California has got good at building giant batteries(economist.com)
economist.com
California has got good at building giant batteries
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/05/22/california-has-got-really-good-at-building-giant-batteries
178 comments
Charging doesn't show up as curtailment, that is mostly due to grid congestion, as transmission lines reach their maximum capacity and physically can't get all the solar power to loads that need it. Also, nuclear plants can't be turned on and off very quickly so they stay on all the time, and some number of natural gas plants must stay running during the day so they are able to quickly ramp up when the sun goes down.
So on a nice sunny day that isn't too hot there is a lot of solar power that physically cannot be used and so has to be curtailed. In peak summer when ACs are blasting you'll see less curtailment, and in the future as they keep building out battery storage you'll probably see less curtailment in general.
So on a nice sunny day that isn't too hot there is a lot of solar power that physically cannot be used and so has to be curtailed. In peak summer when ACs are blasting you'll see less curtailment, and in the future as they keep building out battery storage you'll probably see less curtailment in general.
> some number of natural gas plants must stay running during the day so they are able to quickly ramp up when the sun goes down.
Doesn't this only take a few minutes for a natural gas plant?
Doesn't this only take a few minutes for a natural gas plant?
Combined cycle fossil gas units can take up to 12 hours from cold start to full output, roughly 25% can be up to speed within an hour (EIA). ~7-30MW/minute.
Once through peakers can ramp faster, but are less efficient (they’re essentially jet engines bolted to the ground), and more expensive than battery storage.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
Once through peakers can ramp faster, but are less efficient (they’re essentially jet engines bolted to the ground), and more expensive than battery storage.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
In addition to what the sibling comment says, a few minutes is fine for predictable changes like sunset, but you also need enough dispatchable power online to deal with unexpected changes. What if a transmission line goes down and cuts off a big solar farm? Other plants must respond within a literal second to fill the gap and prevent a cascading failure of the whole grid like what happened in Spain recently.
That doesn't have to be natural gas, batteries and hydro and even other curtailed solar plants can fill this role if there are enough of them, but we're not there yet.
That doesn't have to be natural gas, batteries and hydro and even other curtailed solar plants can fill this role if there are enough of them, but we're not there yet.
Turbines need be kept hot. Especially for steam, but probably for gas too. Don't want thermal stresses in 1000 ton fast spining objects.
Genuine question: If CA is mostly getting its energy from Solar why is my energy bill so high especially during winters? Or does solar energy while clean does not necessarily mean cheap?
Most of that is not generation, but for transmission, distribution, and grid upgrades.
Specifically burying the lines so they survive forest fires.
Specifically burying the lines so they survive forest fires.
Go pick a few PG&E tariffs, look at the unbundled prices, compare them, and then try saying that it’s legitimate transmission and distribution costs again with a straight face…
I find the explanation that they neglected maintenance and upgrades in favor of dividends and stock pumping for years, and now we're paying off the last couple of decades of maintenance and upgrades in a new, more volatile wildfire climate for which PG&E has been assigned legal and financial liability.
I agree that it doesn't necessarily reflect the individual marginal cost of an additional customer, but that makes sense, things rarely do.
I agree that it doesn't necessarily reflect the individual marginal cost of an additional customer, but that makes sense, things rarely do.
Blame it on the continual rate increases for the sake of money if you’d like. But it isn’t expensive because generation is expensive.
Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487714
Most things in US are super costly because of monopolies, regulatory capture and perverse incentives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
Most things in US are super costly because of monopolies, regulatory capture and perverse incentives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
Last year they got twice as much electricity from gas as they got from solar.
They're doing well globally, and solar is generally ramping up quickly everywhere but headlines are more often about hitting 100% renewables for an hour or for a day, not over a year.
They're doing well globally, and solar is generally ramping up quickly everywhere but headlines are more often about hitting 100% renewables for an hour or for a day, not over a year.
So what you're saying is you need a secondary competitor in the market.
Which would be home solar and storage
Which would be home solar and storage
...which they're trying to kill. Because customers of home solar & storage are generally quite happy to not be paying PG&E.
If you need the hookup at any point during the year, you have to pay for the hookup for the whole year. That's just fair to everyone else that didn't have $20,000 (or didn't own property) and don't want to subsidize your solar upgrade with their own rates.
I'm confused; which one is it? The property owner pays 20k, or the ratepayers are subsidizing it?
Also, my pge statements now have a line item for transmission that's usually larger than my generation total. If I have 2x solar and I'm feeding my neighbor, are they paying the same "transmission" structure for the power I'm providing them?
Also, my pge statements now have a line item for transmission that's usually larger than my generation total. If I have 2x solar and I'm feeding my neighbor, are they paying the same "transmission" structure for the power I'm providing them?
It's one or the other. Under NEM 2, ratepayers are subsidizing. Under NEM 3, the property owner is paying (more of) their fair share of transmission costs, and are being subsidized less, which people complain "kills" rooftop solar.
