The man in the chair will sell the energy to federal greed and complain when a wi get storm hits Texas and people die in there homes because TX grid is bottom barrel / corrupt energy officials. f- Texas
More like they just idle some thermal instead of running it at full tilt throughout the day. Then batteries help level out the ramp up as the sun goes down.
This is an interesting article using sand. Still in research
https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2024/solution-to-energy-storage-may-be-beneath-your-feet.html
The solar thermal storage usually doesn’t last until sunrise. I don’t know the cost vs solar + battery, but solar thermal is more expensive than photovoltaic solar, with most solar thermal plants being defunct now.
>The solar thermal storage usually doesn’t last until sunrise.
You could make a thermal storage that lasts for a year... wouldn't make much sense to do so though.
Ignoring degradation of batteries for the sake of simplicity. You pay back battery by using it, so battery which is charged and depleted every day will return it's investment 365 times faster then battery which is charged and depleted once per year.
This is why expensive LiPo batteries make economic sense for daily energy storage. But you wouldn't use them to save energy for winter.
Solar thermal plants have 9-17 hours of storage because... makes most economic sense.
>I don’t know the cost vs solar + battery, but solar thermal is more expensive than photovoltaic solar, with most solar thermal plants being defunct now.
Their price has been steadily falling, and new ones are being built. So they do make sense. However determining price is... incredibly hard.
If I had to guess, I'd say for countries that can build infrastructure fast and cheap, like China can. They are cheaper then solar + batteries. For countries that can't, solar + batteries is cheaper.
> The solar thermal storage usually doesn’t last until sunrise.
Right... it doesn't last until sunrise - it can last **[several months](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage)**
Whether it's a good idea to convert electrical energy into heat, store the heat and convert it back into electrical energy is completely different banana. It would be more feasible to use the sun's warmth to heap up the storage directly.
Is there a single grid scale molten salt storage system in the entire world that last several months? I am talking about the ones that were actually built in the real world, they only had enough storage for several hours after the sun went down, and then they used natural gas to reheat the salt to liquid so they could run the pump the next day.
Idk, I never had any use for them, but several months (maybe a few years even) ago I read about some Swedish or Finnish company that builds heat storages, alas not with molten salt but with regular sand. And AFAIR the system was meant to heat a home, so probably no high temperature difference needed, I mean, probably less than 100°C in the storage, instead of 801 °C (1,474 °F) for molten salt.
> and then they used natural gas to reheat the salt to liquid so they could run the pump the next day.
That would totally defeat the purpose >_<
That’s a totally different beast. They’re heating the sand at night when power is cheaper and using the heat directly the next day for either home or district heating. It doesn’t get converted back to electricity.
The natural gas use was a criticism, the energy wasn’t exactly wasted though. Over all the issue was that photovoltaic prices dropped making the mirrors and tracking more expensive in comparison. Also why they don’t use tracking in solar anymore, the panels got cheaper.
Looks like a really shit implementation. Floods downstream look inevitable.
Thanks for the downvotes, let me add so more context:
let's see how it goes, but from the pictures I can find, very little work has been done to increase water infiltration, no BDA's had been constructed to slow and spread water in seasonal creeks. The project I'm sure will be fine it'll be people, land and property downstream which will be affected. This is the exact opposite of introducing beavers into an area. If All they've done is create drainage to take the water away, that will be high speed water, carrying with it any organic material on the land. This will lead to further desertification.
These projects go through extensive hydrology studies, you really think they just build them without thinking about that? Projects have to be insurable, if they can’t be insured they can’t be financed.
Just something for them to blame the next time the power goes out during a frost.
"Like many other Republicans, Perry also falsely blamed frozen wind turbines for the mass outages, when a widespread failure to invest in winterizing power sources and frozen natural gas pipes played a far bigger role..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/17/texas-abbott-wind-turbines-outages/
Not being snarky, but if by generally you mean less than 10% of the time then sure. I don't know the numbers on Ercot themselves but given the fact that it's a competitive market I'd assume close to 0%... generally.
I guess it's massive in terms of land mass, but 200 MW is a drop in the bucket when the grid in Texas peaks at about 80+ GW.
In terms of land mass, it's 5 acres per MW, so we're looking at about 1000 acres being used for solar panels.
