I hope that the system designers know what they are doing in Vermont.
The way an article is written doesn't explore the fact that at its core batteries are a 'consumer of energy' and not a producer like a power plant. You are losing electrons through heat losses and degradation in a bid to match demand with lowest cost supply.
Replacing generators with a battery make sense when the peak capacity is overbuilt, but it shouldn't be left unchecked.
The other challenge is that the customer's savings usually come not from the battery itself (the energy arbitrage) but from avoiding the usage charges from their distribution and transmission networks. Deploying batteries on grid without a plan pushes forward the grid death spiral where some users of the network feel like they no longer need to be connected as they can be self sufficient. That means that those that cannot be self sufficient have to share the same cost of infrastructure with less users on it. That is assuming that being self sufficient is economically viable and sufficiently reliable.
Those who think that home batteries and solar are 'cheap' should look into the true underlying costs. The per MWh cost of a home system is MUCH more expensive than a utility scale system. The savings are often just an arbitrage on a relatively high level usage-based pricing allocation of the transmission and distribution systems.
The network costs are mostly fixed by their nature - it's recovery of equipment cost and ongoing cost of maintenance activities. Cost per KWh can be different at different times because you need higher cost equipment that works during the time of high load. If there is no high load - the equipment is not needed and cost can be reduced. But this cannot happen overnight because the equipment is already there! Without forcing the networks into taking heavy losses - you have to allocate the costs to users,and unfortunately those that cannot afford to have these expensive home systems will end up paying the higher price. In effect your battery 'savings' are coming from people who cannot afford to have one.
I agree on all points. This is a short term cost saving measure at the expense of long term energy security. Batteries do help smooth the considerable volatility introduced by renewable generation, but unless they want a significant share of houses and industrial sites to have large batteries (which would cost FAR more than just keeping the power stations online), they still need base load generation.
Unless this is very carefully managed (and I do not think governments are generally capable enough), this will result in a lot of new problems. One will be major difficulties in developing new housing (or intensification) due to lack of electricity supply. Another will be insufficient supply during 99th percentile events in which home batteries alone will be insufficient to close the gap. Another will be distribution. Some neighbourhoods will have higher battery penetration than others, and this happens organically and without the permission of the grid companies. That's very difficult to plan around. Some areas are going to be secure, and others will not, unless the grid purposefully oversupplies, negating the potential cost savings.
Batteries are good at marginal demand smoothing, but I am very dubious about shutting down energy generation. Especially at this time. All analysis points to the reality that due to technology demands, we're facing an imminent power generation crunch. Prices are going to rise everywhere and demand will only increase.
The article does not make a big enough deal of another saving for the utility - it means that when snow takes out lines, they have more time to deal with the problems before customers start complaining. That can be quite significant if the utility can wait 12 hours for storms to pass, then fixing things becomes significantly easier.
I'm not sure how much of a benefit this is. Many/most houses/commercial sites won't have batteries (or at list some significant minority). They'll still complain. Power companies will still have a duty to restore power ASAP for health and safety reasons. Either way, they'll only repair the lines when it's safe to do so, and they'll continue doing that.
In Sweden we solved this by putting most power lines under ground and Sweden has the same population density and is larger. Power outages during storms is a thing of the past in most of Sweden.
Not saying this option would be better, we started this project way before batteries was a realistic option.
Entirely agree. I think that this is fantastic technology and it will do wonders to avoid blackouts and deal with storm outages that people talked about. I just think that we need to have more care when it comes to energy.
Turning off plants is a lot easier than turning them back on. Especially when the rest of the world is building data centres and co-locatrd power and there are skill and equipment shortages.
