While I agree with you that utility-scale batteries can be very useful for load-balancing electrical supply and demand, they also drive up costs as much as over-building. Utility-scale batteries are on the order of magnitude of cost as nuclear reactors, and they do not even generate electricity.
And most utility-scale batteries are only designed to output for 4 hours or less. They are fine for adjusting to sudden short-term fluctuations, but not for sustained output. For example, the largest utility-scale battery in the world only generates 750MW for 4 hours. That is not even enough to replace one large power station.
You are also correct that older fossil fuel-burning plants have ramp-up times around 24 hours, but this is not true of newer models. The newest Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants (CCGT) have a ramp up time of less than 30 minutes (not much slower than batteries).
In addition, CCGT can be run 24/7 for months on end, which is impossible for utility-scale batteries. If you want an affordable and stable electrical grid in North America, CCGT plants make alot more sense than utility-scale batteries.
The writer sounds like a battery salesman, giving an interesting list of the advantages and uses, but with no balance by letting us know there are disadvantages. I do like the ideas put forth suggesting locating them more strategically where they can be put to best use, and pointing out that they can be online in seconds.
But before renewables, we didn't seem to need batteries. They are expensive and only provide backup for a few hours. Fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear can go and go and keep going year round except for scheduled maintenance, and they last for many years - potentially a hundred years. As Michael Magoon mentioned, the newer gas plants can fire up fairly quickly. Batteries degrade and lose efficiency every year, generally need to be replaced about every 20 years or so, are gobbling up huge amounts of world resources, are hard to recycle, and risk horrible fires that are very hard to put out. Producers have to deal with China's dominance and supply chain problems. There's no comparison with coal, gas or nuclear. Advanced nuclear can even re-use formerly spent uranium fuel.
The article was written by someone who hasn’t done the calculation of a) the cost of one day of storage on any grid, or b) how long it would take for the worlds largest battery factory to supply this one day of storage. Or it’s written by someone promoting batteries.
For Australia, the current cost of 24 hrs of storage (based on the cost of the 1GWhr battery going in at Liddel, NSW and the approx 3GWhr "worlds largest battery" in CA) is about A$350bn. Total government spending last year (federal +state+local) was $600bn. The world’s largest battery factory would take about 5 years to produce this, if it devoted itself to Australia.
Yes, as the world starts to move towards DC electricity production (solar panels) and DC usage (solid state all the things!) the case for AC last mile distribution networks has become questionable. Perhaps solar on roofs, neighbourhood DC microgrids, backed up with a large neighbourhood — and smaller household — batteries is a cheaper alternative.
The cost of electricity to the door is increasingly about the cost of transmission, not production. Batteries could just completely replace long distance transmission.
I also predict heavy industry will gradually move towards where solar power is cheapest.
While I agree with you that utility-scale batteries can be very useful for load-balancing electrical supply and demand, they also drive up costs as much as over-building. Utility-scale batteries are on the order of magnitude of cost as nuclear reactors, and they do not even generate electricity.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/utility-scale-batteries-are-as-expensive
And most utility-scale batteries are only designed to output for 4 hours or less. They are fine for adjusting to sudden short-term fluctuations, but not for sustained output. For example, the largest utility-scale battery in the world only generates 750MW for 4 hours. That is not even enough to replace one large power station.
You are also correct that older fossil fuel-burning plants have ramp-up times around 24 hours, but this is not true of newer models. The newest Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants (CCGT) have a ramp up time of less than 30 minutes (not much slower than batteries).
https://www.gevernova.com/gas-power/products/gas-turbines/h-class-gas-turbines
In addition, CCGT can be run 24/7 for months on end, which is impossible for utility-scale batteries. If you want an affordable and stable electrical grid in North America, CCGT plants make alot more sense than utility-scale batteries.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
"Even with these constraints, pumped-storage still provides 96 percent of all utility-scale energy storage in the US."
This statistic is from 2022, so it's pretty badly out of date. (The linked source in turn points here: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/U.S.%20Hydropower%20Market%20Report%202023%20Edition.pdf.)
The writer sounds like a battery salesman, giving an interesting list of the advantages and uses, but with no balance by letting us know there are disadvantages. I do like the ideas put forth suggesting locating them more strategically where they can be put to best use, and pointing out that they can be online in seconds.
But before renewables, we didn't seem to need batteries. They are expensive and only provide backup for a few hours. Fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear can go and go and keep going year round except for scheduled maintenance, and they last for many years - potentially a hundred years. As Michael Magoon mentioned, the newer gas plants can fire up fairly quickly. Batteries degrade and lose efficiency every year, generally need to be replaced about every 20 years or so, are gobbling up huge amounts of world resources, are hard to recycle, and risk horrible fires that are very hard to put out. Producers have to deal with China's dominance and supply chain problems. There's no comparison with coal, gas or nuclear. Advanced nuclear can even re-use formerly spent uranium fuel.
The article was written by someone who hasn’t done the calculation of a) the cost of one day of storage on any grid, or b) how long it would take for the worlds largest battery factory to supply this one day of storage. Or it’s written by someone promoting batteries.
For Australia, the current cost of 24 hrs of storage (based on the cost of the 1GWhr battery going in at Liddel, NSW and the approx 3GWhr "worlds largest battery" in CA) is about A$350bn. Total government spending last year (federal +state+local) was $600bn. The world’s largest battery factory would take about 5 years to produce this, if it devoted itself to Australia.
This is very good
Yes, as the world starts to move towards DC electricity production (solar panels) and DC usage (solid state all the things!) the case for AC last mile distribution networks has become questionable. Perhaps solar on roofs, neighbourhood DC microgrids, backed up with a large neighbourhood — and smaller household — batteries is a cheaper alternative.
The cost of electricity to the door is increasingly about the cost of transmission, not production. Batteries could just completely replace long distance transmission.
I also predict heavy industry will gradually move towards where solar power is cheapest.