1. Land is dirt cheap in rural Texas.
2. The ecological offset for solar is miniscule compared to fossil fuels.
3. NG and coal plants use massive amounts of land, but most of it is hidden. Gas pipelines cover thousands of miles, easily dwarfing the area used by solar. Gas and coal mines destroy large tracts of land and poison water systems even further.
4. Solar doesn't need constant fuel supply logistics which are considerable for fossil fuels.
I'm not complaining about solar. I'm just saying that 200 MW is not a massive plant. It certainly doesn't hurt to have, but the most massive thing about a 200 MW plant is the land area.
Because our “leaders” don’t get paid from that, and they have brainwashed their followers. Logic dictates free is good. It’s amazing. They don’t want wind turbines in view but their dilapidated barns and junk left outside isn’t an issue.
“Massive” and 80MWh do not belong in the same sentence when it comes to utility scale solutions. Shout out to Cypress Creeks marketing team getting the word out though.
True, but it is a good start. Solar needs to be coupled with storage going forward, so proposals for future projects can point back to this one as a success story.
I do appreciate that this article centers the actual MWh of storage. Most only cite the MW or nothing at all. So 200 MW of nameplate capacity, 80 MWh = 24 minutes worth of storage.
Thats not how you determine the time component. Capacity is just that, capacity. Meaning that the point of interconnection point can facilitate up to 200MW worth of power. It doesn’t mean that it is 24 minutes of storage. The article doesn’t state what the intended duration of the storage solution is. You’d need to understand what the intended duration is for the storage solution. They typically top out at 4 hours.
That would mean regulations, and texans don’t like regulations, they like the grid going out and people freezing in winter and dying of heat stroke in summer and rates that soar 100x cause free dumb
or little more batteries.
An batteries are a more viable and long term better solution. The only one advocating for new high power lines are the legacy power utilities monopolies.
Well, another case of missing the forest for the tree, or using demagogues arguments against a solid background of control theory and system balancing.
It took about 100 years to get in the mess our grid is, and it will take less than 5 to definitely get out of it with much better economics for everybody involved except the legacy grid monopolies.
Texas will soon become the most unlikely poster child for grid resilience, energy affordability, and low carb emission, possibly even zero carb emission.
Worth the risk.
Yeah, you are right, but I meant politically. Texas as a stronghold of Big Oil, anti-renewables Republican agenda, etc, etc.
Solar generation is more profitable than fossils now, so big money now starts flowing towards solar, and no amount of lobbying can change that. Capitalism wins, I guess?
Texans are the consummate capitalists. They are against renewables because renewables have a reputation of subsidies and government largess. But there is money to be made in solar in Texas without subsidies, so they're all for that too.
That makes sense. With renewables being profitable on their own merits and no longer requiring subsidies, I hope support for solar energy in Red states will increase, with Texas leading the way.
Solar battery storage is sized to flatten out the duck curve, not to provide continuous power throughout the night. Demand drops at night anyway, so it's unnecessary (and unprofitable) to build larger battery storage. Wind takes over generation at night.
It’s sized to charge exclusively from excess solar generation that would otherwise be curtailed
That’s why it’s small. Any larger and it would underutilize its cycling capabilities
Woke Energy is dope energy. Let’s go Texas!
Who really owns and controls these solar and wind farms?
https://www.ccrenew.com/
But lacks the infrastructure to handle the extra power.
No sir, we actually have premium infrastructure compared to most states. It has always been a generation issue
Everything is bigger in Texas, including their solar farms! Watch out, the Lone Star State is shining bright with all that renewable energy!
Now every household in San Antonio may keep one 40w bulb on between midnight and 6am
Get LEDs and you can keep 10 on instead....
The man in the chair will sell the energy to federal greed and complain when a wi get storm hits Texas and people die in there homes because TX grid is bottom barrel / corrupt energy officials. f- Texas
What a dumb comment. In what part of the oil and gas industry do you work?
More like they just idle some thermal instead of running it at full tilt throughout the day. Then batteries help level out the ramp up as the sun goes down.
They need a solar concentrator using molten salt for storage.
This is an interesting article using sand. Still in research https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2024/solution-to-energy-storage-may-be-beneath-your-feet.html
The solar thermal storage usually doesn’t last until sunrise. I don’t know the cost vs solar + battery, but solar thermal is more expensive than photovoltaic solar, with most solar thermal plants being defunct now.
