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 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.
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.