there. (And then rebuild the US power grid to deliver solar power to other parts of the country.)
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking away battery raw materials from the market that's needed for EV cars.
You are assuming these batteries are using the exact technology that EV cars use. EV cars generally use lithium ion batteries. The storage capacity could be in the form of old fashioned lead acid or in the future sodium ion which EVs do not use due to weight. Some of these "batteries" are not chemical stores but other methods like compressed air or molten salt thermal storage. These are not suitable for EV cars either.
It will just make EVs more expensive, leaving consumers to choose ICE vehicles instead.
That is not factually true at the moment [cbsnews.com] with prices dropping.
If you want to generate "green" power at night (or when its raining), build a nuke power plant. Build solar installations in regions where its mostly sunny; it will still replace natural gas power plants there. (And then rebuild the US power grid to deliver solar power to other parts of the country.)
Batteries are very useful fo
Re: (Score:2)
Too many lead-acid batteries in one place will throw off the earth's rotation.
GW or GW-hr? (Score:2)
"The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period"
Is that peak load power or GW-hr as in actual energy storage? Sure the battery can supply 500 Cold Cranking Amps like for a whole minute, or 25 amps for 95 minutes, or one amp for 61 hours.
https://www.oreillyauto.com/de... [oreillyauto.com]
Discharge rate matters, or are they talking about what the inverters can output?
At least Tesla's megapack is listed properly at 3.9 MWh per unit. If I recall it weighs 42 tons, so you can figure how many you need a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is standard to rate these things in instantaneous power rather than energy. The theory, for some reason, is that they are only expected to provide that power for 4 hours a day.
haha good one (Score:2)
Good one. Whaddaya expect since you made gas ones illegal in places like Californistan?
Re:Comparing apples to peanuts (Score:4, Informative)
Burning natural gas doesn't produce electricity either.
Both take an input, both have an output.
Re: Comparing apples to peanuts (Score:4, Insightful)
My God! I think you're on to something. Call it a call a conservation of energy, and dare I say of mass too. This will change science for centuries to come!
Re: (Score:2)
Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only altered in form. What we conserve is a specific type of energy, before we lose it to another form. :-) splitting hairs, but some people really dont get that distinction. Batteries of any type are storage devices. A capacitor is technically a short term battery. When hydroelectric pumps water up hill for later release, that potential energy is essentially a battery as well. It doesnt create the power but if does help flatten to supply/demand curve.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are kind of handy because if I have excess energy like from a solar panel, I can put it into storage, and use it later. The mechanism is that drawing power from a panel drops its voltage, and allows it to produce more instead of sitting there and just getting warm from the excess sunlight.
Batteries on their own are not an energy source. But when you talk about a power grid, you're talking about an entire system of many producers and consumers. And you can get more power out to your grid at night o
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the early 90s I read a book called First Millennial Foundation: Colonizing the Stars in 8 easy steps. In his step-1 section it was ocean colonies. He went on and on about OTEC for power generation. You should check it out. It very well could reduce hurricanes strength because of how an OTEC pulls energy from ocean temperatures. A ton of these could reduce surface temperatures which is the fuel a tropical cyclone feeds on. IMO thats a good 2-fold offset for climate weather.
Re: (Score:2)
OTEC's problem is that it isn't the cheapest way to bring power to the grid. There's been a lot of money thrown at it with only a few plants operating today.
Theoretically, moving heat from warm surface waters into the deep oceans would reduce hurricane intensity. But global warming is still going to be increasing ocean temperatures. OTEC just buys us more time. (probably thousands of years - so nothing to sneeze at!)
Re: (Score:2)
one piece you missed.. in order to spin a turbine you have to convert that thermal energy into work that spins the turbine. That work will reflect into lowering the temp as well. Its more than just pulling 3000ft cold water to the surface. that difference in temp, in a vacuum, is what spins the turbine. Remember theres no such thing as free energy, it always comes from somewhere. In this case internal energy (measured by temp) is then converted to thermal steam which then mechanically turns a turbine. so it
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you were the Anonymous coward slinging out that Trump rally talking point about energy generation.
No. I post under my own name unless I'm trying to preserve mod points.
Well, For one thing PixelPusher220 is right.
Technically correct. the best kind of correct!
Also the definition he's using is not terribly useful. I could argue that coal is the same as solar power because both were created by energy captured from the Sun.
Although one version is clearly not renewable, and that's something we care about.
The only difference here is that with renewables the energy storage has to come after electricity generation because you can't dig a hole in the ground and mine wind and sunshine from millions of years ago.
So you do understand the difference.
So when you pointed out that batteries are shitty gas fired power plants you were comparing apples with refrigerators.
That wasn't me.
On a more interesting note, why are you invoking an imaginary supernatural being and talking about science at the same time? ... it's an oxymoron.
I was going to say holy shit, as in "HOLY SHIT look at this guy! LOL"
But I thought I'd pick a diffe
Time-displaced carbon dioxide? (Score:2)
I think the underlying significance is whether the overall transportation system can be optimized with electric cars, especially in congested cities. There are two aspects: Generating electricity with optimized systems rather than generation systems that fluctuate outside of their optimal settings and moving the place of power generation, both physically and chronologically.
Some topics are worthy of discussion. The AC FP fluff was not and I do not thank you for propagating its vacuous Subject and poking me
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
returning the pedantry of the OP in actuality.
Re: (Score:2)
A natural gas generator is 2 things. Something that burns nat gas to release it's stored energy and something to convert that energy to electricity.
A battery is simply the 2nd half of that equation. Something charges the battery.
Both things supply instant dispatch energy (and actually batteries do it faster than nat gas plants).
Re:Comparing apples to peanuts (Score:4, Informative)
Go argue with the EIA. The summary even set out the EIA’s rationale.
Re:Comparing apples to peanuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It flattens the curve the exact same way hydroelectric plants pump water uphill to store excess unused power. Its essential to flattening a supply/demand curve and reduces power shortages.
Re: (Score:2)
It flattens the curve the exact same way hydroelectric plants pump water uphill to store excess unused power.
Except even fewer hydroelectric plants do that.
Re: (Score:2)
In UK it's becoming fairly standard to have both solar and a battery installed for home use.
No one is talking about homes. Homes are not power plants, they largely annihilate demand, batteries simply make this process even more efficient. Even in the UK home solar / battery is not considered when talking about generation capacity of the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't build a solar power plant if you don't have a certain battery capacity..
The first solar power plants that produce electricity at night are concentrated solar and use molten salt for heat storage, not batteries, installed in 2011 I believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Also I should add, I've not done the numbers, but people claim: the largest grid storage systems are pumped-storage hydroelectricity aka pumping water from a lower lake to a higher lake and letting it flow down over a generated when needed. So those are clearly also used for some energy storage for solar panels, but not directly.
Re:Comparing apples to peanuts (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus superfluous power from solar and wind is wasted by just switching them off, instead of being stored in hydroelectric dams
Complete nonsense.
Completely correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that neither of you has provided a citation.
Therefore both of you lost the argument. And so did Slashdot.