[parasense]

The natural gas situation is still sketchy because the incentive to build more capacity is very low, but the natural gas alongside coal electricity generation is know as baseband power. Very reliable inertial generators (turbines) smooth over the unstable electrical from wind turbines or solar.

As far as battery capacity goes, that's also sketchy because ERCOT is allowing dangerous risky lithium packs to be installed in a tightly packed together industrial space optimized way that could result in disaster when one unit catches fire, spreading to the whole site. Better would be magnetically suspended flywheels in a hard vacuum buried under ground. These are more ecological and have the same baseband quality as a turbine constant spin generator, and require very little energy to up-keep. I would say a hybrid way of having these flywheels in large numbers with on-site lithium batteries to provide site power, and line-leveling as the relays switch over to the flywheels, similar to how batteries in a data center last just long enough to let the diesel gen spin up...

The problem is if all these renewable eco friendly sources crowd out the dirty more reliable sources, then there will eventually not be any reliable sources. It's a nasty paradox.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> As far as battery capacity goes, that's also sketchy because ERCOT is allowing dangerous risky lithium packs to be installed in a tightly packed together industrial space optimized way that could result in disaster when one unit catches fire, spreading to the whole site.

Completely false. There have been fires at in battery storage systems. They have never, ever escaped the containment of the metal unit that comprises a given module. There is really no mechanism for a fire to spread either.

[epistasis]

> because the incentive to build more capacity is very low,

The incentive for new gas generation is the same as for new solar generation: selling electricity profitably on the grid. If you are saying that new gas generation has trouble competing with batteries and solar, I would agree.

I would go further and say that new solar and batteries are cheaper than merely the fuel and operating costs of many existing fossil fuel plants. Especially coal. And a lot of gas too, particularly the peaker plants that burn for short amounts of time to capture price spikes on the market.

> Very reliable inertial generators (turbines) smooth over the unstable electrical from wind turbines or solar.

There's two very different concepts here: inertial generators for frequency regulation and supplying reactive power, which solar does not generate natively, but is now with grid-forming inverters. Also, batteries have been serving frequency regulation for more than a decade, starting in the PJM market. The need for inertial generation has been replaced even with very old and expensive battery technology.

The second concept of "reliable" is dispatchable power: can you put power on the grid when it's needed? Batteries also solve this, and are being deployed, profitably, in Texas, as opposed to new gas generation.

> As far as battery capacity goes, that's also sketchy because ERCOT is allowing dangerous risky lithium packs to be installed in a tightly packed together industrial space optimized way that could result in disaster when one unit catches fire, spreading to the whole site.

That's a fairly minor implementation detail, and the installers are taking on all that risk on their own, as they will lose everything if there's a fire that spreads.

A battery going up in smoke is still far better than the amounts of natural gas that get burned in its place.

> Better would be magnetically suspended flywheels in a hard vacuum buried under ground. These are more ecological and have the same baseband quality as a turbine constant spin generator, and require very little energy to up-keep. I would say a hybrid way of having these flywheels in large numbers with on-site lithium batteries to provide site power, and line-leveling as the relays switch over to the flywheels, similar to how batteries in a data center last just long enough to let the diesel gen spin up...

Flywheels are a completely impractical technology that doesn't scale and is far too expensive. Especially in vacuum underground.

Inverters are a far better solution than fly-wheels: cheaper, more battle-tested, actually deployed in practice instead of just in the lab, and widespread.

[WD-42]

Vistra energy built a battery storage plant in Moss Landing, Ca that recently went up in flames completely destroying the entire plant and dumping toxic chemicals into the local estuary. Ask the residents there if they thought it was “better than burning ng.” They are trying to build another one a hundred miles south in Morro bay.

There are good ways to do this but using small communities in another state as R&D isn’t one of them.

[epistasis]

I'm one of the residents nearby that's full of concern. Ask me about the people in Moss Landing that had to repaint so often because of the natural gas plant that got replaced by the batteries.

People are full of environmental concern for batteries (good!) but rarely question the status quo.

We don't yet know the impact of the Vistra disaster, but it's being monitored closely and we will find out. Freaking out before there is any reason to freak out is a specialty in my area. Interesting examples are WiFi sensitive people that have no problem with standing in the sun. Or the X-ray technician that is concerned about cell phone towers causing cancer.

If there are any negative effects from the fire, they will be found, but they haven't been found yet.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Moss Landing, Ca that recently went up in flames completely destroying the entire plant and dumping toxic chemicals into the local estuary.

While the Moss Landing BESS does seem to have been one of the worst built anywhere on the planet, the recent fire there did not (a) "completely destroy the entire plant" nor (b) "dumping toxic chemicals into the local estuary".

When a modern vehicle (let alone a manufactured house) goes up in flames (which happens fairly often), it releases significantly more toxic gases than a BESS fire.

These corrections bought to you by your friendly not-in-your-neighborhood IFSAC Firefighter II.