Energy from the wind and the sun — they’re clean and green and free. OK, there’s the small problem of intermittency. But clearly the intermittency problem can easily be solved with a few batteries to store some power for the occasional calm nights.
Or is that solution really so easy? Regular readers here will know that I wrote an energy storage Report, titled “The Energy Storage Conundrum,” published by the GWPF back in December 2022. After some straightforward calculations based on elementary-school-level arithmetic, that Report concluded that the amount of storage needed was so large, and the costs so completely unaffordable, that energy storage was totally infeasible as a way to make wind and solar work as the main power sources for an electricity grid. Calculations set forth in that Report concluded that the amount of energy storage needed to enable a predominantly wind/solar grid to get through a year without hitting a blackout was in the range of 500 to 1000 hours of average electricity usage. Keep that range in mind for the rest of this post.
Paying no attention whatsoever to my warnings, and not troubling themselves to do any simple arithmetic of their own, the states of New York and California have chosen to forge ahead with plans for predominantly wind/solar grids backed up by batteries. Multiple years into the project, neither state is anywhere near to building 1% of the energy storage that would be needed to make their fantasy systems work. But even in these very early stages, they have both blundered into an additional and unanticipated problem: catastrophic fires.
Lithium-ion batteries have an unfortunate downside that they occasionally catch fire spontaneously. This can be a notable problem for your cell phone or computer, and a bigger problem for your electric bicycle or car. But the batteries for those things, even the electric car, are tiny compared to the huge batteries needed to back up the electrical grid. Grid-scale batteries must store thousands of megawatt-hours of electricity, compared to maybe 100 kWh for an EV. It seems that the frequency of these spontaneous fires increases with the size of the battery. Can this problem be solved? I have no idea. But it certainly has not been solved yet.
In March 2024, I had a post titled “New York and California Getting Totally Lost With Energy Storage,” reporting on the efforts of those two states to build gigantic battery farms to back up their planned wind/solar adventures. At a stage of having built only a fraction of one percent of the amount of batteries that would be needed to support the project, both had run into a situation of repeated huge and catastrophic spontaneous fires in their newly-built battery farms.
New York (State) has average electricity demand of about 17,000 MW, meaning that the storage capacity it would need for the predominantly wind/solar system of the future would be 500 to 1000 hours of that, or 8,500 to 17,000 GWh. Governor Hochul has set a (ridiculous) goal of 24 GWh of energy storage for the State by 2030, and my March 2024 post reported that by August 2023 all of 1.2 GWh of that had been built. And yet, between May and July 2023, New York had had three large fires at the grid battery storage facilities built up to that time:
- On May 31, a battery that NextEra Energy Resources had installed at a substation in East Hampton caught fire.
- On June 26, fire alarms went off at two battery units owned and operated by Convergent Energy and Power in Warwick, Orange County; one of those later caught fire.
- On July 27, a different Convergent battery at a solar farm in Chaumont caught fire and burned for four days straight.
Source: this August 2023 piece from Canary Media.
Over in California, their average electricity demand is around 30,000 MW, meaning that the range of 500 to 1000 hours of battery storage they would need to back up their dream of a wind/solar system would require 15,000 GWh to 30,000 GWh of batteries. Here from the State of California is an Energy Storage System survey from October 2024. The amount of energy storage built so far is stated as 13,391 MW. Of course, they use the wrong units. These people are completely innumerate. However, we know that they are talking about 4-hour lithium-ion batteries, so multiply by 4 and divide by 1000 to get 53.564 GWh of storage built so far. That would be between about 0.18% and 0.36% of the amount of energy storage they would need to back up a predominantly wind/solar system.
And yet with this teensy amount of storage built so far, California too has had repeated spontaneous fires. My March 2024 post reported on two of these fires (sourced from an LA Times piece from October 2023):
- In September 2022, a Tesla Megapack caught fire at a battery storage facility operated by Pacific Gas & Electric in the Northern California town of Moss Landing.
- A fire broke out at the Valley Center Energy Storage Facility in San Diego County on Sept. 18 [2023].
