[greggyb]

If there's a legitimate arbitrage opportunity for individual homeowners to buy a battery and charge it overnight to cover peak costs, there should be an even stronger case for energy companies to buy larger batteries, install them in low-land-cost areas, and do the thing themselves. If these peak plants are so expensive, then a major utility can save money using batteries rather than peak plants.

The cost should be lower for a utility to do this than for individual homeowners to do so for equal capacities.

So I ask are we seeing this behavior?

On a slightly different note, it doesn't seem that the article is addressing vehicles. Battery powered cars are not yet practical enough for the mainstream, and aircraft are still entirely dependent on the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels.

I could see batteries becoming feasible for cars "soon" with the current rate of advance, but charging stations don't make sense to me. You want easily accessed battery packs in cars and battery-swap stations. This is a huge infrastructure change, but for out-of-city travel (i.e. a trip where you would need to charge before you get to your destination), you want the equivalent of a gas station, which is 1-10 minutes for a stop, not 45+.

As for aircraft, I don't see them using batteries soon.

[dragontamer]

http://beaconpower.com/hazle-township-pennsylvania/

Not quite "energy arbitrage", but ~hour long "frequency regulation" that was apparently once the domain of natural gas peaker plants are now being handled by a few flywheel energy storage designs.

"Energy Arbitrage" over a 24-hour period could be next.

[Tsagadai]

Some home owners are doing this. Charge the batteries with solar in the day and top up with offpeak if more is needed for the early morning (say if you are using electricity for heating in winter). Not entirely off the grid but minimizing costs. I have talked to one industrious hacker who has two battery installations. He charges one off offpeak and feeds it back in for a profit in peak times while charging the other on solar and doing the same thing (because providers cap the amount of current you can feed back into the system as an individual). I am looking at getting myself a solar + batteries + grid system so it doesn't seem so far fetched that investors may be planning something similar.

[jimmcslim]

> but for out-of-city travel (i.e. a trip where you would need to charge before you get to your destination), you want the equivalent of a gas station, which is 1-10 minutes for a stop, not 45+.

I appreciate that 'time is money' and people want to get where they are going sooner rather than later... but I wonder if there are social benefits from a transport infrastructure that requires us to stop for 45 minutes to recharge, not just the car but the body? Could potentially result in fewer road fatalities from fatigue if technology enforces a break on drivers? And potential economic benefits for small towns to offer charging stations right by a place to buy a meal...

[usrusr]

> but I wonder if there are social > benefits from a transport infrastructure > that requires us to stop for 45 minutes > to recharge, not just the car but the > body?

Would they be able to outweigh the social benefits (and reduced energy use) of traveling 45 minutes slower?

[mark-r]

I think you missed the part about studies that make the case that utilities could be doing this today. Utilities are conservative though, I don't expect them to jump in with both feet right away.

[greggyb]

> This is, of course, speculative. We don’t know if the study findings scale to the whole of the United States. It’s back of the envelope math. Atop that, the study itself is an analysis, which is not the same value as experience.

Hence my question. Do we actually see any utilities making steps in this direction?

[nl]

There are a number of pump-solar energy storage plants already in use, including some in the US. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectrici... for details.

Its not as sexy as new battery tech, but it works really well and is a very attractive option in some locations.

Outside pump solar, California is planning 1.3 GW storage by 2020. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_E... will show you the status of projects.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_projec... is an interesting list of projects, including battery based, but also things like flywheels.

[beat]

They're openly talking about it. Let's look again in ten years, given the lead time, conservatism, and regulatory concerns at this scale. "Fail fast" isn't really an option for the grid the way it is for software startups.

[greggyb]

I realize I may have come across somewhat pugnaciously above. I am honestly curious about this, though.

What utilities/where are talking about this right now? What level of talk are we talking about? Public statements? Designs? Construction permits in the works?

[aharonovich]

My research has shown that while many utilities have purchased storage (SCE 250 mW in 2014[1]) it's still very experimental and they do it mostly for research purposes or publicity or because the regulator makes them. However, since the electricity business is slow moving, low margin and very capital intensive it's clear why everyone is very interested in any new potentially disruptive technology. Imagine owning a peaker power plant that you've paid for in full using debt and generates a little profit each year under the condition that it can be amortized for 15 more years - if someone built the equivalent of a peaker plant made of batteries, even in 2025, you'd still go under. Scary.

[1] http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-top-10-energ...

[rhino369]

In many states, utilities do not generate power they merely buy it. They call it energy deregulation.

If it really were possible, you'd see companies like Exelon attaching battery storage to their nuke and coal plants to feed it back at a profit during peak rate periods.

My guess is that isn't cheaper than using peaker plants yet.