NEM 3 makes rooftop solar worse than NEM 2, but it's not common to say it kills it. It's the new flat fees they have been trying to implement that would kill rooftop solar. For example, if 50% of an average bill was a flat fee and then energy was half off, that would kill rooftop solar + batteries on NEM 3.
I don’t think you’ll see the full cost benefits of solar (and wind) until after the transition to 100% renewables (and maybe nuclear) is complete. There’s just too many big investments needed in the transition. That’s expensive.
Repowering a solar or wind power plants is dramatically cheaper than building it from scratch.
Repowering a solar or wind power plants is dramatically cheaper than building it from scratch.
Somebody needs to make large lithium-iron phosphate batteries in the US. A123 does, but they are China-owned.
Anyone know if this American Battery Factory company is going to deliver?[1] They have the same street address as Lion Energy, which seems to be an importer of battery packs and inverters. Street View shows a small startup space.
Back in 2022, they announced they would have a new factory on line in two years. Three years later, no factory.
[1] https://americanbatteryfactory.com/
[2] https://www.energy-storage.news/us-gigafactory-startup-abf-c...
Anyone know if this American Battery Factory company is going to deliver?[1] They have the same street address as Lion Energy, which seems to be an importer of battery packs and inverters. Street View shows a small startup space.
Back in 2022, they announced they would have a new factory on line in two years. Three years later, no factory.
[1] https://americanbatteryfactory.com/
[2] https://www.energy-storage.news/us-gigafactory-startup-abf-c...
One Next Energy does:
ONE said yesterday (15 May) it was launching US-manufactured 314Ah lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells, an ‘Aries Grid Module’, and a battery management system (BMS), all designed for the battery energy storage system (BESS) market.
"ONE Launches U.S. Manufactured Grid Products: LFP Cells, Modules and Battery Management Systems"
https://one.ai/one-launches-u-s-manufactured-grid-products-l...
https://one.ai/manufacturing
In October 2023, the first LFP cells rolled off ONE’s 10 MWh customer validation line at ONE Circle in Van Buren Township, Michigan. In April of 2023, we started producing Aries LFP modules at Piston Automotive, also in Michigan.
ONE said yesterday (15 May) it was launching US-manufactured 314Ah lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells, an ‘Aries Grid Module’, and a battery management system (BMS), all designed for the battery energy storage system (BESS) market.
"ONE Launches U.S. Manufactured Grid Products: LFP Cells, Modules and Battery Management Systems"
https://one.ai/one-launches-u-s-manufactured-grid-products-l...
https://one.ai/manufacturing
In October 2023, the first LFP cells rolled off ONE’s 10 MWh customer validation line at ONE Circle in Van Buren Township, Michigan. In April of 2023, we started producing Aries LFP modules at Piston Automotive, also in Michigan.
Tesla Powerwall 3 is LFP - do they make that in the US? (I'm not sure if you call it large but Tesla also does large installations).
They assemble them in the US, but they import the cells from China.
Panasonic does make Lithium-ion cells in the Gigafactory, but only ones with Nickel chemistry. Tesla does not make its own cells, but they've collaborated closely with Panasonic to do things like create a new cell size (2170).
Panasonic does make Lithium-ion cells in the Gigafactory, but only ones with Nickel chemistry. Tesla does not make its own cells, but they've collaborated closely with Panasonic to do things like create a new cell size (2170).
They do make _some_ of their own cells (4680) in Texas. But those do go into cars, not stationary storage.
Did not know that! Old article, but:
> However, in the nearly four years since the 4680 battery was unveiled in 2020 and began mass production at the end of 2023, companies like CATL and BYD have reduced battery costs to RMB 0.4/Wh. Even if Tesla meets its cost reduction target by the end of this year, according to multiple engineers and industry insiders, the cost of 4680 batteries may still range between RMB 0.8-1/Wh, which is twice that of CATL and BYD batteries. Moreover, the safety, cycle life, and charging speed of this battery are weaker than mainstream batteries.
https://m.energytrend.com/news/20240628-47693.html
Sounds like intense competition!
> However, in the nearly four years since the 4680 battery was unveiled in 2020 and began mass production at the end of 2023, companies like CATL and BYD have reduced battery costs to RMB 0.4/Wh. Even if Tesla meets its cost reduction target by the end of this year, according to multiple engineers and industry insiders, the cost of 4680 batteries may still range between RMB 0.8-1/Wh, which is twice that of CATL and BYD batteries. Moreover, the safety, cycle life, and charging speed of this battery are weaker than mainstream batteries.
https://m.energytrend.com/news/20240628-47693.html
Sounds like intense competition!
Battery day was a total failure.
The future of EV transport is either ultra cheap sodium ion /lfp or ultra dense sulfur /solid state.
