IIFC, I thought RMI use 5 for every 5 minutes to do their 100% plans. Or some of the work from RethinkX, for finding storage to solar/wind ratio.
https://youtu.be/6zgwiQ6BoLA
https://youtu.be/xKs4p9IJ49Q

Dumb. There are many RE energy sources, storage that will be used.
And that many batteries would take decades and mostly add cost.
I seriously dislike this kind of more costly limiting options as has nothing to do with the real world.

No, not dumb at all. Solar-Wind-Batteries might not be your preferred solution but you gotta recognize where the momentum is, which is SWB. There is no momentum in CSP or biofuels, etc. and none on the horizon. SWB will dominate, for good reasons. I am talking about both grid-scale and residential-scale RE. It's a bit like your composite body EVs. You have got some good points to argue for composites and you love your used Leaf batteries, but there is no momentum on your side.

Apparently you don't read oil newsletters and CSP is doing great in Spain, North Africa, ME. But I was more talking about home, building size units that do need to be built as can supply 15-20% of heat, power needs.
And use troughs or up north, solar tubes making power directly or from the stored heat. It's homes, building these are over 80% efficient with sand cheap on demand generation storage.
Isn't $2/kwh storage a better than $50/kwh? Especially when charging is near free and 85% efficient?
In 10 yrs a lot of metal refining, cement/synfuel making, battery production will be done by CSP. Heliogen makes 5MW modular CSP systems, just call up and they deliver it for industrial uses mostly.
I realize I'm 20 yrs ahead of others and sometimes I sound out there but that is what the future is and I've been very good at predicting it.
I have an advantage of 50 yrs in many fields doing the future that with economics, physics allows me to see better.
Yes I love composites with the Aptera and SoloEV but I wouldn't touch a Leaf module as not worth it with LG cell modules so superior, cheaper.

Storage need no only be batteries. The point is that not as much storage is needed as normally thought. Plus they want to get there sooner 2030 verse later, so items that take 10-15 years to get up and running (reviews) are not given high priority. It only take $2T over 8 years. USA military (public part) for 2022 is $0.768T, even if constant (will not be) would be $6.144; which is 3x the cost. So do NOT tell me it is too costly.

"IIFC"?

If you... forgot correctly?

IIFC = ?? Just spell it out next time. I hate acronyms.

Solar and Wind are doing fine. But we need batteries still to achieve this RethinkX vision. The claim is just build 4x the solar and wind needed, along with the batteries needed for that amount of intermittent generation. Unfortunately, we just don't have that capacity for batteries currently, for partial seasonal storage.

I don't say this lightly. Only that there is a lot of work to be done, and it is not *nearly* as easy as Tony Seba says.

This is interesting, but if power companies are using battery storage for peak-shaving, can't they also use the same storage for FCAS? How much money is that worth?

If Hornsdale is an example, it's worth an freaking huuuge pile of bitcoin (or some other example of _a lot_ of money).

FCAS, the end of negative energy pricing, retirement of gas peakers (or transition to base load) and some energy arbitrage (internal).

Hornsdale is a terrible example because it is put in a badly design, built, run grid that few places have.
In a decent grid there is NO need for costly batteries adding $.10/kwh to each KWH cost stored loses money bigly.

And yet, there is clearly a need.

Hmm.

Yes but only because so much incompetence.

South Australia averaged 60% renewable power from wind and solar power, without hydro.

Do you know of anywhere that has done bettet?

Well that was a lot of nothing.
Grid battery storage sucks and in general we won't need any until we reach 50% RE as just adds cost.
Not mentioned is the 2 largest storage methods of the future, EVs and heat/cold storage cost almost nothing/kwh stored.
Vs $.10/kwh added for grid battery.
What we really need is on demand generation like CSP, CHP, bio, waste, synfuels in converted NGCCGTs at the utility level.
And other storage like pumped hydro, chemical, etc.
The real future is in most homes, buildings, businesses and EVs producing RE on demand who's battery, heat/cold storage is near free, is very hard to compete with.
And CSP, CHP plus PV, small wind they will be the majority of storage and on demand generation in 10 yrs.

Well there are more places in the world than the US. South Australia is waaay above 50% RE as is some other places. If the EU plans for generation comes true we will probably need huge amounts of storage by 2030.

What does that have to do with my post? My point was bad grid vs good grid wherever they are. The fact is clear there is no need for grid batteries at wholesale rates in a well done grid until well above 50% RE.
Show proof SA is above 50% generation?
Almost every place above 50% RE runs on hydro, no battery needed.
And I never said storage wasn't needed, just grid batteries are rarely one of them.
Batteries belong at the end, with customers where they earn their keep in multiple ways and work at retail rates.

Well it is clear we need to get above 50% , and way before 2040. So storage of some kind will be happening. My post was really at poke at there using data at the hour level. That is what was being studied 10 years ago. Enough fucking studies, it is time to greatly increase wind/solar installs.

From https://www.pv-magazine-aus...

