By David Wojick
It is very simple. The cost of storing electricity is so huge it makes getting through a single windless night under a net zero wind, solar, and storage plan economically impossible.
This is especially true of cold nights where blackouts can be deadly. I recently made a legislative proposal to Pennsylvania along these lines so let’s use them as our example, keeping in mind that this is true everywhere.
Pennsylvania peaks at around 30,000 MW so let’s consider a windless night with a constant need of just 20,000 MW. There should be lots of these, especially in winter. Cold snaps are typically due to windless high pressure systems of arctic air with lots of overnight radiative cooling.
In the world of solar, “nights” are 16 hours or more long since solar systems just generate a lot of energy for 8 hours a day. It is likely less in a Pennsylvania winter where it is dark at 4 pm.
So, to get through the night we need to have stored at least 20,000 MW times 16 hours or 320,000 MWh of juice. For simplicity, we ignore all sorts of technical details that would make this number larger, like input-output losses.
The present capital cost of grid scale batteries is around $600,000 per MWh. Again this ignores all sorts of technical factors that make that number larger, like buildings, transmission, etc.
Simple arithmetic says this works out to an incredible $192 billion dollars just for the batteries. Clearly this is economically impossible. In round numbers two hundred billion dollars just to get through the night! Wind and solar plus batteries simply does not work. Even if the cost magically dropped 90% it would still be an impossible $20 billion just to buy the batteries.
This is so simple one wonders why none of the utilities, public utility commissions, independent system operators, and reliability agencies ever thought of it. Or maybe they did and decided not to mention it.
Moreover, on really cold nights the need for electricity can easily get to peak demand, which would require more like $300 billion in batteries. Then, too, there might be a cloudy or even snowy day pushing the need to 16 + 8 + 16 = 40 hours. Or several cloudy windless days at which point we are talking about a trillion dollars or more.
Clearly these simple numbers make net zero power based on wind, solar and batteries impossibly expensive. Other forms of storage are likely no cheaper. The reality is we are talking about storing an enormous amount of energy which simply cannot be done. The obvious solution is to have lots of reliable generation.
Which brings me to my legislative proposal which is also very simple. It merely requires the utilities to figure out how to meet the need for electricity on brutally cold windless nights that are likely to occur.
You can read it here. The title is “Avoiding deadly blackouts” because in severe cold, a blackout can kill people. In the horrible Texas blackout estimates run to over 700 deaths. Cold kills.
In fact, this is a requirement for today, not just some distant net zero fantasy. We are already to the point where a lot of States could not keep the heat on if they got a severe cold snap like they have already had in the past.
In “Avoiding deadly blackouts” I point out that Pennsylvania and the rest of PJM narrowly avoided blacking out in winter storm Elliot. On paper, they had a 30% margin of safety which was wiped out by the cold. But Elliot was actually mild compared to several earlier severe cold spells. We must prepare for these extreme events.
We use a tremendous amount of electricity which net zero cannot possibly provide on windless nights. But we are already under severe threat. The States must act now to prevent deadly blackouts. Storage is not the answer. We need reliable generation, much of which will be fossil fueled.
Just clap really loud, and Tinkerbell, excuse me, renewable energy will suffice!
The Electricity Fairy.
Nothing says stupid like betting your life on something that is unreliable.
Like politicians.
💯
Like climbing a mountain with cans of silly string instead of ropes
And then there is the small matter of having sufficient generating capacity to recharge the batteries.
In addition to providing power for use at the same time.
Would be cheaper just to go nuclear, although some battery storage would help with nuclear to minimize load following.
Unfortunately the lead time on nuclear is the problem.We should have gone down that route twenty years ago. This was on CNN Business today –
Nuclear ‘overblown’ as an energy source for data centers, power company CEO says
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/10/nuclear-is-overblown-as-energy-source-for-data-centers-aes-ceo-says.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
When cnbc picks the “power company CEO” to interview, they pick the one that will agree with them.
As posted before, 4 reactors in Virginia built in the late 70s/early 80’s are now licensed into the 2050/2060s. 80 years for an OLD design with NO problems of any import over the last 40+ years.