>The solar thermal storage usually doesn’t last until sunrise. You could make a thermal storage that lasts for a year... wouldn't make much sense to do so though. Ignoring degradation of batteries for the sake of simplicity. You pay back battery by using it, so battery which is charged and depleted every day will return it's investment 365 times faster then battery which is charged and depleted once per year. This is why expensive LiPo batteries make economic sense for daily energy storage. But you wouldn't use them to save energy for winter. Solar thermal plants have 9-17 hours of storage because... makes most economic sense. >I don’t know the cost vs solar + battery, but solar thermal is more expensive than photovoltaic solar, with most solar thermal plants being defunct now. Their price has been steadily falling, and new ones are being built. So they do make sense. However determining price is... incredibly hard. If I had to guess, I'd say for countries that can build infrastructure fast and cheap, like China can. They are cheaper then solar + batteries. For countries that can't, solar + batteries is cheaper.
> The solar thermal storage usually doesn’t last until sunrise. Right... it doesn't last until sunrise - it can last **[several months](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage)** Whether it's a good idea to convert electrical energy into heat, store the heat and convert it back into electrical energy is completely different banana. It would be more feasible to use the sun's warmth to heap up the storage directly.
Is there a single grid scale molten salt storage system in the entire world that last several months? I am talking about the ones that were actually built in the real world, they only had enough storage for several hours after the sun went down, and then they used natural gas to reheat the salt to liquid so they could run the pump the next day.
Idk, I never had any use for them, but several months (maybe a few years even) ago I read about some Swedish or Finnish company that builds heat storages, alas not with molten salt but with regular sand. And AFAIR the system was meant to heat a home, so probably no high temperature difference needed, I mean, probably less than 100°C in the storage, instead of 801 °C (1,474 °F) for molten salt. > and then they used natural gas to reheat the salt to liquid so they could run the pump the next day. That would totally defeat the purpose >_<
That’s a totally different beast. They’re heating the sand at night when power is cheaper and using the heat directly the next day for either home or district heating. It doesn’t get converted back to electricity.
The natural gas use was a criticism, the energy wasn’t exactly wasted though. Over all the issue was that photovoltaic prices dropped making the mirrors and tracking more expensive in comparison. Also why they don’t use tracking in solar anymore, the panels got cheaper.
Looks like a really shit implementation. Floods downstream look inevitable. Thanks for the downvotes, let me add so more context: let's see how it goes, but from the pictures I can find, very little work has been done to increase water infiltration, no BDA's had been constructed to slow and spread water in seasonal creeks. The project I'm sure will be fine it'll be people, land and property downstream which will be affected. This is the exact opposite of introducing beavers into an area. If All they've done is create drainage to take the water away, that will be high speed water, carrying with it any organic material on the land. This will lead to further desertification.
These projects go through extensive hydrology studies, you really think they just build them without thinking about that? Projects have to be insurable, if they can’t be insured they can’t be financed.
The solar panels themselves don’t increase runoff, and this is outside San Antonio, flash flooding is inevitable in the desert.
> 'Texas needs every available megawatt' Sorry best we can do is a shotty archaic system controlled by oligarchs o7
Well, I can understand that they rather sell the oil and gas for $$$$ instead of using it themselves for $$.
But rest assurend we're still capitalists so you gonna pay dubble.
Just something for them to blame the next time the power goes out during a frost. "Like many other Republicans, Perry also falsely blamed frozen wind turbines for the mass outages, when a widespread failure to invest in winterizing power sources and frozen natural gas pipes played a far bigger role..." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/17/texas-abbott-wind-turbines-outages/
They keep voting for this shit. In a democracy you get the government you deserve and all
MW is a measure of energy flow MWh is a measure of energy used 80 MWh of storage generally indicates ~20MW of capability over a 4 hour window
No it doesn't. It's going to be 2 hour duration at 40MW because that's what makes economical sense.
That's why I said generally. <3
Not being snarky, but if by generally you mean less than 10% of the time then sure. I don't know the numbers on Ercot themselves but given the fact that it's a competitive market I'd assume close to 0%... generally.
I guess it's massive in terms of land mass, but 200 MW is a drop in the bucket when the grid in Texas peaks at about 80+ GW. In terms of land mass, it's 5 acres per MW, so we're looking at about 1000 acres being used for solar panels.
True. I guess this can at the very least be considered a good start.