But as renewables supplied more than 60% of the state’s electricity, and pushed out coal and even gas-fired generation, cracks appeared in the system strength..

They can't close down fossil generation without storage. They routinely have periods with between 100% and 200% renewables, also lots of curtailment at times.

I don't disagree. I just don't see grid battery storage as the solution. It's EVs, heat/cold storage, home batteries, timed use, smart grid, bio/waste/synfuels, CSP, etc will be.

Show proof SA is above 50% generation?
Almost every place above 50% RE runs on hydro, no battery needed.

Here:
https://reneweconomy.com.au....

Almost no hydro in SA.

Cool. But still it's not grid batteries you need, it is home, building batteries and heat/cold storage.
You need to get CSP, both DR and utility. Many now store all their heat and make power after PV stops.
And more importantly you need EVs with V2G and you need to produce your own EVs.
So what are they charging you /kwh in Aus or US $.

It may be what WE need, but utilities that buy power sometimes wish they missed some of those peak demand periods with a little saved energy- right, ERCOT?

I think there is a case for community batteries over end user batteries. Every home will have a slightly different usage profile requiring different levels of storage to be fully optimised. Combining these profiles will result in a reduced overall storage requirement.
Fully agree regarding thermal storage. Super cheap way of long term load shifting between summer and winter, especially combined with ground Source heat pumps and district heating/cooling.

I want to make money as will many others so I want my own battery, solar, wind and CHP.
My EVs have had V2H for 30 yrs, not hard at all and designed to slot into my home system either DC or AC coupled.
I think community is great though should be a full system with depending on site, solar, wind, CSP, battery.
Thermal, heat/cold storage has huge potential and just a heat pump and an insulated storage tank. And allows one to do either at the best/ lowest delaT.

The main problem we've got with all types of generators is that their output does not match the demand on the grid - Nuclear/gas/hydro prefer to run at a constant rate - Solar produces a lot of power during the day, but none at night - wind varies due to the strength of the wind at the turbine etc.

All of these cause hassle for the grid operator who has to try to match what is being generated *now* with what is needed *now*.

Batteries smooth this out by allowing excess electricity to be stored for later. Where to put them is a different matter. Adding them to individual generators makes the output match the demand better but is expensive in that you need a lot of batteries. However if you can combine one or more generators together e.g. wind and solar you can get the same effect without using batteries as the excess from one offsets the reduced output from the other one.
This means that you only need to store the spare electricity when BOTH generators are producing too much and as such only require a battery attached to the grid not at each generator.
If you can combine lots of generators together then the cost saving would be huge hence why grid operators need batteries at grid level. Yes, you've got to buy the batteries in the first place, but once installed, they can take the place of expensive peaker plants hence saving you money.

You started wrong. NG follows the load very well with the NGCCGTs they use can vary cost effectively 50%. And much of our power. And they replaced peakers a decade ago.
Hydro due to low water levels has had to switch from baseload to peak power.
They haven't had any problem for 100 yrs matching power to demand without batteries. Grid have a natural inertia/impedance and the ability to adjust voltage takes care of that for 100 yrs. There is no need for millisecond corrections.
The future of storage, on demand generation is in homes, buildings, businesses and EVs at retail prices, not grids at wholesale prices.

It's just a question of scale - A house with PV on it, needs a battery to smooth out the power generated to match the demand of devices in use in the house VS a large grid with lots of houses on it and lots of generators needs a battery to smooth out the power generated to match the demands of all those houses.
Which one is better? economics will choose the winner. Is it cheaper to go off-grid or cheaper to stay on-grid?
Until recently, it was cheaper to stay on-grid as the utility companies could get the advantage of using larger (but cheaper per user) devices than the user could. However with PV, home storage/V2H getting cheaper, then it's looking better to go off-grid.
On grid is fighting back by trying to reduce costs hence the need for grid batteries to try to save money.
I don't think we need the other methods of generating electricity - all they do is make it cheaper for the grid to run - what we need is much better PV and home storage.

Florida Legislature just passed a cut net meter bill out of committee and my Senator sold us out supposedly buying the lie it increases costs on poor people is how far they will go.
He'll be hearing from me today.

I can see both sides in the Net Metering debate:-

From the consumers point of view, Net Metering is great as they give 100kwh to the grid company and get 100kwh back - effectively free storage of excess power. It's even better if they're on time of day rates where you get more expensive power back at the cheap price.

From the Grid company point of view, net metering is horrible as they do not make any profits on the buying/reselling of the 100kwh as they're both effectively done at retail rates (making a loss on time of day rates) and yet they still have costs of storage/maintenance.

Who wins - I don't know?

Net metering is a broken incentive thay only works with low amounts of renewables, its a bootstrap method. Don't we want MOAR renewables? Then, eventually, net metering has got to go just as FITs.

Agreed.

Net metering is for me just like having this big battery that smooths out my demand with the available supply. I bet they're working on a way to do this on a utility scale....... maybe I should read the article. Or just wait for Freedomev to fill me in.