And now we have the biggest fire of all, this time again at the Moss Landing facility. According to Energy Storage News in August 2023, after a 2023 expansion to 3 GWh capacity, the Moss Landing facility became the world’s largest energy storage facility. The fire broke out yesterday, January 16, and appears to be still burning to some extent at the time of this writing. I can’t find an estimate of how much of the facility is getting destroyed, but it is not a small part. Here is a picture of the fire from NPR:
NBC News reports today that there was a mandatory evacuation of an area of 7600 acres surrounding the facility. 7600 acres is about 12 square miles. Approximately 1200 to 1500 residents living in that area were evacuated, according to NBC.
NBC quotes Monterey County District 2 Supervisor Glenn Church calling this “a worst case scenario of a disaster” that nobody predicted. Church continues:
“This is really a lot more than just a fire, it’s really a wake up call for this industry, and if we’re going to be moving ahead with sustainable energy we need to have safe battery systems in place,” Church said.
Church is further quoted as stating that this is the fourth fire at this facility going back to 2019. Besides the current one and the one in 2022 reported in the LA Times story linked above, there were additional fires at Moss Landing in 2019 and 2021.
Back here in New York, my friend and co-author Richard Ellenbogen sends me an email pointing out that we have a large grid-scale battery storage facility moving toward construction on the East bank of the East River right across from Midtown Manhattan. I don’t find whether construction has actually begun, but this project has been in the works for years, and has gotten multiple regulatory approvals. Here is a piece from the New York City Economic Development Corporation indicating that the financing for the project was closed in May 2024. My friend Ellenbogen points out that the technology is the same as the Moss Landing facility in California, and a 12 square mile evacuation zone around this facility would include a big chunk of Midtown Manhattan and another big chunk of densely-populated Western Queens — hundreds of thousands of people, instead of the paltry 1200-1500 just evacuated out in California. What are our New York pols thinking? Actually, the EDC press release quotes a bunch of them. Here are a couple of quotes:
“Large-scale deployment of battery storage helps New York City advance its PlaNYC goal to achieve a clean, reliable, and equitable future,” said Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice Director Elijah Hutchinson. “NYCIDA’s support of this 100 MW project will help reduce our reliance on polluting fossil fuels and when completed, be one of the largest battery storage installations in the state.”
“For decades, residents of historically disadvantaged communities in Queens have suffered the negative effects of peaker plant pollution,” said Queens Borough President Donovan Richards. “The battery energy storage facility coming to Astoria will help address this longtime injustice and result in a healthier environment for all of us in Queens. I commend the NYCEDC and the NYCIDA for taking decisive steps to bolster our city’s green economy by facilitating projects like this one that produce clean and renewable energy.”
OK then. This is the level of incompetence we are dealing with.
You would think that the latest Moss Landing disaster would be big news, but not so much. I find pieces at NPR, CBS and NBC, but not, for example, The New York Times. I guess this news is not “fit to print.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The best storage isn’t Li-Ion Battery Storage.
…With the batteries containing both Fuel and Oxidizer in one tidy explosive package brings with it far too much propensity to self immolate
The best storage is Dual Reservoir Pumped Storage.
…The only downfall is the design requirements and the limited areas available that meet the design requirements. They can’t be placed just anywhere.
There are a number of battery technologies that are more suitable for fixed storage than Li-ion, LFP is one, supposedly with a lower cost per watt, higher cycle count and less flammable than Li-ion. One advantage of Lithium and some other battery chemistries is a high charge/discharge efficiency, better than pumped storage.
Dual reservoir pumped storage can be a safer and less expensive technology than Li-ion. In addition to limited sites, disadvantages also include potential of reservoir failure and loss of water from evaporation.
I would go for LFP, as I have done at home (25kWh), but if they must use Lithium Ion, incorporating a built in fixed compressed nitrogen foam system can extinguish lithium-ion battery fires in as little as 14 seconds. The foam can also cool the battery’s surface temperature.
You should write fairy stories….
Diesel generators are most reliable, efficient, and cost effective. Their tanks can be “recharged” even while in operation, essentially extending capacity. They have been used reliably for decades by hospitals and for other mission critical applications.
Liquid nitrogen has been shown to be effective in some cases – not as far as I know gaseous nitrogen. Worse, gaseous nitrogen can only be used by those with full human breathing protection since as little as two or three inhalations of nitrogen gas instead of air will asphyxiate any human.
Li batteries contain both fuel and oxidizer. The will reignite.
Not sure phosphorus is a good alternative. Phosphorus ignites in air.