These technologies bring a promise of clean renewable power which is great, but reality is that we haven't fully figured out how to do it reliably enough. I fear that we will get to a stage when old conventional plants are shut down, and we still haven't fully figured out the replacement. It will be a long period of unreliable and expensive power which will undermine entire economies.
nit pick, but this isnt true at all. "Base load generation" refers to fixed capacity generators (coal, nukes) that run at 100%, matched to the lowest point of the demand curve overnight. This is an obsolete concept in a modern grid where batteries, wind, solar etc have destroyed that economic niche.
what you mean is likely "backup capacity". And yes heavily renewable grids will likely need some standin / backup generation for exceptional circumstances, for the foreseeable future. The economics and sizing of this backup is almost entirely unrelated to the economics and sizing of "base load generation". (for eg, there will never be a time when a diversified grid is at zero. The amount of backup needed is a function of how frequent these exceptional events are, the mix of your grid, and how much you're willing to pay backup generators to avoid load shedding in these situation)
I will meet you half way. The line between base load and backup capacity is semantic. Most modern power plants (including nuclear) can ramp up and down production depending on demand. At the high elasticity end is gas generation which can ramp down to 0%, and at the low elasticity end are old nuclear reactors which might only be able to modulate 10-40%.
As you infer, it doesn't really matter whether you read my comment as base load or backup capacity, and I agree with the rest of your comment. Though I would have my own nit pick with "exceptional circumstances." Some base/backup generation is required in almost every modern grid almost every day. That's not exceptional. That's normal operation.
It’s not semantic, that implies it’s just a name difference. it’s economic. Base and backup aren’t used in the same way and they have very different economic models. Eg you run a backup gas peaker very rarely and charge a fortune for the power provided during those windows. Base relies on you selling every day, all day for a cost competitive with other sources.
And nuclear can technically be ramped yes, but not economically. it has to run and sell at 100% 24x7 of the time to make the economics of a nuke plant work. The enormous capex and high fixed opex make nukes terrible as a backup power source
You are right that most modern grids do still have and depend on some legacy fixed supply, eg old nukes, non-peaker gas, or hydro. That is changing fast though, as batteries will eventually push cheap solar through the night and eliminate that economic niche too.
This isn’t theoretical - look at Californias grid. It’s going to exit 2026 at roughly only 20% fossil (gas). As the massive battery and wind rollout is covering more and more of the nightly part of demand. If they keep it up within the next 5-10 years there will be zero fossil on the grid in a regular daily cycle. Leaving gas as a true backup for weather events and suchlike.
There is no local "base load" generation to begin with. 73% of power in VT is imports from out of state/country. Primarily from Hydro-Quebec.
- There are no coal plants left in New England at all.
- Most of VT doesn't have access to Natural Gas (the Burlington metro does, via a pipeline that is only served from Quebec, it is not connected to the US pipeline grid). There are no Natural Gas plants in the state.
- The nuclear plant closed over a decade ago.
- Actual in-state generation on a normal basis is a few biomass plants, some modest hydro on the rivers, and some scattered wind/solar.
- The power plants being "replaced" here, or at risk of being replaced, are some small and rarely used oil-fired peakers that run a few hours a year currently and have nameplate capacity in total of <200MW even if they shut down all of them.
- Transfer capacity to stressed regions (NY-ISO, PJM) is low so they can't really draw that much off the region's grid (ISO-NE).
- Power prices are always some of the highest in the country, the region in general is known for regulation and disliking development - and VT even more so. Making it unlikely you see some sort of AI data center boom here or the like.
- The most realistic source of significant new demand in the state is probably electrification (heating, cooling, vehicles).
When coupled with solar, batteries are absolutely a net producer of energy. Around the clock too, as it allows solar generated at low-demand times to be redeployed when needed most.
That could be true, but I think important to clarify
- how big is the solar array and how big is the battery?
- what does the consumption look like
- is your battery big enough to help navigate through a week of cloud cover in winter?
- do you live somewhere with great solar resource
I don't understand comments like this. This isn't theoretical. This already exists in reality. It is reducing demand at peak times. It is preventing outages in rural areas during/after storms. It is so successful they are closing down power plants. I'm guessing you don't like solar/batteries for some reason? I don't know. This comment confuses me.
Parent was just spreading a lot of fud, half-truths, and "yeah, maybe if you squint and force an exotic framing"... they're trying to convince you to throw the baby out with the bathwater, don't lose sleep about it.
I would like for you to offer a rebuttal other than it being fud and exotic.
I would argue that Vermont is an exotic example of where batteries offer disproportionate value. A city with a single privately owned monopoly supplying power and able to import power from nearby hydro, coal and nuclear plants.