And I have said before, 4 to 6 years building the necessary steel plants to produce the reactor vessels and valves/piping, etc. IN THE US. (currently US Navy reactor vessels are produced in Canada), while simultaneously identifying sites and beginning site preparations. Old COAL power plant locations are ideal due to transmission lines, water and rail lines IN PLACE.
THEN construction can begin on a standard design as the fabricated parts come out of the steel mills.
Then just ramp up production over the 2030 to 2040 decade to building plants as fast as you want.
Then you can retire any other more expensive baseline generation capacity.
The four Barakah units in UAE were built in eight years each, on time, on budget. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear folks will always focus on the two outliers, Hinkley C and Vogtle, while carefully ignoring the many successful nuclear builds around the world.
They will also ignore their own complicity in the legal/regulatory environments that add most of the extra time and cost to the building of nuclear plants.
The problem with “lead time” is 100% legal and political.
I think Willis covered that last year when he calculated that we would have to build one nuclear generation plan every two weeks to reach net zero by 2050.
Yup, and I think that Mr Gluski will be using far more gas than he imagines.
He knows, he just won’t admit how much gas “backup” they have to have. But hey, they get to add it all into the rate base along with Bidenbux to subsidize the unreliables build. It’s pretty criminal in a lot of ways.
Net Zero is a ridiculous goal. Using nuclear to reach Net Zero is an equally ridiculous proposition.
We need nuclear just to keep the lights on.
No, battery storage is just TOO EXPENSIVE!!
A simple combined cycle gas facility is cheaper and will last much longer than any battery backup. And it will not run out of power.
While it sounds rather iffy and probably much more expensive than suggested, this technology is being somewhat “widely” explored. These are just a sample of articles on it
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/08/31/using-hot-sand-to-store-energy/
https://natnavi.com/science-behind-sand-batteries
https://knowridge.com/2024/03/scientists-unlock-the-secrets-of-sand-for-revolutionary-energy-storage/
Andy,
it’s still storage not generation, which is what we need.
Consider that wind generates approximately 1/3 of it’s capacity. Also it is very rare for it to produce more than 80% of capacity (a few days a year) therefore having sufficient excess generation to also charge a storage device requires significant overbuild of capacity of wind generators which is expensive and of course, wind has a short life relative to many conventional generation types.
Storage just does not add up, excepting the relatively small amount necessary for sudden demand spikes and for black starts.
Yep, the battery would need dedicated generation for recharging purposes not grid supplied generation.
The poster child for that recharge flaw is Tesla home batteries and home rooftop solar.
Melbourne Australia had a major wind storm some years back really only affected ex urban areas where there are lots of big trees which bring down the power lines.
Those with solar/tesla battery combination thought they were set.
First problem was the backup storage on the night of the storm is minimal usage only, not even low usage . Thats light in one room and fridge running but no heating or cooling, but they ran the batteries down completely as the marketing never told them its only 1/2 hour normal use.
2nd problem the next day with sun out was the tesla batteries only fully recharge from mains power not the trickle recharge from the rooftop solar.
Grid scale batteries recharge from grid obviously but if a larger blackout are competing with other critical uses of limited power generation.
Small pacific Island of Niue , with maybe 1200 people has been down the path of solar panels with its existing diesel generator supplement supply in evening etc
Found in practice that the two systems solar and diesel couldnt run together or in parallel when cloudy days.
Solar doesnt give the stable grid supply during the daytime even for a tropical island with a small population. What hope for anyone else
I have my own solar system, Victron inverter, plus 4kW of panels and 5.6kWh Lifepo4 battery. I don’t have any of your mentioned problems. Those 5.6kWh batteries are half of my daily consumption and are just to keep me through the night, they are just buffer or cache to smooth extremes in daily production and they work absolutely fine.
Trying to use solar panels without batteries is foolish.
If on Nihue they used 10 car batteries of 80kWh in their system, they would be fine.
I’m able to achieve around 95% energy from solar during 6 months of summer, with just small 5.6kWh battery for one household.
With 15kWh battery it would be easily 100% for 6 months.
And just for information, price of similar solar system currently would be 800E for 6x550W solar panels, 700E for 5kW inverter. 1000E for 14kWh battery. Plus around 300E for installation material.
That’s a hell of a lot cheaper than Aus prices, even using no name Chinese components..
As I told I have my solar third year already, built by myself, so for that time I’m watching prices and searching for deals.