Tesla's entire battery manufacturing/packaging advantage lead is gone and is probably a legacy disadvantage, or will be soon.
If 200 wh/kg is reached by sodium ion, that is a 300ish mile car with no cobalt, nickel, or lithium that should be fundamentally cheaper than an ICE. It also should enable a dirt cheap 200ish city car or a cheap 40-60 mile Phev.
Even if the CEO didn't destroy the brand with Nazi salutes, Teslas days as a high margin car maker were over. The stock price is unhinged from reality in an unprecedented manner.
The future of EV transport is either ultra cheap sodium ion /lfp or ultra dense sulfur /solid state.
Tesla's entire battery manufacturing/packaging advantage lead is gone and is probably a legacy disadvantage, or will be soon.
If 200 wh/kg is reached by sodium ion, that is a 300ish mile car with no cobalt, nickel, or lithium that should be fundamentally cheaper than an ICE. It also should enable a dirt cheap 200ish city car or a cheap 40-60 mile Phev.
Even if the CEO didn't destroy the brand with Nazi salutes, Teslas days as a high margin car maker were over. The stock price is unhinged from reality in an unprecedented manner.
Oh, good. Big lithium ion batteries in wooden garages were never a good idea.
How does pricing compare to BYD and CATL?
How does pricing compare to BYD and CATL?
CATL's sodium chemistry (Naxtra) is anticipated to be ~$50/kWh at scale. Faster charge/discharge capability, ~3x cell lifecycle longevity, reliable cold performance (@ ~-30C), sodium abundance vs lithium, lower risk of thermal runaway; weight and density are non issues in this application.
https://www.catl.com/en/news/6401.html
https://electrek.co/2025/04/21/catl-unveils-ev-battery-charg...
https://www.ess-news.com/2024/11/28/new-sodium-ion-developme...
https://www.catl.com/en/news/6401.html
https://electrek.co/2025/04/21/catl-unveils-ev-battery-charg...
https://www.ess-news.com/2024/11/28/new-sodium-ion-developme...
I'd pour a slab and have a shed sized battery delivered if the $/kwh and cell longevity was favorable enough.
Keep your wallet close, that time is rapidly approaching. Global demand for energy storage at this price and scale is voracious, and supply is spinning up to meet it.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/china-already-makes-as-many-batt...
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-battery-industry-has-en...
https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-soar...
https://rhomotion.com/news/global-bess-deployments-surpass-e...
https://about.bnef.com/blog/china-already-makes-as-many-batt...
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-battery-industry-has-en...
https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-soar...
https://rhomotion.com/news/global-bess-deployments-surpass-e...
How electric scooters are driving China's salt battery push - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44161921 - June 2025
The world is going to be a very different place because this is going to be possible soon.
There’s a startup doing this at substations. They can network these batteries and then use the utilities’ extra wire capacity to redistribute energy throughout the grid.
The other flipping points are when these outcompete the all-in cost of making a new gas peaker plant and then the cost of bothering to turn existing plants on.
There’s a startup doing this at substations. They can network these batteries and then use the utilities’ extra wire capacity to redistribute energy throughout the grid.
The other flipping points are when these outcompete the all-in cost of making a new gas peaker plant and then the cost of bothering to turn existing plants on.
I guess my point is that cars and phones drove battery research towards energy density, but I still have three cord of firewood in an 8*12ft shed at the end of my driveway. Energy density is my last concern.
Yeah, that makes sense! The drive has been not only for higher density, but also lower cost. Sodium batteries were investigated for cost reasons (to avoid the Lithium) and it turns out that density isn’t as good (for now), but that’s okay for some cars and great for stationary storage. Enough demand to drive innovation. A cord of wood is hard to beat on cost!
My understanding on sodium is that it’s still early days. Most “sodium” batteries shipping today are hybrids with lithium (two sections, one bms) with poor cycle lifetimes, so there is a lot to figure out still. I haven’t personally seen or heard about CATL’s sodium batteries in the real world yet.
My understanding on sodium is that it’s still early days. Most “sodium” batteries shipping today are hybrids with lithium (two sections, one bms) with poor cycle lifetimes, so there is a lot to figure out still. I haven’t personally seen or heard about CATL’s sodium batteries in the real world yet.
For those of us outside the US and used to other units, a cord [1] is of course 128 cubic feet or roughly 3.62 cubic meters. The wood is supposed to be well stacked (aligned, parallel, touching and compact) and if so, one cord is a pile measuring e.g. 4x8x4 feet. Wow, three cord is "a lot", in other words.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_(unit)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_(unit)
Cords of wood are usually around 18 million BTU of potential energy, which is 5000+ kWh. Wood stove efficiencies are all over the place, but modern ones are in the 70% range.
https://www.kumastoves.com/content/page/EPA
https://www.kumastoves.com/content/page/EPA
It's a great idea if you use well-designed batteries!