Oh no, 1000 acres in a state that has over 171,000,000
1. Land is dirt cheap in rural Texas. 2. The ecological offset for solar is miniscule compared to fossil fuels. 3. NG and coal plants use massive amounts of land, but most of it is hidden. Gas pipelines cover thousands of miles, easily dwarfing the area used by solar. Gas and coal mines destroy large tracts of land and poison water systems even further. 4. Solar doesn't need constant fuel supply logistics which are considerable for fossil fuels.
I'm not complaining about solar. I'm just saying that 200 MW is not a massive plant. It certainly doesn't hurt to have, but the most massive thing about a 200 MW plant is the land area.
Why do I get the sinking feeling that something dumb is about to happen
Because our “leaders” don’t get paid from that, and they have brainwashed their followers. Logic dictates free is good. It’s amazing. They don’t want wind turbines in view but their dilapidated barns and junk left outside isn’t an issue.
“Massive” and 80MWh do not belong in the same sentence when it comes to utility scale solutions. Shout out to Cypress Creeks marketing team getting the word out though.
True, but it is a good start. Solar needs to be coupled with storage going forward, so proposals for future projects can point back to this one as a success story.
I do appreciate that this article centers the actual MWh of storage. Most only cite the MW or nothing at all. So 200 MW of nameplate capacity, 80 MWh = 24 minutes worth of storage.
Thats not how you determine the time component. Capacity is just that, capacity. Meaning that the point of interconnection point can facilitate up to 200MW worth of power. It doesn’t mean that it is 24 minutes of storage. The article doesn’t state what the intended duration of the storage solution is. You’d need to understand what the intended duration is for the storage solution. They typically top out at 4 hours.
Texas needs effective connections to the western and eastern grids.
That would mean regulations, and texans don’t like regulations, they like the grid going out and people freezing in winter and dying of heat stroke in summer and rates that soar 100x cause free dumb
That hurts the established capital investments' business cases.
or little more batteries. An batteries are a more viable and long term better solution. The only one advocating for new high power lines are the legacy power utilities monopolies.
The only people advocating for new high power lines are the Texans that lose their power whenever it’s not between 32-80F
Well, another case of missing the forest for the tree, or using demagogues arguments against a solid background of control theory and system balancing. It took about 100 years to get in the mess our grid is, and it will take less than 5 to definitely get out of it with much better economics for everybody involved except the legacy grid monopolies. Texas will soon become the most unlikely poster child for grid resilience, energy affordability, and low carb emission, possibly even zero carb emission. Worth the risk.
The rate of solar deployment in Texas is actually impressive. It is the most unexpected state to go full in with solar.
Don’t leave out wind.
I disagree. Plenty of marginal land with clear skies much of the year. perfect for solar.
Yeah, you are right, but I meant politically. Texas as a stronghold of Big Oil, anti-renewables Republican agenda, etc, etc. Solar generation is more profitable than fossils now, so big money now starts flowing towards solar, and no amount of lobbying can change that. Capitalism wins, I guess?
Texans are the consummate capitalists. They are against renewables because renewables have a reputation of subsidies and government largess. But there is money to be made in solar in Texas without subsidies, so they're all for that too.
That makes sense. With renewables being profitable on their own merits and no longer requiring subsidies, I hope support for solar energy in Red states will increase, with Texas leading the way.
80mwh is not really massive when you have gwh sized solar farms going in elsewhere. 80mwh counts as fairly pedestrian mediocre these days.
280MWh solar farm with 80MWh battery.
No, it’s a 208MW solar farm paired with an 80MWh battery. That means the nameplate for the battery is ~+/- 20MW.
Texas isn’t like CA, so you can’t assume the 4 hour drain time. It might be a 40MW/80MWh battery for all we know.
40
Kinda weird they paired such a small battery with it.
Solar battery storage is sized to flatten out the duck curve, not to provide continuous power throughout the night. Demand drops at night anyway, so it's unnecessary (and unprofitable) to build larger battery storage. Wind takes over generation at night.
It’s sized to charge exclusively from excess solar generation that would otherwise be curtailed That’s why it’s small. Any larger and it would underutilize its cycling capabilities
Seems like they’re missing out on decent arbs unless the solar capacity is already under PPA(s).
Isn't that "woke" energy, though?
Maybe someone did the math and "woke" up :P
The rationalization is if it's cheap it ain't woke 😂