You need to find right supplier with fair price, most of resellers are having heavily overpriced offers.
For examples check batteries here:
https://hakadibattery.com
or
https://selianenergy.com
I already ordered few times from Hakadi and they are reliable.
here is this offer of 14kWh under 1000E
https://selianenergy.com/collections/selianenegry-lifepo4-batteries/products/rept-280ah-lifepo4-3-2v-battery-grade-a-rechargeable-cells-for-diy-solar-system-rv-ev-boat?variant=47342234632425
There is real difference in Net Zero and small household solar installation. As first one is dream, but second one is real.
I’m pragmatic, if it works I will use it. And independent hybrid household system with battery just works.
Until net zero is reached- I presume they’ll start charging up the batteries- with ff energy. Then presuming they can reach net zero, how much extra “green energy” will be needed to keep the batteries fully charged- assuming all this could be paid for, which of course is impossible.
Maybe . The batteries are really used like Wall St day traders. Buy low ( at night) and sell high ( morning and evening peaks) on the same 24 hr cycle.
but you can’t buy something unless it’s available
From the article: “In “Avoiding deadly blackouts” I point out that Pennsylvania and the rest of PJM narrowly avoided blacking out in winter storm Elliot.”
One shouldn’t have to google Elliot to know when it happened. The person referencing Elliot should add the year to the name.
This is why I don’t like naming arctic cold fronts. It causes unnecessary confusion. It’s better to say “the arctic cold snap of February 2021. Then you know just when it happened. Just calling it Elliot gives us too little information.
Naming Cold Fronts is just another tactic of climate alarmists to try to make things seem worse than they are weatherwise. They want you to think Winter Storm Elliot is equvalent to Hurricane Elliot. Of course, we only get one or maybe two artic cold fronts in a year, so they won’t run out of the letters of the alphabet trying to name them.
Next thing you know, the climate alarmists will want to start naming tornadoes.
Just wait; soon every raindrop will have a name!
We already know the names of a LOT of snowflakes, LOL.
serial numbers are more manageable for data storage reference
It’s obvious Net Zero is a failed proposition.
Now, even some politicians are starting to take notice.
Maybe these politicians will wake up before they bankrupt their nations trying to implement Net Zero.
If every Western nation met Net Zero targets, it wouldn’t matter one bit because the other nations of the world will continue to produce CO2 and will make Western Net Zero a waste of time and money.
CO2 will continue to increase no matter what Western nations do.
Western nations should stop punishing themselves trying to reach unreachable goals.
Ah, but it’s not an unreachable goal at all, Tom. The goal is to collapse Western Civilization, and their ultimate success is in sight.
Yes, the only way they reach Net Zero is to destroy their economy and society. Not a good trade-off.
When the pandemic hit in 2020 and human CO2 dropped by 6 percent the CO2 kept rising at the same rate. It didn’t matter at all what humans did.
It seems more likely that removing smog which was blocking the Sun’s rays and cutting back on SO2 which was seeding cloud formation that also blocks the Sun’s rays is the cause of the warming which heats the oceans that have 70 times the CO2 as the air and release they CO2 when warmed, like soda pop.
6% is way less than the normal year to year variation in the rate of CO2 accumulation.
The fact that you couldn’t see that small change in the very noisy data is completely meaningless.
It gets worse once you realize that renewables are seasonal, and that you need tens of millions of MWh storage to smooth that out.
Not just seasonal. The transition from day into night is fraught as well. Wind at least is a large rotating generator . Solar is DC only and has to be tricked into proving a stable frequency and voltage and the other variables a high voltage AC grid needs. Batteries have the same issue and seem to have large inverters to mimic a 50 hz AC output . Like any generation system they can trip at any time for technical faults
wind turbines have small generators relative to grid needs but the wind powering them is far too variable to provide frequency stability anyway.
Yes. It unbalances frequency stability especially when theres technical grid faults. They do no heavy lifting for stability just tag along when all is good.
I sometimes wonder: if we knew that the fossil fuels, which have bought us such benefits over the last 200 years, were definitely going to run out by 2050, (a true net zero), would the environmental activists be celebrating and cheering it on, or would wiser heads prevail and encourage us not to waste a single drop or particle?