I imagine it is pretty hard to get a BYD Blade to ignite, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Blade_battery#Safety
I imagine it is pretty hard to get a BYD Blade to ignite, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Blade_battery#Safety
That's the point. You really don't want large residential lithium-ion installations. Search "Powerwall fires".
Search "house gas line explosion". Also, every electric vehicle in every garage is already a “large residential lithium-ion installation”. At least a house battery, once installed, doesn’t move and is always in a controlled environment.
Worse idea than pipes full of explosive gas or water?
We've been doing that a lot longer, and have established safety standards.
It's true that gas is more primitive and probably ultimately harder to render fully safe than batteries, but that doesn't mean batteries are as of yet competitive (in terms of reliable safety).
It's true that gas is more primitive and probably ultimately harder to render fully safe than batteries, but that doesn't mean batteries are as of yet competitive (in terms of reliable safety).
explosive water? Tritium
I'd imagine by the time you have a lithium ion fire, it really doesn't matter what the structure is made of.
[deleted]
LiFePO4 is technically still lithium-ion but a lot safer than what's in phones and laptops.
[deleted]
A123 started out of mit. Who cares if China invests in it.
LMR looks like a better fit for the American market.
I knew someone who worked for ESS Tech[1], which makes giant iron flow batteries in 40 foot shipping containers. Sadly they're on the verge of bankruptcy[2].
[1] https://essinc.com/
[2] https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2025/05/28/wilsoln...
[1] https://essinc.com/
[2] https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2025/05/28/wilsoln...
There was a company in Australia called Redflow making these too. They were liquidated end of last year.
Much as a like the idea of niche and diversified battery technologies, it seems like there isn't enough motivation to move too far away from Lithium-based solutions (no pun intended).
Much as a like the idea of niche and diversified battery technologies, it seems like there isn't enough motivation to move too far away from Lithium-based solutions (no pun intended).
I don't get the pun. Is it chemistry related?
The double meaning of solution
Ahh. I thought lithium is one that's most likely to give away its electrons or something like that.
Looking back, I also didn't even notice the "liquidated". Must be tired today.
Vanadium flow batteries are better in the economics.
Texas, Arizona, and even Idaho (!!) are putting up fairly good numbers too, according to this map:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586
Pretty much all new grid assets are solar, batteries, and wind, with a bit of natural gas. And that natural gas will likely be a stranded capital asset that won't be able to compete on price within a decade.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586
Pretty much all new grid assets are solar, batteries, and wind, with a bit of natural gas. And that natural gas will likely be a stranded capital asset that won't be able to compete on price within a decade.
Natural gas is perfect for peaking as it can spin up quickly and costs little when not burning fuel. Natural gas especially newer more efficient installations will probably be profitable for a while because as renewables become a bigger proportion of generation there will be less GWh delivered from gas but at higher prices. Or to reverse that, if you need the natural gas to be available, you have to pay what it costs to keep it around, regardless if that's for 10%, 1%, or 0.1% of the time that it's actually generating. But as that number drops - because of storage and overcapacity of renewables - you reduce emissions even if you don't reduce cost.
Fans of nuclear claim that sceptics are either radical leftists who want to reduce energy use, or anti-environmentalists don't care about emissions. But I see the pragmatic, diversified way of drastically cutting emissions being renewables + storage + gas turbines.
Fans of nuclear claim that sceptics are either radical leftists who want to reduce energy use, or anti-environmentalists don't care about emissions. But I see the pragmatic, diversified way of drastically cutting emissions being renewables + storage + gas turbines.
The problem with operating a natural gas plant only 0.1% of the time is that you have to cover its fixed costs over whatever time it is run, and if that's only 0.1% of the time then the fixed contribution per kWh becomes enormous. Worse, people like to point out that a high proportion of the cost of a natural gas plant is fuel, but the fuel cost also includes fixed costs. If you're using only 0.1% as much natural gas at scale then you have to recover the costs of all the pipelines and other infrastructure over 0.1% as much sales volume.
You end up paying a significant fraction of the cost of having the generating plants producing power 100% of the time, but only get power 0.1% of the time.
The main advantage of not running them all the time is that then you're not emitting CO2, but nuclear plants have that advantage even when you do run them all the time.
You end up paying a significant fraction of the cost of having the generating plants producing power 100% of the time, but only get power 0.1% of the time.
The main advantage of not running them all the time is that then you're not emitting CO2, but nuclear plants have that advantage even when you do run them all the time.
How is "have to run nuclear all the time" a benefit with solar?
If solar blasts through the day you are unprofitable and have to deal with extra excess power.
Maintaining gas power plants is something that can be shared by the grid and is 100% cheaper than building new nuclear plants.
If solar blasts through the day you are unprofitable and have to deal with extra excess power.