Australia started expanding the Snowy hydro scheme last decade to provide 350GWh of capacity of pumped storage. It was supposed to be finished last year. But now looks like at least another 6 years.
Pumped storage of decent capacity has extensive environmental hurdles and long execution times. And there is not an abundance of suitable locations. Lake Superior might provide suitable perched volume by raising and lowering a few metres but you would then need a low level storage facility of significant volume for the low level pondage.
Lithium batteries require relatively small space and can get permitting in short time although that is likely to change. I suggest battery proponents seek permission from the UN to install an environmentally friendly, clean lithium battery on the UN site in NYC.
NY could always locate their Battery Storage in
Battery Park
Just think, Oz could have had a nuclear plant built and operating in the same time frame as Snowy 2.0 and for about the same $$$$s.
The mindlessness of “Renewable” grid-scale power supply is something that future anthropologists will never stop scratching their heads over.
Tulip Mania comes to mind.
Not Tulip Mania. Australia is the Hermit Kingdom of Renewables. Dissent from Labour Govt orthodoxy will be labelled as “misinformation” and will result in DPRK style Climate Re-education Camps.
Pumped storage systems, if properly designed, are at least 80% efficient, have no CO2, do not catch fire, last at least 100 years, require no subsidies, plus cost a few cents/kWh to operate.
Only Wall Street does not like them, because pumped storage is not suitable for tax shelter schemes.
But, by drill, baby drill, the US has fossil fuels for at least the next 150 years, so no pumped storage is required.
That CO2, a trace gas, has practically no influence on the world temperature, plus it is needed for increased growth of flora and fauna
While the US is using up its fossil fuels for, it should build hundreds of standard, large nuclear plants, to replace coal, oil and gas that are better used for making tens of thousands of products we use everyday.
The decades-long nightmare of wind and solar, supplied mostly by foreign countries sucking our wealth, has finally come to an end.
Tens of thousands of federal and state bureaucrats will no longer be needed.
Shrink the Government Reduce the Deficit
They should look for jobs in the profitable, tax-paying private sector, which will be growing, instead of sucking of the government tit
But dams are doubleplus ungood crimethink to a Green.
Green is a nice color, but MAGA red beats it by a mile
Jill Biden agrees
jill biden wearing red on election day – Search Images
Regarding the Moss Landing battery system fire
.
These expensive battery plants last only about 15 years, if properly operated.
.
They lose capacity at 1.5%/y, as they age.
They have throughput losses from HV grid, through battery system, to HV grid of 20%, more with aging
They have to be charged from not lees than 20% full to not more than 80% full, to achieve normal aging, per Tesla recommendation
.
If you charge to 10% or less and to 90% or more (to make an extra buck, or to get some extra range out of your EV) you are guaranteed to have much faster aging, and a much greater chance of a fire.
The folks who own the Vestra battery system likely did that.
.
These batteries, with 4-h storage, are used to store part of the daily solar peak and discharge it, minus 20% loss, to the HV grid during the peak demand hours of late-afternoon/early-evening.
.
At 40% throughput, about as high as you can practically achieve, the battery cost adder is about 40 c/kWh
.
That is a monster addition to the cost of highly subsidized solar electricity.
None of those battery costs are charged to solar system owners.
If they were, solar would be off-the-charts expensive.
.
Only in dysfunctional California could politicians be that stupid to require people to have solar systems and Utilities to have battery plants.
A sure way to ruin dysfunctional California some more..
.
BTW, Tesla has a similarly large battery plant nearby, not affected by the fire, is functioning normally. It did have a small fire some months ago.
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually is not made public, but, inexplicably, for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, has just turned on its 219 MW / 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, it will be a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system,
.
Turnkey cost $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems cost much more than $500/kWh
.
This article has lots of info about batteries.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
“The best storage is Dual Reservoir Pumped Storage.”
Which is a total waste of energy, time and money.
Mostly I would agree with you, but from what I’ve read, the Taum Sauk facility actually made money from day/night arbitrage. That was built back in the 60s, though, so the economics may have changed now. But apparently they were profitable right up until the upper reservoir overtopped in 2005, excavated the foundation, collapsed the wall, and then dumped the entire reservoir into the park below, fortunately killing no one (that time), but causing an immense and expensive amount of damage nevertheless. Oops!
