The value of resilience

[nwdiver]

Or in many cases planning assumptions. Certainly there are flaws in the process.

On another note I never expected a quote from an article to generate so much comment. However the number of people participating resembles a cult in numbers if not religious zeal.

I'm just sick of BILLIONS being wasted on nuclear boondoggles and it seems like no one cares. It's like battered wife syndrome. 'I know I've assaulted you 37 times before but this time is different... I swear'. And we keep going back for more... WHY?

[Ampster]

Or perhaps based on what are perceived as facts at the time.
....

Or in many cases planning assumptions. Certainly there are flaws in the process.

On another note I never expected a quote from an article to generate so much comment. However the number of people participating resembles a cult in numbers if not religious zeal.

[nwdiver]

Using plain language if you please, what leads you to think that way ?

That you need to have surplus electricity to charge a battery before grid storage is viable?

If you want to use a battery to provide the bulk of grid services you need the thing charging the battery to be surplus (curtailed renewable energy)... otherwise you would just use the generator that charges the battery to provide those services.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a bakery that can bake 10 loaves of bread an hour. You can easily sell 100 loaves of bread an hour. Would you invest in a place to store bread before or after you're able to meet the demand of 100 loaves and hour? Why go though the expense of storing something when you can sell it immediately?

[J.P.M.]

Even the storage tech we had 30 years ago would probably be sufficient once we have enough solar and wind. There's this weird perception that we need storage to make solar and wind viable. It's the reverse. Without regular curtailment the value of grid level storage is extremely limited.

Using plain language if you please, what leads you to think that way ?

[nwdiver]

Units and confusion aside, a daily supply vs. daily demand graph of might lead one to think there's a future in research for safe, cost effective, practical, distributed and dispatchable daily energy storage capability. If I was younger, I'd think there might be an interesting job future in energy storage for me.

Probably more on the deployment side. Even the storage tech we had 30 years ago would probably be sufficient once we have enough solar and wind. There's this weird perception that we need storage to make solar and wind viable. It's the reverse. Without regular curtailment the value of grid level storage is extremely limited.

[J.P.M.]

I would have been fine, if earlier today, my search on Amazon for a 128gb USB drive didn't result in a dozen hits for 1TB drives. I actually called Amazon and complained about their search engine being polluted with far too many "sponsored" hits.

Yes, Gw, not Tw

Units and confusion aside, a daily supply vs. daily demand graph of might lead one to think there's a future in research for safe, cost effective, practical, distributed and dispatchable daily energy storage capability. If I was younger, I'd think there might be an interesting job future in energy storage for me.

[Mike90250]

50GW not 50TW. 50,000MW is 50GW. Total US electric demand is ~1TW (1,000GW).

I would have been fine, if earlier today, my search on Amazon for a 128gb USB drive didn't result in a dozen hits for 1TB drives. I actually called Amazon and complained about their search engine being polluted with far too many "sponsored" hits.

Yes, Gw, not Tw

[nwdiver]

So, looking at the total California demand for today, and the historical demand of 50TW at 1pm, and doing a eyeball guess of the 5pm - 7am nightime load

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

I'm thinking 20Twh would be required. Say half of that is met with existing plants and half is via battery or some new storage, That's 10TWh of storage needed.
http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html Currently wind is producing 1.2Tw, so only 9Twh storage needed. Unless the next day is cloudy and the batteries are flat.....

Interesting dynamic charts, 32% of power is imported this evening.

50GW not 50TW. 50,000MW is 50GW. Total US electric demand is ~1TW (1,000GW).

[Mike90250]

So, looking at the total California demand for today, and the historical demand of 50GW at 1pm, and doing a eyeball guess of the 5pm - 7am nightime load

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

I'm thinking 20Gwh would be required. Say half of that is met with existing plants and half is via battery or some new storage, That's 10GWh of storage needed.
http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html Currently wind is producing 1.2Gw, so only 9Gwh storage needed. Unless the next day is cloudy and the batteries are flat.....

Interesting dynamic charts, 32% of power is imported this evening.

[nwdiver]

If you can not admit that we were already trying to master electrical problems in
Ben Franklins time, or that the first electric cars had range problems, I do not see
how we can have a meaningful conversation. Bruce Roe

??? Again... completely different context and completely separate topic. This is about 'mass grid storage'; Balancing supply and demand. Specifically nuclear vs renewables.