Moreover, on really cold nights the need for electricity can easily get to peak demand, which would require more like $300 billion in batteries. Then, too, there might be a cloudy or even snowy day pushing the need to 16 + 8 + 16 = 40 hours. Or several cloudy windless days at which point we are talking about a trillion dollars or more.
The only people who seem to have looked at the actual weather of a region going back decades are the British Royal Society.
They came up with an estimate that you need storage equal to one third of annual demand. Another rough parameter is 2 TWh per GW of peak demand. In the UK this is 45+ GW, and they estimated storage need of 100 TWh.
Now comes the question to ask: why did it take so long for anyone to go back a few decades and find out what wind does? Its the critical parameter for grid planning from wind. But the wind advocates never did it, just kept on saying the wind is always blowing somewhere.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/large-scale-electricity-storage/
Its a lot worse than you think, if all you consider is a day or two of calm. That radically underestimates the problem.
I think the RS is slightly excessive in estimating 100 TWh, personally I think about 25 TWh would suffice, but these are numbers that are so far outside what is technically/economically possible, we’re into the realms of “so what”.
If you’re talking about multiples of national GDP for even the lowest estimate, it’s not going to happen.
The RS went back to consider 37 years of UK weather to get their estimate. Does your estimate of 25 TWh allow for their discovery of whole calm seasons?
[I mean, how ludicrous is it that it took the RS to discover the existence of calm seasons in the historical record!]
Remember, this is something you cannot get wrong. The costs of having 25 TWh in when you really need 50TWh, and you are just going into that winter weekend when the 25 TWh is running out…
Doesn’t bear thinking about.
Plus, as someone else pointed out in an earlier thread, the RS only considered demand as of 2019. Actually going forward demand would at least double from EVs and heat pumps.
batteries bleed their charge too fast for seasonal considerations, no?
I’ve only looked at the last five years in detail, so it’s quite possible that my estimate is too low, however my point is that even my low estimate of 25,000 GWh is a number so large that it can simply never happen.
Yes, agreed.
EVs, heat pumps, electric stoves, electric water heaters and so on.
Also charge and discharge losses, transmission losses to and from the battery farm.
Don’t forget that you aren’t supposed to charge the batteries past 80%, or discharge them past 20%. That alone is going to almost double the amount of storage needed.
“They came up with an estimate that you need storage equal to one third of annual demand.”
I was wondering about that.
A trillion for one state? 57 Trillion seems doable for the average Obama believer. But how soon will those batteries need replacing anyhow? And does that mean that they’ll leave me alone then?
You don’t suppose the demand for batteries will quadruple the cost, do you? So: $228 trillion to China while they increase global CO2. Brilian inevery way.
“In the world of solar, “nights” are 16 hours or more long since solar systems just generate a lot of energy for 8 hours a day.”
It’s worse than that. Most of the year, my solar panels (in southern UK) generate next to nothing in the hour after sunrise and the hour before sunset.
In the UK, solar drops by 90% in the winter months compared to the summer months based on UK grid data. What is your experience?
Mines worse than a 90% drop as the panels become shaded for part of the day. Then the panels are used just to keep the batteries topped up as a reserve for the blackouts due in next couple of years.
At only 10.5% average efficiency throughout the entire year, UK solar isn’t much use at any time of the year. Even sunny Australia has a low CF of only 16.26% for the entire year.
Most arrays only deliver maximum power for 2 to 4 hours a day, on either side of that, total generation drops off rapidly.
They also only deliver maximum power during the weeks on either side of the longest day of the year, for the northern hemisphere around June 20. As you get closer to winter, the maximum amount of energy you can get each day goes down.
From 1973 to 1978 I lived in Pennsylvania. During that time there were over four (4) “brown outs” on the PJM Grid and that was back when the PJM Grid was only in PA, NJ, MD AND TMI-1 went commercial in 1974 and TMI-II in 1978 significantly increasing the available power capacity in the PJM. My home was an “All Electric” If I did not have a fireplace and a “Heat Tube Grates” and even that required me to set the alarm to 2PM and load extra logs in the FP.
P.S. Prolonged Brownouts and/or frequent Blackouts, destroy Refrigerators, Freezers, Air conditioners Heat Pumps, TVs, etc.
More PS;
Not to mention the computers that keep everything going these days.