Here in Florida/TECO they don't make profit on fuel, generation as a pass through. All the other costs are in the monthly $15 fee which solar people pay.
So the only thing Net metering does is cut fuel use and generation wear so a wash.
Who wins with net metering is everyone, just the utility doesn't grow as fast here and lowers their A/C peak costs, their most expensive, costly generation and cause of many blackouts, solar eliminates.

Effectively that $15 a month covers their costs of implementing net metering - OK.

No, $15/month covers everything but fuel, generation that Solar
replaces. It covers the lines, corporate costs, profit, billing, etc.
This by law. What about that don't you understand? It is on TECO's website. All utilities here IIRC have to follow this formula.
While they protect the utilities, we do have cheap power. At least those not in Duke.
TECO is $.10/kwh having just increased due to NG cost.
There is no net metering cost to them other than a meter change which is free.
Feel free to enlighten us on just what implementing, paying net metering costs them?

Please be aware I'm in the UK NOT the USA.

Net Metering is not normally offered here and I was just trying to work out WHY there's so much hassle surrounding it and finally came up with a plausible reason. i.e. It costs the grid company money to implement and hence they'd try to get that money back - the $15.

If they didn't use that money, then they'd have to raise prices elsewhere which would be unfair to those who did not have solar.

As for costs:-
The giving/receiving of Kwh at Net Metering is done at the same (or worse) Retail prices - no money (or slight loss if on time of day rates) is made by the company.
Storing the power - No Battery is perfect at 100% hence they'd have to absorb that loss as well or give back, say, 95% of the power received.

It all adds up to a loss by the company or, at best, a break even.

Not going to explain it again.

neither am I

As long as solar is reducing daytime peak loads, the utility was benefiting because:

- they're selling the use of the same set of assets, to more customers.

- they're were buying residential power during the daytime peak when it was expensive, selling it back overnight when their industrial and commercial customers were closed and demand and price was low.

At some point the daytime supply eliminates the mid-day peak, and there's no more net benefit to the utility.

The earth wins. That was the idea. Neither batch of humans wins.
Owners wait a long time until they break even. Utilities don't like losing customers.

How long is it until the money owners save with net metering equals the price of the system? This payback period used to be "never." They're were never getting their money back. They were doing it for the good of the planet. With lower panel costs, never turned into seven years. Owners are under water for seven years then eke out a small return for the remaining life of the system. Is this great? Yes, if you care about the planet but Warren Buffet would never recommend it. Now both California and Florida want to turn seven years back into never or close to it.

Is it good for the utilities? They say no using a complicated thing called the "Avoided Cost Calculator" which claims to fairly value the power they get from residential systems. Peanuts, they say or rather it says. Plenty of folks think the ACC is bogus, however.

Utilities are pouring gasoline on this debate by saying net metering is the rich stealing from the poor. Only rich people have PV systems. Because utilities get less money from those rich people they have to charge poor people more. Their finances are that simple. Never mind the hundreds of other factors and formulas in their finances. It's really every dollar not collected from the wealthy PV people is a dollar they have to collect from everyone else and those people are poor.

Pretty odd, the politics in Florida and California ever being the same but as CT readers know, the California Public Utilities Commission is with FL legislators: it's the rich stealing from the poor. Arnie doesn't like it though: https://www.nytimes.com/202...

They can at times. Utilities have a lot of corruption backing them up.
The question is if those with solar have a battery or EV with V2G that supplies on demand power and stores excess power, their already lame excuses fall apart.
By their logic those should get a discount or no connection fees and a premium price as all it is doing is servicing the grid what it needs
most.
And at Cal's climate, it's rather easy, cheap to just go offgrid and save all the fees. I've been selling offgrid systems 45 yrs replacing diesel generators at 25% of the cost/kwh.
If I lived in Cal I'd be doing on demand power and making a small fortune.

"Yes, you've got to buy the batteries in the first place, but once installed, they can take the place of expensive peaker plants hence saving you money."

Batteries don't replace the 'peaking' plants, they simply reduce the number of times they have to start, which in turn saves on fuel and maintenance.

And batteries also have the capability of moderating frequency / voltage with no moving parts.

Looking at Open NEM from Australia, you could hardly find the battery output on the graph, it's so insignificant.

You usually make sense. Not his time though.

https://ieefa.org/big-batte...

Did you read my post at all? These only work there because such badly designed, built, run grid.
Grid batteries add $.10/kwh to each Kwh the store plus the price to charge it.
On demand generation costs under $.08/kwh total. Only incompetent grids can't do this. Do the math.

In the end storage will eliminate the need for some peaker plants. Also keep the the back bone generation at optimum efficiency. Instead of up and down.

Hmm. This doesn't talk about seasonal. ie lower output in winter, combined with higher demand (yes, wind might be somewhat contra to solar on a seasonal basis, but look at the graphs, solar is already in charge, and growing at a dizzying pace)

Seasonal isn’t really a concern. Just build for the worst case season.

Easy to say. Hard to do.