Maintaining gas power plants is something that can be shared by the grid and is 100% cheaper than building new nuclear plants.
If you build so much solar that rates are consistently zero during the day then solar is unprofitable. But if rates are normally non-zero during the day then generating power generates revenue -- and then your alternative generation method gives you the additional benefit of needing less solar, which isn't free even if it's cheap.
And, of course, the main benefit is at night, because solar is cheap but solar + storage is significantly more expensive, so you get to generate all night -- and get the higher rates from generating at night -- without emitting CO2.
And, of course, the main benefit is at night, because solar is cheap but solar + storage is significantly more expensive, so you get to generate all night -- and get the higher rates from generating at night -- without emitting CO2.
The business plan then says something like "we run nuclear 24/7 and in the pasts it's been ok from a cost perspective. Now we actually only get money half of the time but trust me this is economically viable"?
With batteries there is no "too much solar", only too few batteries because they compliment each other so good and batteries are now at a price where adding it to solar is a no brainer economically. Building nuclear now would take 10+ years and then we proabably don't need it anymore. Why take the risk if the new state of the art works?
With batteries there is no "too much solar", only too few batteries because they compliment each other so good and batteries are now at a price where adding it to solar is a no brainer economically. Building nuclear now would take 10+ years and then we proabably don't need it anymore. Why take the risk if the new state of the art works?
You're assuming they would only get half as much money, but you're not considering how generation volatility affects prices.
Suppose you have 1000 MW (constant) of nuclear and 1000 MW (daytime average) of solar. Therefore on the average day you're getting 2 GW total. The daytime price on that day is $0.04/kWh, which is just enough to make solar viable. If every day is like this, solar is doing fine.
But then there's a day when it's extra sunny. Solar is generating not 1000 MW but 1800 MW. Is that good for solar's profitability? No, it's bad, because that means there is oversupply and the price per kWh is zero. Nobody is making any money that day. Solar generated 1800 MW for 12 hours and got zero return. Solar's average is now down to $0.014/kWh. That's below sustainability. Oops. Nuclear also got zero return that day, but only generated at 1000 MW, so its average wasn't negatively affected by as much.
Then, another day, it's extra cloudy. Solar only generates at 300 MW. It's a supply emergency and the wholesale price per kWh rises to $0.28/kWh. Finally everyone is given an opportunity to bring up their average. So solar generates 300 MW for 12 hours and nuclear generates 1000 MW for the same 12 hours and they each get $0.28/kWh. At this point solar's average is back up to $0.04/kWh, which is its breakeven. Meanwhile the nuclear plant's average -- during only the daytime hours -- is $0.1067/kWh.
Then you have the nighttime hours. To play here solar needs storage. Storage is something like $0.14-$0.50/kWh by itself. If you charge it with solar, you're up to $0.18+/kWh. But that's on average again. On the day it was extra sunny, the batteries were already completely full, so that night the price didn't stay at zero and the nuclear plant made some money. On the day it was extra cloudy, the batteries got low, and then the nighttime price wasn't just $0.18/kWh, it was much higher.
Then, once in a while, it's cloudy for a whole week. The batteries aren't just low but completely drained, even before sunset. Solar + batteries can't address this case at all because an entire week's worth of battery storage is prohibitively expensive for something that only happens once a year or so. The nighttime price that week -- because of the volatility created by solar -- goes through the roof. Nuclear plants gets all of that money while the solar plants get none of it, because they're the only available source of electricity.
The economics aren't the same as before because now the prices fluctuate all over the place. But that only means that a generation source that supplies power all the time can make up for the times when rates are low because there is oversupply during the times when the rates are much higher because there is undersupply. Whereas the power source causing the supply fluctuations can't, because its ability to supply power inversely correlates with the price.
Suppose you have 1000 MW (constant) of nuclear and 1000 MW (daytime average) of solar. Therefore on the average day you're getting 2 GW total. The daytime price on that day is $0.04/kWh, which is just enough to make solar viable. If every day is like this, solar is doing fine.
But then there's a day when it's extra sunny. Solar is generating not 1000 MW but 1800 MW. Is that good for solar's profitability? No, it's bad, because that means there is oversupply and the price per kWh is zero. Nobody is making any money that day. Solar generated 1800 MW for 12 hours and got zero return. Solar's average is now down to $0.014/kWh. That's below sustainability. Oops. Nuclear also got zero return that day, but only generated at 1000 MW, so its average wasn't negatively affected by as much.
Then, another day, it's extra cloudy. Solar only generates at 300 MW. It's a supply emergency and the wholesale price per kWh rises to $0.28/kWh. Finally everyone is given an opportunity to bring up their average. So solar generates 300 MW for 12 hours and nuclear generates 1000 MW for the same 12 hours and they each get $0.28/kWh. At this point solar's average is back up to $0.04/kWh, which is its breakeven. Meanwhile the nuclear plant's average -- during only the daytime hours -- is $0.1067/kWh.