If you're going to try to change the subject then yeah... kinda hard to have a meaningful conversation.

But...I've often wondered... if you think we need nuclear power because sufficient storage is impossible what's the magic ceiling? 100GWh? 1TWh? 10TWh? What level of storage do you think is impossible to achieve and why?

[bcroe]

If you can not admit that we were already trying to master electrical problems in
Ben Franklins time, or that the first electric cars had range problems, I do not see
how we can have a meaningful conversation. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

Please note the Leyden Jar electrical storage device was invented in 1745, and the battery
powered telegraph grew up as an essential part of the railroads.

When cars came around more than a century ago, needed battery storage pretty much killed
the electric cars back then. Check your facts. Bruce Roe

Not the same context. And even in 1745 what would charge the battery??? Why not just use the thing changing the battery directly? The context of 'mass storage' is grid storage. There's no 'need' to have mass storage on the grid. The very few places were grid storage is used it has very limited use and value; For the 4th time UNTIL THERE IS SUPLUS RENEWABLE ENERGY; Seriously... what part of that confuses people? Why would CAISO invest $500M in storage to burn MORE gas at a different time when they can invest $500M in wind or solar to just burn LESS? The lack of 'mass GRID storage' is ~99% about necessity NOT about ability.

Explain to me the benefit of a 10GWh grid battery when >95% of wind and solar generation is consumed directly by demand. When >20% is being curtailed because renewables is often ~40GW and demand is 30GW then yes... mass grid storage will make sense. We're at least ~10 years away from that. Math.

I started building a 'toy' off-grid system. I started with 500w of solar. Just ran it during the day and consumed all the production directly. Adding storage made no sense since I could consume >100% of what the panels produced as it was produced. Then I added 500w more for 1kW. Production was actually > Demand so... I put my water heater on a timer (Demand Response) adding storage STILL made no sense. Now I have 2kW and I was regularly curtailing production so I added some storage and went off-grid 24/7. Get it?

And battery storage for cars is finally catching up. Check your facts

[bcroe]

'A couple centuries'? We've been trying to find a way to store electricity since before electricity?

There's a reason we have the saying 'necessity is the mother of invention

Please note the Leyden Jar electrical storage device was invented in 1745, and the battery
powered telegraph grew up as an essential part of the railroads.

When cars came around more than a century ago, needed battery storage pretty much killed
the electric cars back then. Check your facts. Bruce Roe

[nwdiver]

I love how nuclear power is somehow the only industry where being 3x over budget and taking ~twice as long is seen as being remotely 'acceptable'. I'm installing a 5.5kW array this weekend. Can you imagine if I told the customer that his 5.5kW array was going to cost $48k not $16k and we'll be installing sometime next year?!

Watts Bar 2 was hailed as the triumphant return of nuclear power when it finally went critical for the first time in 2016. Except... it was supposed to be completed in 1980 for <$1B NOT 2016 for >$6B!

It's not like these are isolated cases. Look up 'Cancelled nuclear plants'. There's an entire wiki covering the sad failed history of nuclear power. My 'favorite' is Bellefonte. Look that one up.

Or perhaps based on what are perceived as facts at the time.

Vogtle is 2GW and will cost $30B. That's ~$15/w; that's not 'perception'... that's math.

Utility scale solar and wind can be built for <$1/w now. That's not 'perception'... that's math.

Energy from new nuclear costs $120/MWh. Not 'perception'... math.

Energy from solar and wind is <$20/MWh. Not 'perception'... math.

Asbestos was once a common insulation material.

Nuclear power will make electricity too cheap to meter.

And our acceptance of Asbestos evolved with the facts... so why hasn't the acceptance of nuclear also evolved with some people?

[J.P.M.]

Often those decisions are fact based.

Or perhaps based on what are perceived as facts at the time.

Physicians once drained blood from the sick and dying under the perception they were helping their patient.

Asbestos was once a common insulation material.

Nuclear power will make electricity too cheap to meter.

Solar power will make electricity too cheap to meter.

The list, the ignorance and the B.S. all go on.