Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lakis 662 days ago
> The California failure is a good example What California failure? Take a look at record battery discharging for CAISO https://www.gridstatus.io/records/caiso?record=Maximum%20Bat...

Do you notice anything? The records keep falling ever summer. The battery discharge per day went up by 100% in the last year.

I do not see any bending of the curve. California is the perfect example of building enough batteries can solve the duck curve problem. Even in Texas, with the government actively against renewables and batteries, you see record been set for battery storage all the time https://www.gridstatus.io/records/ercot?record=Maximum%20Pow... Texas quadruple the battery storage in the last year. Difference between California and Texas. California is about 3 years ahead of Texas. When the economics are so much cheaper, battery power is build .

1 comments

I notice the wrong focus: how much such storage cost vs how much it will been able to run? My slowly discharged home battery have a declared loos of 5% in ~3 years and I discharge only 10%/day normally. My car SOH (NMC though), if true from ODB state 10% loss over ~2 years. Compared to some friends I can esteem 2.3 years of useful life for NMC, 8 years for LFP if MODERATELY used (80-20% 3 time a week), for grid storage the useful life might be 1-3 year.

Secondary consider the battery production capacity: actually we do not recycle batteries except few experiments, too expensive to be done on scale, that still recycle only a part of lithium, most efficient recover let's say 80% from a new battery.

What do you expect in 10 years?

VS

what you expect if we re-build on scale modern small buildings where p.v. at a significant slice of latitude it's roughly 50% of total consumption in pure self-consumption? What if a modern home who consume in hot summer ~30kWh/day consume from the grid ~5kWh/day like a home with no A/C and in cold winter consume ~40kWh/day, ~30 from the grid instead of 90-100kWh of a classic one (data ranged from homes in Sweden to Spain)? Because you know the most we get so far was from consuming much less to do much more, where we are far better than generating more from renewables in improvements rate terms. You can't "improve" classic buildings, you can only rebuild them and we haven't enough natural resources to rebuild cities not counting it's practically impossible for mere impact of such megaproject on existing human life.

The reality is that only a spread society of small stuff can evolve, and in a changing world we need to been able to evolve. That's the resilience WEF talk, denying it at the same time.