>More than 5,500 people in Vermont have similar home battery systems.
This is _literally_ a rounding error. It's less than 1% of Vermont.
So it's your comment that's truly baffling, though I'm sure others would appreciate if you posted your own source. There's certainly no power plant getting shut down because 5,500 customers have batteries, but again I'd love to be proven wrong.
For me it's about messaging and positioning. These stories always simplify the narrative and it comes down to solar wind and battery = good and cheap, traditional energy = dirty expensive and bad.
DER is great and can solve some problems, but its not the answer for everything. In a diverse world we need many technologies to support progress and the energy needs of new industries and consumers. There are many aspects of traditional grid that we take for granted that have not been fully solved in a 100% renewable grid scenario (physical inertia, black start capability, long duration storage as an example).
What you say 'exists in reality', mostly exists in a world where there is an ability for Vermont to rely on imports from neighbouring nuclear and coal to make sure the power doesnt go out.
The point of my comment is to offer an alternative point of view to the dominant narrative which is used by politicians to create policies and incentives that sound good and get votes, but don't actually solve the energy issues in a cost effective manner.
entech · · focus · HN ↗
The way an article is written doesn't explore the fact that at its core batteries are a 'consumer of energy' and not a producer like a power plant. You are losing electrons through heat losses and degradation in a bid to match demand with lowest cost supply.
Replacing generators with a battery make sense when the peak capacity is overbuilt, but it shouldn't be left unchecked.
The other challenge is that the customer's savings usually come not from the battery itself (the energy arbitrage) but from avoiding the usage charges from their distribution and transmission networks. Deploying batteries on grid without a plan pushes forward the grid death spiral where some users of the network feel like they no longer need to be connected as they can be self sufficient. That means that those that cannot be self sufficient have to share the same cost of infrastructure with less users on it. That is assuming that being self sufficient is economically viable and sufficiently reliable.
Those who think that home batteries and solar are 'cheap' should look into the true underlying costs. The per MWh cost of a home system is MUCH more expensive than a utility scale system. The savings are often just an arbitrage on a relatively high level usage-based pricing allocation of the transmission and distribution systems.
The network costs are mostly fixed by their nature - it's recovery of equipment cost and ongoing cost of maintenance activities. Cost per KWh can be different at different times because you need higher cost equipment that works during the time of high load. If there is no high load - the equipment is not needed and cost can be reduced. But this cannot happen overnight because the equipment is already there! Without forcing the networks into taking heavy losses - you have to allocate the costs to users,and unfortunately those that cannot afford to have these expensive home systems will end up paying the higher price. In effect your battery 'savings' are coming from people who cannot afford to have one.
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
Unless this is very carefully managed (and I do not think governments are generally capable enough), this will result in a lot of new problems. One will be major difficulties in developing new housing (or intensification) due to lack of electricity supply. Another will be insufficient supply during 99th percentile events in which home batteries alone will be insufficient to close the gap. Another will be distribution. Some neighbourhoods will have higher battery penetration than others, and this happens organically and without the permission of the grid companies. That's very difficult to plan around. Some areas are going to be secure, and others will not, unless the grid purposefully oversupplies, negating the potential cost savings.
Batteries are good at marginal demand smoothing, but I am very dubious about shutting down energy generation. Especially at this time. All analysis points to the reality that due to technology demands, we're facing an imminent power generation crunch. Prices are going to rise everywhere and demand will only increase.
grandinj · · focus · HN ↗
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
jeltz · · focus · HN ↗
Not saying this option would be better, we started this project way before batteries was a realistic option.
entech · · focus · HN ↗
Turning off plants is a lot easier than turning them back on. Especially when the rest of the world is building data centres and co-locatrd power and there are skill and equipment shortages.