Then you have the nighttime hours. To play here solar needs storage. Storage is something like $0.14-$0.50/kWh by itself. If you charge it with solar, you're up to $0.18+/kWh. But that's on average again. On the day it was extra sunny, the batteries were already completely full, so that night the price didn't stay at zero and the nuclear plant made some money. On the day it was extra cloudy, the batteries got low, and then the nighttime price wasn't just $0.18/kWh, it was much higher.
Then, once in a while, it's cloudy for a whole week. The batteries aren't just low but completely drained, even before sunset. Solar + batteries can't address this case at all because an entire week's worth of battery storage is prohibitively expensive for something that only happens once a year or so. The nighttime price that week -- because of the volatility created by solar -- goes through the roof. Nuclear plants gets all of that money while the solar plants get none of it, because they're the only available source of electricity.
The economics aren't the same as before because now the prices fluctuate all over the place. But that only means that a generation source that supplies power all the time can make up for the times when rates are low because there is oversupply during the times when the rates are much higher because there is undersupply. Whereas the power source causing the supply fluctuations can't, because its ability to supply power inversely correlates with the price.
"Storage is something like $0.14-$0.50/kWh by itself"
LFP at the cell level is below $100/kWh, 5000 cycles means $0.02/kWh out of the cell (maximum since after 5000 cycles battery is still at 80% capacity so the real price is even lower).
Current LFP cell price look more like $50/kWh these days and still going down...
Also about near $0 or below $0 prices, they exist only because we don't currently signal those prices to consumers. Anyone with electric car (parked 95% of the time) or batteries at home or business would charge them at $0.01-0.05/kWh no question asked and price would never go to zero or negative.
LFP at the cell level is below $100/kWh, 5000 cycles means $0.02/kWh out of the cell (maximum since after 5000 cycles battery is still at 80% capacity so the real price is even lower).
Current LFP cell price look more like $50/kWh these days and still going down...
Also about near $0 or below $0 prices, they exist only because we don't currently signal those prices to consumers. Anyone with electric car (parked 95% of the time) or batteries at home or business would charge them at $0.01-0.05/kWh no question asked and price would never go to zero or negative.
> LFP at the cell level is below $100/kWh, 5000 cycles means $0.02/kWh out of the cell (maximum since after 5000 cycles battery is still at 80% capacity so the real price is even lower).
The cells are by far not the only cost. You also have land, installation, operations, taxes, insurance, etc. Most of these costs also have to be paid upfront even though you won't actually hit 5000 cycles for more than a decade, so then you have to add time value of money.
It's like saying "it's really cheap to own a home, just get lumber in bulk for like $100/unit and it'll last for decades."
> Also about near $0 or below $0 prices, they exist only because we don't currently signal those prices to consumers. Anyone with electric car (parked 95% of the time) or batteries at home or business would charge them at $0.01-0.05/kWh no question asked and price would never go to zero or negative.
That's what happens for the first few hours of peak generation, but then the batteries are all fully charged and you're still generating in excess of demand because it's still a week with clear skies in the summertime.
Also, a lot of reason for the zero or negative prices is that you have more generation at that time than there is transmission capacity in the grid. You can't sell it to someone because you don't have the capacity to deliver it, and expanding the grid for something that only happens a fraction of the time (and is only relevant when the price is low) isn't cost effective.
And actual zero isn't really the point anyway. If the wholesale price is $0.01/kWh instead of actual zero on the day when solar is at peak generation, it's still selling below cost on the days when it has the most to sell, and only getting a fraction of the premium during supply shortfalls because the shortfalls are caused by solar being unable to supply more power then.
The cells are by far not the only cost. You also have land, installation, operations, taxes, insurance, etc. Most of these costs also have to be paid upfront even though you won't actually hit 5000 cycles for more than a decade, so then you have to add time value of money.
It's like saying "it's really cheap to own a home, just get lumber in bulk for like $100/unit and it'll last for decades."
> Also about near $0 or below $0 prices, they exist only because we don't currently signal those prices to consumers. Anyone with electric car (parked 95% of the time) or batteries at home or business would charge them at $0.01-0.05/kWh no question asked and price would never go to zero or negative.
That's what happens for the first few hours of peak generation, but then the batteries are all fully charged and you're still generating in excess of demand because it's still a week with clear skies in the summertime.
Also, a lot of reason for the zero or negative prices is that you have more generation at that time than there is transmission capacity in the grid. You can't sell it to someone because you don't have the capacity to deliver it, and expanding the grid for something that only happens a fraction of the time (and is only relevant when the price is low) isn't cost effective.
And actual zero isn't really the point anyway. If the wholesale price is $0.01/kWh instead of actual zero on the day when solar is at peak generation, it's still selling below cost on the days when it has the most to sell, and only getting a fraction of the premium during supply shortfalls because the shortfalls are caused by solar being unable to supply more power then.