Dunno why the downvotes. Pumped storage is the only thing that actually works, but the size needes is phenomenal.
The pumping losses mean you have to produce probably about twice the energy you store.
Since it requires two new reservoirs of large size, the greenies should say it is far more environmentally damaging than a single catchment reservoir….
…. which they keep wanting to destroy.
Because we don’t need storage if we have dependable base load energy. And, surprise, surprise- the enviros don’t like pumped storage. The only one in Wokeachusetts, the enviros are fighting to prevent it from getting its license renewed.
“Because we don’t need storage if we have dependable base load energy.”
Exactly. We need a treaty for non-proliferation of intermittent energy harvesters!
Actually, the largest pumped storage project in North America, Bath County in Virginia, was installed to take advantage of the 24/7 base load generation of nuclear units. It had nothing to do with renewables.
In NY, NYPA’s Gilboa pumped storage facility (>1 GW) was begun in 1969 along with nuclear development. As you say, it had nothing to do with the poorly named “renewables.”
https://www.nypa.gov/about/timeline
NYPA’s current description says “But long before engineers sought to store power from intermittent energy sources such as wind or solar, NYPA was already a leader in energy storage.”
https://www.nypa.gov/power/generation/blenheim-gilboa-pumped-storage
Not actually, but in theory
Pumped storage is only needed to store energy because wind and solar are intermittent.
Otherwise, just run the turbines directly to feed the grid.
The whole scheme is a loss to prevent a bigger loss because CO2 is scary and we need to mitigate it save the world. There is no other reason.
Hydro power (and batteries) are especially good at load following which is a concept unappreciated by most of the vocal people on this forum. They all think that sufficient baseload means job done and don’t appreciate what it actually takes to run a grid.
One of the biggest advantages to a CCGT power plant, is the built in “safe” storage system with virtually unlimited supply. Safe, plentiful, scalable and cheap! Nuff said.
There’s one pumped storage in Wokeachusetts- and the enviros are fighting hard to prevent it getting a renewal of its license.
Why not just stop adding solar and wind and use fossil baseload with existing solar and wind used as available for fuel savings. When existing wind and solar crap out, don’t replace them.
The problem is that there are little to know fuel savings. The fossil fuel plants have to be kept in warm to hot standby so that they can take over whenever the wind drops, or a cloud passes over your solar farm. The result is that you are paying for two power systems when only one is needed.
Actually, it is entirely a function of cost. If the massive quantities of cash devoted to alternative energy/energy storage were devoted instead to storage – you can do anything from dig a big hole in the ground to erecting massive man made structures. Hell, in theory a vertical pipe extending into the atmosphere would work.
The best storage are hydrocarbons already created by Nature. Not only they store energy very efficiently, they also can be transported.
The best energy “storage” is to tap into the energy the Earth already has stored.
20 years ago the same argument would have been made about the solar cells themselves. These days they’re so cheap that they’re rarely mentioned as a cost limited factor.
Energy storage will get there too but we need to go through a period of costly R&D to get there.
If the energy transition had been justified and planned in terms of the decline in fossil fuel reserves, then things would have gone differently. People like Mann and Hansen have a lot to answer for. History wont treat them kindly, I don’t think.
Energy storage will get there too.
That is not the statement of an engineer, it is a statement of religious faith.
No. Energy storage wont get there.
And there is no need.
If the California battery was actually made out of uranium fuel rods stacked in 10 reactors, it would run the whole of california perfectly adequately all year round with known and viable technology.
Eliminating the need for renewable energy altogether.
You cant fix stupid.
No its a simple projection the same as the solar cell prices dropped. Once solar cells reached $1 per Watt they were considered “cheap” and they’re now 31c per Watt.
https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
That’s Chinese Uyghur Slave labor creating the components for the cost of materials (no labor costs)
Ironically, slave labor is free.
Labour costs may be cheaper but its increasing automation that drives costs down. Skilled labour manages that automation.
Birds learned how to fly. Therefore pigs will learn one day too.
What is the cost of the land needed for those massive arrays and what is given up by dedicating the land to that project? Those costs are real costs.
I read that WUWT article recently and it’s fundamental flaw was not considering the roof space for the 750k homes it mentioned. There’s a lot of acreage on those roofs.