But but but….if we stop using fossil fuels, “extreme events” will stop happening won’t they?
Even if we converted every thing to wind, solar, hydro, and geo, it will not be Net Zero.
Have to kill everything and finish the decomposition plus cap all the geothermal vents, volcanos etc. to get there.
geothermal vents- like at Yellowstone NP- I’ll propose that to the NPS
“naturally’ produced green house gases don’t count. Obviously that includes the extra large amount of CO2 from preparing and burning wood chips — unless the burning is happening in you living room.
I suspect the net zero advocates will say that a few peaker gas plants will be turned on in such a situation. Rough calculation, if a peaker plant can produce 0.5 GW, and PA needs 30 GW, that means PA needs 60 peaker natural gas plants on standby. Most of the time they will be idle.
This sounds expensive, too.
I suspect net zero advocates will say that high voltage DC interconnectors can solve this problem.
But, I am not getting excited. Let the voters get what they voted for.
It must be obvious by now that the average voter is too stupid to allow our sort of democratic system to continue much longer. Our country will regress economically, like the USSR, and a new regime will take the place of the old. Sigh.
Don’t forget to allow for Capacity Fade and Depth of Discharge:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67102.pdf
“With active thermal management, 10 years lifetime [to 70% of original capacity] is possible provided the battery is cycled within a restricted 54% operating range”
I got into a discussion with a Renewable Energy Believer about this topic when he stated that our nuclear power plant in NH could be replaced by solar. I then did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much space and how much money it would take to do so. I used numbers that he agreed were good enough for the calculation.
I said we would need to be able to collect and store enough electricity to deal with the worst case scenario, meaning a system that could provide 1300MW 24/7 for a minimum of 4 days in the winter.
It worked out that we would need a minimum of 120 sq. miles of solar panels, the landed needed for those 120 sq. miles of solar panels and the ungodly amount of storage in order to achieve that goal and that it would cost more than what it would to build 5 more nuclear power plants of the type we were trying to replace. It would be cheaper to install a bunch of SMRs either at the site of the present nuclear plant – Seabrook – or spread out around New Hampshire, and doing so for a fraction of the cost of his solar dream.
He hasn’t talked to me since.
“Cold snaps are typically due to windless high pressure systems of arctic air with lots of overnight radiative cooling.”
It doesn’t necessarily take “arctic air” to provide a below Zero (-18C) morning. Clear nights in elevated (>1,500 ft) locations will do just fine. I live in WA State at over 2,000 feet and at a Latitude about the same as northern Maine, 47°N. Less winter sun than when I lived in PA (41°N).
Houses need a second source of emergency heat. My house is 100% electric, so I have a catalytic wood stove.
Of course, all this discussion is limited to systems where someone generates the energy for third parties to use. That’s not surprising, because a lot of this does take place.
However, energy-efficient house designers have come up with schemes whereby houses are designed in ways that sufficient warmth is stored in the overall solid phase of the total property footprint during summers that they are able to warm properties in winter in ways that mean that zero external energy supplies for heating are required.
I’m not for a moment saying that you can suddenly go from the current situation to a situation where most houses were designed that way – indeed, anything much under 50 years is pretty ludicrous to contemplate (especially as most houses are designed to last 50 years or more and some have been around for several hundred). To me, the work of innovators in the 21st century will likely be the preparation for a new schemata ready to be used efficiently at scale in the 22nd.
But I do think that futurists should be encouraged to work out the realities of whether such prototypes can be adapted toward larger scale housing concepts and, if not, come up with novel designs which might.
What the political classes have been very stupid about the past 20 years is trying to impose inefficient technologies at scale, rather than working out which are useful as niche technologies, which are suitable in particular climates/geographies and which really aren’t appropriate at all for large numbers of nations.
Improving abilities to encourage expertise in evaluating scale-up possibilities is clearly something which is worth investing in in a number of fields, including energy supply and construction, in the next generation.
Your comment assumes the poltical elite are genuinely concerned about ‘climate change’ and are seeking solutions to the ‘problem’. You cannot control the globe’s population by looking for niche ‘solutions’.