These technologies bring a promise of clean renewable power which is great, but reality is that we haven't fully figured out how to do it reliably enough. I fear that we will get to a stage when old conventional plants are shut down, and we still haven't fully figured out the replacement. It will be a long period of unreliable and expensive power which will undermine entire economies.
dalyons · · focus · HN ↗
nit pick, but this isnt true at all. "Base load generation" refers to fixed capacity generators (coal, nukes) that run at 100%, matched to the lowest point of the demand curve overnight. This is an obsolete concept in a modern grid where batteries, wind, solar etc have destroyed that economic niche.
what you mean is likely "backup capacity". And yes heavily renewable grids will likely need some standin / backup generation for exceptional circumstances, for the foreseeable future. The economics and sizing of this backup is almost entirely unrelated to the economics and sizing of "base load generation". (for eg, there will never be a time when a diversified grid is at zero. The amount of backup needed is a function of how frequent these exceptional events are, the mix of your grid, and how much you're willing to pay backup generators to avoid load shedding in these situation)
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
As you infer, it doesn't really matter whether you read my comment as base load or backup capacity, and I agree with the rest of your comment. Though I would have my own nit pick with "exceptional circumstances." Some base/backup generation is required in almost every modern grid almost every day. That's not exceptional. That's normal operation.
dalyons · · focus · HN ↗
And nuclear can technically be ramped yes, but not economically. it has to run and sell at 100% 24x7 of the time to make the economics of a nuke plant work. The enormous capex and high fixed opex make nukes terrible as a backup power source
You are right that most modern grids do still have and depend on some legacy fixed supply, eg old nukes, non-peaker gas, or hydro. That is changing fast though, as batteries will eventually push cheap solar through the night and eliminate that economic niche too.
This isn’t theoretical - look at Californias grid. It’s going to exit 2026 at roughly only 20% fossil (gas). As the massive battery and wind rollout is covering more and more of the nightly part of demand. If they keep it up within the next 5-10 years there will be zero fossil on the grid in a regular daily cycle. Leaving gas as a true backup for weather events and suchlike.
volkl48 · · focus · HN ↗
- There are no coal plants left in New England at all.
- Most of VT doesn't have access to Natural Gas (the Burlington metro does, via a pipeline that is only served from Quebec, it is not connected to the US pipeline grid). There are no Natural Gas plants in the state.
- The nuclear plant closed over a decade ago.
- Actual in-state generation on a normal basis is a few biomass plants, some modest hydro on the rivers, and some scattered wind/solar.
- The power plants being "replaced" here, or at risk of being replaced, are some small and rarely used oil-fired peakers that run a few hours a year currently and have nameplate capacity in total of <200MW even if they shut down all of them.
- Transfer capacity to stressed regions (NY-ISO, PJM) is low so they can't really draw that much off the region's grid (ISO-NE).
- Power prices are always some of the highest in the country, the region in general is known for regulation and disliking development - and VT even more so. Making it unlikely you see some sort of AI data center boom here or the like.
- The most realistic source of significant new demand in the state is probably electrification (heating, cooling, vehicles).
nonfamous · · focus · HN ↗
entech · · focus · HN ↗
thinkingtoilet · · focus · HN ↗
floatrock · · focus · HN ↗
entech · · focus · HN ↗
I would argue that Vermont is an exotic example of where batteries offer disproportionate value. A city with a single privately owned monopoly supplying power and able to import power from nearby hydro, coal and nuclear plants.
ApolloFortyNine · · focus · HN ↗
>More than 5,500 people in Vermont have similar home battery systems.
This is _literally_ a rounding error. It's less than 1% of Vermont.
So it's your comment that's truly baffling, though I'm sure others would appreciate if you posted your own source. There's certainly no power plant getting shut down because 5,500 customers have batteries, but again I'd love to be proven wrong.
thinkingtoilet · · focus · HN ↗
ApolloFortyNine · · focus · HN ↗
thinkingtoilet · · focus · HN ↗
entech · · focus · HN ↗
DER is great and can solve some problems, but its not the answer for everything. In a diverse world we need many technologies to support progress and the energy needs of new industries and consumers. There are many aspects of traditional grid that we take for granted that have not been fully solved in a 100% renewable grid scenario (physical inertia, black start capability, long duration storage as an example).
What you say 'exists in reality', mostly exists in a world where there is an ability for Vermont to rely on imports from neighbouring nuclear and coal to make sure the power doesnt go out.
The point of my comment is to offer an alternative point of view to the dominant narrative which is used by politicians to create policies and incentives that sound good and get votes, but don't actually solve the energy issues in a cost effective manner.