That’s what’s happening today and it’s working.
Yep “Energy storage will get there” so why make society dependent upon a technology that “Isn’t There”
If it “Will get there” then in its current state it “Isn’t There”
Because every technology that exists has gone through a phase of R&D to improve it over time.
Why aren’t we driving cars that get the miles per gallon figures they do, by chance. There’s been a huge amount of R&D to get them there.
That is the key issue. Mandating immediate change to an unproven system.
Not immediate, it takes a lot of time and some pain to transition to a less effective energy source. But that’s why I mean the transition should have been framed in terms of fossil fuel depletion and not climate change.
You know that is a complete non sequitur argument.
Just because “A” happens does not mean “B” will happen.
They’re “Cheap” (chintzy)…
(chintzy: 2.
informal•North American
cheap and of poor quality)
simply because they are manufactured in China and seldom deliver on their promised capacity or longevity. Unfortunately they’re also still subject to the whims of weather (AKA weather dependent) and can be easily damaged by Wind or Hail and can’t produce energy when it’s needed.
If they are so cheap – why are they still being heavily subsidized?
Both in terms of being built and in terms of feed-in tariffs.
Energy storage will get there
Irrelevant until it does.
Even when cheap they are still a terrible power supplier because it is LOW MASS requiring a massive amount of land to provide intermittent power production that goes to zero when the sun is setting to when it rises the next morning.
Not worth it, better to go Nuclear and Thorium instead far more bang for the buck and no battery storage idiocy necessary as it runs 24/7.
Even though I support nuclear energy, its just not happening. Maybe somewhere along the line some will be built to support baseload but it wont be soon.
Virginia is poised to build a nuclear fusion reactor.
Willis wrote an article some years ago where he determined that to transition by 2050 we’d need to be commissioning new reactors about weekly (IIRC) and even then didn’t account for growth.
Transitioning according to fossil fuel depletion would be a similar high rate of build but as I said, it’s just not happening.
Oh wait..fusion?
We can only hope but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Solar is only cheap because of the subsidies.
We have had batteries for hundreds of years. As a technology, they are pretty much played out.
The only “decline” in fossil fuel reserves is because of restrictions government has placed on exploration and development.
Why are they are so cheap? Have you spent one moment to think about the human capital being spent in China to make them cheap. Talk about privilege! The irony.
Automation.
Indeed.
“You would think that the latest Moss Landing disaster would be big news, but not so much. I find pieces at NPR, CBS and NBC, but not, for example, The New York Times. I guess this news is not “fit to print.””
It doesn’t toe the line on the Narrative…
Miss information
Can’t print it
And therefore the entire article should be disregarded, obviously.
Nice one, Nick. Relevant and on point as usual!
[taunting-ctm]
Its uite a reasonable story – it seems to report the facts correctly. What one would like to see next is some proper analysis of the implications of this and similar events for the climate agenda more widely.
Starting with an acknowledgment that batteries in the present state of technology are a non starter. Partly because of cost, but increasingly as this episode and others show, because of safety.
And moving on to admit that there is nothing else available near term that will remedy intermittency, and drawing the obvious conclusion for the viability of the net zero generation program: its a dead duck.
The only affordbale , scalable and clean alternative to storage is CCGT Natural or other gas, or JET fuel? THis is the real capable backup for intermittency if sustained grid scale levels of energy supply are involved, not some green off his head off the grid lunatics wood cabin, with a diesel gene out back for when its cold and the sun don’t shine.
OR nuclear? And, if you can get through peak demand using nuclear, you don’t need renewables. Clean, scalable, lowest resource use and most sustainable in joined up fact, and still cheapest per KWh over 60 years nuclear. 60 yrs at a 90% plannable duty cycle. That requires no lifetime subsidies so no laws to impose it, safest of all measured modern modalities, The best long term strategic ebergy future for the state to invest in it, best for the people paying the bills, but no easy profits or enforcement of electrification and de industrialistion for the globalists who use all this Rio 92 nonsnese to transfer economic power from the Est to Asia, with massive hand outs for the traitors to theor own country doing this, the government and its cronies. Why not build what meets the claimed requirements best at a good price? Because that isn’t the real agenda. CEng, CPhys, MBA
So lets use Stoke logic on a few of many single article reports
1.) No press except Washington Post reported on Watergate so it was important.