“However, energy-efficient house designers have come up with schemes whereby houses are designed in ways that sufficient warmth is stored…”
The only place I know of where ‘sufficient warmth is stored‘ is underground in a cave. And, according to at least one study (i.e., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-48014-7) the thermal averages within caves approximately correspond to the annual average of surface temperature of the geographic area in which the cave is located. While Mother Nature maintains a fairly constant temperature within most caves, unless you live within a cave, it still takes external energy, e.g. a heat pump, to move the heat into another abode.
For most of the world’s population, even living in a cave does not keep one from needing to apply heat. A constant year round temperature of say 60 degrees F, just means you need less heat in the winter, but you are also going to need heat during the summer.
Storing heat in the summer to use in the winter?
Utterly impossible.
Storing heat during the day to use at night is only possible in the southern half of the US, and only when there are no clouds.
They need to make panels that run off of neutrino light.
You mean off CO2 back radiation 😉
Mr. Wojick,
Windless nights are not the problem – too much wind energy during night-time, when electricity demand is the lowest of any 24 hour period, is the real problem.
This excess electricity costs money to get rid of in the form of negative electricity prices.
The UK has spent well over 1 billion British pounds in the last 7 years on wind curtailment; Texas spends well over $200 million a year on wind curtailment.
Yes storage is a problem but the problem it addresses is not windless nights; it is days, weeks and even months and quarters where wind is significantly less than “predicted” or “normal”. This is the real problem with reliance on intermittent wind power as a primary electricity generation source – months of double digit percentage of daily consumption of electricity, to be stored.
Interesting take on that . I have seen wind farms with maybe 1/3 of the turbines not turning as they are braked. So I thought that what was done over night. Thermal generators sort of do the same – only one unit of multi generator plant running , the others on standby with the low steam output not running through turbines. Same for long run gas turbines , while quick start gas turbines are either off or on idle power
The turbines that are off, are off for various reasons including maintenance, too high wind speeds, too low wind speeds, etc etc. They don’t turn them off outside of these conditions because almost all wind farm electricity contracts guarantee all output is bought and at non-market prices, to boot. It is these types of contracts which are a major reason for the curtailment issue.
For the Greens, lefties, Gaiaists, etc., economics are irrelevant. Only power and control are what interests them. If they need more money, they just print it.
Tell that to Trump . His tax cuts were funded by printing money or borrowing from China
You don’t understand how any of this works do you?
You mean You dont understand how Trump rewarded the very elites not the working class
“POLITICO analysis: At $2.3 trillion cost, Trump tax cuts leave big gaphttps://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/tax-cuts-trump-gop-analysis-430781
Trump couldnt pay off a stripper without breaking the law. Didnt even raise the *defence of Advice of Counsel* as that would prove he didnt follow it !
Hes illiterate in economics as well.
Politico? LOLOLOLOLOL
Like most socialists, Duker believes that the truth is whatever the party says it is.
You really hate it when people are allowed to keep their own money.
POLITICO might as well register as an agent of the DNC, when it comes to politics, nothing they say can be trusted.
Actually the increase in economic activity almost paid for the tax cuts.
story tip
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/agriculture-removed-from-emissions-trading-scheme-he-waka-eke-noa-disbanded/DFJ6LEH7MZBMBK6ICT2MPPHDNM/
Not only is this clearly devastating to the Net Zero concept but Net Zero is already known to be unworkable on other grounds too. The scientific world needs to use real science – not this nonsense about CO2 affecting climate. It does not – as Australia has just found out.
David states the obvious which makes sense to those of us on this forum, but for the dimwits this is just an inconvenient truth who would suggest just add more capacity reinforcing their stupidity and misunderstanding behind this supposed energy source which is neither dependable or reliable. The degree of stupid is stupendous!
Indeed, so the point of the legislation is to force the issue.
Remember the shoemaker. Elves came to the rescue when things got bad.
This is so simple one wonders why none of the utilities, public utility commissions, independent system operators, and reliability agencies ever thought of it.
They can’t ALL have passed over it without doing rough estimates of storage capacities and costs. But good ol’ politics to the rescue – do they want to gorge themselves on gummint subsidies and NGO grants for virtue-signaling, or not?
PJM did a nice takedown of the Sierra Club’s battery proposal for replacing over 2100MW of coal- and oil- powered generation in Maryland with batteries. PDF here: https://sdc.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2024/20240503-bess-technical-viability-wagner-and-brandon-shores-retirements-study.ashx