Isn’t natgas basically a waste product? As in no one is setting out to produce it, it just shows up when you produce other hydrocarbons?
So either it’s going to get released, flared off, or something useful will get done with it even if it goes to $0.
So either it’s going to get released, flared off, or something useful will get done with it even if it goes to $0.
You still have to move it to the generation turbines, store it, and maintain the turbines. Even if the price of extracting natural gas is zero or negative, it may not be economical to use it for electricity generation in the future.
Solar, wind, and storage are a major disruption of our energy technology. They do not follow the same cost curves, and fuel-based generation is already a very mature technology. We are either at early ages or teenager years for solar and storage, we don't know where they will end up when mature, but it's going to be so much cheaper than it is now.
Solar, wind, and storage are a major disruption of our energy technology. They do not follow the same cost curves, and fuel-based generation is already a very mature technology. We are either at early ages or teenager years for solar and storage, we don't know where they will end up when mature, but it's going to be so much cheaper than it is now.
In the eastern US much of the fracking done is to extract natural gas. Not a waste product there.
Yes and no. It is a by-product of oil wells, but there are also pure gas fields only harvesting it.
There's quite a lot of "dry" (non-byproduct) natural gas being produced.
In Argentina there is a very large operation to get natural gas from fracking, and export it to other countries besides local usage.
[deleted]
The assumption there is that hydrocarbon production isn't going to decline. The majority of oil production is for transportation, so what happens as electric cars and plug-in hybrids that can run in full electric mode 95% of the time become a higher percentage of the installed base?
In some cases it is a waste product but not in the USA we also have fracking which is a toxic waste producer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking
It's the LPG that is a byproduct (of both natural gas and crude oil distillation).
It's not just that; gas has to be transported, and your options are generally either pipelines or LNG, neither of which have a nonzero cost, and LNG is actually quite expensive.
I am no expert on this, but my understanding was natural gas is useful for its flexibility and efficency to handle gaps in supply. The big batteries are amazing but they can't (yet) cover longer gaps the same way natural gas can.
That's right. When natural gas becomes unavailable or banned, green hydrogen could be used for that instead.
We also have some of the highest energy prices in the United States.
If the "we" means California, that that also includes me, and it's pretty clear that we don't have high costs because of the generation side, but because CPUC keeps on approving massive rate increases for grid costs.
It costs ~$0.13/kWh to generate the electricity (which includes any battery costs), but $0.25-$0.50/kWh to deliver the energy across the grid.
The utilities get guaranteed profits from rate-basing all the grid stuff, but the generation side is a more competitive market.
Batteries could be used to greatly reduce grid costs by flattening peaks and decreasing grid congestion. If CPUC mandated that utilities took those cost-saving measures...
It costs ~$0.13/kWh to generate the electricity (which includes any battery costs), but $0.25-$0.50/kWh to deliver the energy across the grid.
The utilities get guaranteed profits from rate-basing all the grid stuff, but the generation side is a more competitive market.
Batteries could be used to greatly reduce grid costs by flattening peaks and decreasing grid congestion. If CPUC mandated that utilities took those cost-saving measures...
Yeah, compare the Sacramento municipal rate[1] is compared to what SCE or PG&E prices things, and it's crazy. Average in California is $0.32[2]; I pay about $0.28, but I have a TOU plan and charge my car during super-off-peak so that brings my average down.
1: https://www.smud.org/Rate-Information/Residential-rates#Pric...
2: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
1: https://www.smud.org/Rate-Information/Residential-rates#Pric...
2: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
Sacramento municipal has a lot of customers in a small space. Running a grid in and around a major city is significantly different than covering an entire state with lots of mountains and forests from Oregon to San Luis Obispo.
PG&E is expensive even when compared to the entire Western grid. I went and added up the revenues for all the major utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah. That's APS, NV Energy, Pacificorp, PSCo, PSCNM, and SRP.
All of their 2024 revenues combined are ~$22B vs PG&E's $24.4B, to cover an area 3x larger with just over half the population and even drier climates. All of those states have lower average rates as well.
PG&E is uniquely expensive for no legitimate reason that I've ever been able to discern.
All of their 2024 revenues combined are ~$22B vs PG&E's $24.4B, to cover an area 3x larger with just over half the population and even drier climates. All of those states have lower average rates as well.
PG&E is uniquely expensive for no legitimate reason that I've ever been able to discern.
The jump in PG&E prices over the past 10 years is mostly to cover the cost of wildfire mitigation. LA, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and the Imperial Valley have their own local utilities that charge customers 1/2 to 1/4 of what PG&E charges.[1] But PG&E covers the entire northern half of the state. Bay Area PG&E customers are subsidizing all those small communities nestled in the forests. Southern California Edison and San Diego have a mix of urban and forested rural closer to PG&E, with significant wildfire mitigation costs of their own, and their rates reflect that--2/3 to 3/4 of PG&E prices).