2.) Phone hacking scandal wasn’t reported in any Murdoch press so it wasn’t important
3.) Only sky news ran the article 16% of the Amazon disappeared in 2019 again so not important
4.) ITV reported on sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile so not important
Only one publication says anything about importance except in your world for the real people in the real world the importance is by evaluation.
Ask the governor of NY if she read it.
“in CA near San Jose”
Say What? Moss Landing is 37,000 Smoots and over a mountain to the south.
Great pick again, Nick.
🙂
Energy from the wind and the sun isn’t clean, green, free, or reliable.
Definitely far from “Free”
Solar needs to be replaced at least 6 times over 80 years.
Solar also needs to be replaced after Hail, Tornados and Hurricanes
…Solar also only produces energy near nameplate from 10am until 2pm
…Solar has a capacity factor of 26% or less depending on Latitude and less in Winter
Wind will likely need to be replaced 4 times over 80 years.
Wind can also be damaged by Hail, Tornados and Hurricanes especially Offshore Wind
…Wind also has a goldilocks zone, winds below 9mph or above 55mph and wind goes offline.
…Wind has a capacity factor of <40% and is often at 5% during peak usage times
2.2GW Nuclear (2-1,100MW units) can last 80 years with regular maintenance
…Nuclear Generation isn’t subject to the effects of bad weather
…Nuclear has a capacity factor of almost 98% with the remaining 2% being refueling outages (2 weeks every 2 years)
Energy from Wind and Sun isn’t “Free” as it requires costly replacement from Bad Weather (at ever increasing costs from inflation) and faster degradation from age than traditional FF or Nuclear
You build Nuclear in 2025 for $12B and it will still be operating in 2100 for that same $12B.
You build Solar in 2025 and you will be replacing it in 2040 at 2040 prices…then again in 2055 at 2055 prices…then again in 2056 because of that Hail Storm…then in 2058 from hurricane damage…then in 2073 at 2073 prices then in 2075 because of the Tornado outbreak…then in 2080 because of the next hurricane…then in 2095 at 2095 prices.
Damn that Nuclear Plant be looking mighty cheap right about now
“…Solar also only produces energy near nameplate from 10am until 2pm”
And even then, much less if buried under snow or its a dark cloudy day.
Batteries need replacing every 8 years.
Nuclear CAPEX is simlar to offshore wind per GW capacity BUT has twice the duty level and lasts 3 times as long. So offshore wind, the one that kinda works half the time at least, is 6 times the cost per lifetime energy to build.
nb: OPEX is about the same, offshore wind has horrible costs of maintenance and repair, using overpriced Dutch oil rig service vessels at similar pd costs, and nuclear costs of fuel are tiny, it having nuclear binding energies that are a million times more energetic per unit mass than the molecular binding energies of gas or coal. In the end , there is only the phsyics of what works, and how it does it, that determines what it costs. The rest is bullshit.
“Batteries need replacing every 8 years or after each fire, whichever comes first.“
Fixed it for you. 😁
Solar will have to be cleaned on a regular basis to get rid of accumulated dust and bird poop.
Both solar and wind need defrosting whenever it gets cold. Whether the defrosting is manual or automatic, defrosting adds cost.
Solar panel fabrication is one of the filthiest manufacturing procedures around.. Uses very toxic liquids etc and needs a lot of energy.
Wind requires neodymium for the magnets, also a highly toxic and waste pollution producing activity, not to mention the huge quantities of resins etc needed for the blades.
On top of that there is environmental destruction through installation and avian carnage.
And the massive land fill required at end of life, leaching toxins.
Exactly- here in Wokeachusetts and much of the country, you need to destroy fields and forests to install green energy “farms”- not to mention the ecological problems with wind turbines at sea.
The people in charge of this are not innumerate. They understand full well the consequences. Their priority is the planet not the wellbeing of human beings. And blackouts are a price worth paying. Alongside the ability to choose who loses their electricity first it’s a win not a problem.
That may well be true, but the politicians and media are being led by the nose, partly because they are almost completely innumerate. Unfortunately the vast majority of the public are, too.
The cry goes out “follow the Science!” It’s completely wrong. Start listening to the engineers!
I have a bridge to sell you…
They want to “rewild” the planet.
Their priority is their business and their profit.
Their priority is the planet?
Not so. Their priority is enrichment and control. Power.
Batteries waste energy due to round-trip losses.
If one takes seasonal differences in temperature (for ex. in New York) into account, recharging batteries below freezing greatly increases energy losses (up to 50%) on recharging. So half of the planned intermittent “extra” energy gets lost. Even a gasoline or Diesel ICE is more efficient.
On the other side, nuclear technologies have made enormous progress, in spite of intense political hurdles. Any well-informed person should see through this. There’s just too much money involved in pushing this so-called green economy.
In a zero sum world, somebody’s waste is somebody’s profit.
Run the world on batteries…LMFAO!!
I wonder how keen these people buildin the new battery park would feel about living right next door to it?
Probably, in the not too distant future, EV drivers will hit the wall when their car-insurance costs go through the roof; even if their car doesn’t burn and eventually takes their house and belongings with it.
What I’d like to know is- do insurance companies determine risk from EVs and the pool of money to insure them separate from insuring ICE vehicles?
EV insurance costs are being spread up among all drivers, and even among home owners and other policies. This is why insurance costs are growing so much. If insurance companies charged EV owners real costs, EV insurance would be prohibitively expensive already.
That’s gotta stop- especially if pooled with home insurance.
The neighborhoods next to them will be the new slums.
Or the next Nagasaki.
So long as they build them in a circular pattern with 8 units to a tier and build up space is not an issue. Then you could color the bottom 2/3 black and the top 1/3 copper. Giant Duracell Batteries standing next to communist communities
What astounded me: no mention at all of this fire was seen in the media here in Switzerland,
and probably not in Germany either. Let’s call this “Narrative maintenance”.
Be sure to pass the story along to everyone you know in those nations.
Hardly astounding, rather, it is expected. Felicity Ace and other burned ships and ferries did not get much publicity either.
Energy from the wind and the sun — they’re clean and green and free. The biggest lie ever…
“the states of New York and California have chosen to forge ahead with plans for predominantly wind/solar grids backed up by batteries”
don’t forget Wokeachusetts!
Story tip:
I see where Trump is going to sign an Executive Order placing a moratorium on off-shore windmills.
He is also issuing an EO canceling the Green New Deal. Not sure what that encompasses, but I guess we will see soon.
So far, so good!
Four more hours and things change for the better! 🙂
Biden’s “Green New Deal” would be his $$$Trillion “Inflation Enhancement Act”
What is the Green Deal with Joe Biden?
Overturning most of that would be a boon but it was enacted by Congress so cannot be overturned by executive fiat. It will take another act of Congress to do so. If we can get the RINOs in line…perhaps.
Moratorium is not good enough, 4 years pass by fast. Defeating Narrative and removal of CO2, methane, etc. from EPA pollutant list are much more important. I am not hearing this being discussed, whatever his intentions are.
A company is trying to build a new battery facility in a city in Oklahoma, and the residents of the area are protesting it.
https://www.news9.com/story/678a905b83766cd8f6bf418b/lincoln-co-residents-voicing-concern-for-planned-lithium-battery-storage-facility
Lincoln Co. residents voice concern for planned lithium battery storage facility
Residents in Lincoln County are organizing on Friday to voice their concerns regarding a planned lithium battery storage facility near Rossville.
Friday, January 17th 2025, 2:17 pm
By: Lisa Monahan, Christian Hans
Lincoln County leaders will hold a public meeting on Friday to address concerns from residents regarding a planned construction project.
The project entails the construction of an energy battery storage facility by Black Mountain Energy Storage, a Texas-based energy storage company.
On social media, the Facebook group known as “Save Oklahoma Farms and Ranches” is organizing an effort to protest the planned construction, calling on residents to gather at Friday’s meeting and voice their concerns.”
end excerpt
I imagine the battery facility fire in California will be mentioned at the meeting. But I think the protest was organized before the California fire broke out, so this is not about the California fire.
I think we are going to need a New Trump Administration Open Thread.
We are going to have a lot to talk about in the next few hours and days regarding the changes he is making. 🙂
“Trump Administration Open Thread”
I know folks that have “Trump” in their heads all the time. It is not a good thing. In contrast, I will pay attention but do not intend to fixate on the Trump Administration. There are pizzas, beer, and ice cream (and several other things) to occupy my mind.
If that happens, I hope that someone would clarify just what is the legal/Constitutional definition of a “pardon” vs “immunity”.
Constitution does not specifically address immunity, only pardons and reprieves.
Pardon is for offenses committed against the US. Literalist would interpret it to mean once found guilty.
Reprieve is reduction or cancellation of sentences being served.
ANSWERS:
When any subsidies for it are ended
When similarly untaxed CCGT gas can be used as a (much cheaper and less resource intensive) backup,
When renewables are removed from the grid. NO renewables, no backup required.
i.e. When what works best at lowest cost to the energy user is preferred and taxation and subsidies to distort the market are removed.
Simples!
Why are large lithium batteries inherently dangerous?
Beyond the chemical aspects, it is important to recognize they are comprised of many small cells electrically connected in series and parallel:
https://www.power-sonic.com/blog/lithium-battery-configurations/
Metallic interconnects must be bonded to the small cells and to each other to form the overall battery circuit. It should be noted this is entirely analogous to PV systems where many small solar cells are connected in series and parallel. Therefore both share some common degradation and failure mechanisms.
Over time, in operation the metallic bonds age due to temperature changes and current flows, and the electrical resistance increases. Because of manufacturing variances, the bonds cannot be guaranteed to all be identical. These resistances induce voltage drops when current flows through the battery circuit, and heat with I^2*R power losses.
The cells themselves cannot be 100% identical, and over time age at different rates.
What happens when you connect a 3V cell in parallel with a 3.1V cell?
Nothing good comes from this: in a PV circuit one cell is forced into reverse bias where instead of generating power it is now dissipating power. Hot spots develop that can easily burn elements inside PV modules and cause fires.
Translate this to large battery systems, where hot spots can cause thermal runaway in battery cells and ignition of the chemical storage.
“Over time …” Thanks for the info. However, there must be something else going on, because some of these large installations go off while being assembled (not over time).
Maybe because they are large and heavy they twist (?) while being moved.
Mechanical disturbance can cause shorts.
If the cells are not identical hot spots can develop at the manufacturer when they are initially charged.
A lot of things can go wrong.
Metallic dendrites growing between electrodes causing shorts. It is impossible to avoid this happening sooner or later in a large sample of cells. Mitigation efforts can reduce probability at a cost, but mot eliminate100%
Repeated vibrations affecting mechanical properties of the bonds, particularly when some are weaker to start with due to manufacturing variances.
Hidden manufacturing defects such as near over welds that end up a cell puncture later.
Metal spatter during contact welding creating metal particles welded into material or just floating around that can cause shorts.
Organic electrolyte degradation due to overheating in manufacturing or battery usage.
etc.
With millions of cells developing a short in one of them is a matter of time.
Very true.
A small quibble: 4 hour duration storage setups are not long term storage. Their purpose is entirely to shift power from overnight wind to morning duck curve spike, or midday solar PV to evening duck curve spike.
These should be distinguished from long term storage. Moss Landing is a long term storage. If you remove the 4 hour duration storage, the amounts of storage in California and New York are much, much smaller. I don’t know the exact number but 75% reduction is very possible. The last Gulf Coast Power Association event I attended – Texas’ battery based electricity storage was 90%+ of the 4 hour or less variety.
“It seems that the frequency of these spontaneous fires increases with the size of the battery.”
The probability of any one cell catching fire is likely very low, but not Zero. There is also likely a rule based on beyond elementary-school-level arithmetic that formalized the idea. I’ll pass.
Speaking of battery fires and politics, this headline is great:
https://www.dailynews.com/2025/01/17/burning-teslas-fried-battery-storage-systems-slow-la-return/
Remember single strand Christmas tree lights. As you made the string longer, added more lights, it became impossible to keep the lights on.
Very nice Francis. How on earth can governments approve facilities that spontaneously catch fire. Look at the fuss they made about Pinto and Corvair autos, at least they had to be in a wreck to burst into flames. Our government sucks..
“straightforward calculations based on elementary-school-level arithmetic”.
That might be the problem.
Did you try the MiracleOccursHere() function?
I’ve seen it used quite successfully in a lot of peer reviewed research.
We need a new form of public liability to protect us from our neighbours EV. Should terraces and other forms of conjoined housing submit to having EVs garaged amongst them?