Despite approving the cost increases, state regulators are now complaining that PG&E is spending too much on wildfire mitigation. For example, they're telling PG&E to shift from burying transmission lines to using covered conduction (i.e. plastic shielding around overhead transmission lines). But PG&E is pushing back because they're on the hook for the wildfire civil claims and argue the less costly mitigations are too risky.
[1] See https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/196kjtu/pge_rates_...
Despite approving the cost increases, state regulators are now complaining that PG&E is spending too much on wildfire mitigation. For example, they're telling PG&E to shift from burying transmission lines to using covered conduction (i.e. plastic shielding around overhead transmission lines). But PG&E is pushing back because they're on the hook for the wildfire civil claims and argue the less costly mitigations are too risky.
[1] See https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/196kjtu/pge_rates_...
All of that also applies to pacificorp, which covers the Jefferson area of California. I'm actually double counting a bit in PG&E's favor as a result.
The wildfire hazards aren't equivalent, nor the political pressures regarding those hazards. But it seems Pacific Power isn't too far behind: https://oregoncub.org/news/blog/pacific-power-asks-for-21.6-...
It seems to an outsider like California involves exceptional biodiversity, and exceptional habitat protection laws, coupled with the electorate's vocal idealism about the possibility of preventing preventable animal suffering, plus the distaste of many voters for a schedule of very frequent controlled burns in all parts of the state in order to thin the constant buildup of combustible underbrush. These leave PG&E unable to avoid being liable for interactions of transmission lines with the wildfire kindling they have to route through. Even though California may not be more mountainous than those other Western states, its development pattern may have more wildland-subdivision interface overall, which adds up.
If you actually meant revenue when you said revenue, then it shouldn't be surprising that PG&E has higher revenue compared to companies with half the population. Revenue is merely income, no costs will be deducted from that number. So, if PG&E has the same revenue but twice the customer base, that means they're extracting on average, half the money per customer as those other companies, which doesn't make them sound more expensive! Did you mean profit?
Utilities put most of their revenue back into costs and I'm not interested in the relative profitability, so I really do mean revenue. I'm assuming that users correlate to revenue, and the primary cost driver is service area, which means the efficiency is the ratio between area and revenue. I'm also making the simplifying assumption that the major utilities service their entire states and that the area being discussed is large / demographically similar enough that a lot of the other differences average out. These aren't true (e.g. PG&E only services part of California), but I'm hoping it's sufficient for a sanity check.
The ratio of revenue to area served here is radically different though and the other states are significantly better. We can make a prediction to double check this that people in those states pay lower rates on average, which is also true.
If you want to go and add up the customers directly, PG&E serves 5.5M. The others serve around 8.3M people collectively from some quick searches. I don't have info on actual service area, nor do I really want to spend months writing an industry report on it.
The ratio of revenue to area served here is radically different though and the other states are significantly better. We can make a prediction to double check this that people in those states pay lower rates on average, which is also true.
If you want to go and add up the customers directly, PG&E serves 5.5M. The others serve around 8.3M people collectively from some quick searches. I don't have info on actual service area, nor do I really want to spend months writing an industry report on it.
I'm in the upper Midwest; you're paying more to generate than I do on my residential bill. 10.9 cents /kwh in winter, 12.3 cents in summer. 1/3 coal, 1/3 gas, 1/3 assorted renewables.
[deleted]
Also California is somewhat unique because it has the extreme energy demand of the likes of Texas coupled with natural disasters like wildfires. California gets really hot and AC needs to be blasting. Factor in that California also has a huge economy (datacenters...) and it's clear the grid is under an amount of stress that is not typical.
> Batteries could be used to greatly reduce grid costs by flattening peaks and decreasing grid congestion. If CPUC mandated that utilities took those cost-saving measures...
Can you math this out somewhat? I certainly can see some grid cost reductions from batteries, but we still need a pretty extensive grid to support baseline load and maintenance of rural lines. How would shaving the load peak from 100% over baseline down to a lower number help?
Given that we are nearing the normal lifespan of much of our rural electric infrastructure that was installed in the mid-20th century, it's not surprising that we have a lot of spend to do. Private utilities love to defer maintenance, especially when it takes 80 years to notice.
Can you math this out somewhat? I certainly can see some grid cost reductions from batteries, but we still need a pretty extensive grid to support baseline load and maintenance of rural lines. How would shaving the load peak from 100% over baseline down to a lower number help?
Given that we are nearing the normal lifespan of much of our rural electric infrastructure that was installed in the mid-20th century, it's not surprising that we have a lot of spend to do. Private utilities love to defer maintenance, especially when it takes 80 years to notice.
The math will be extremely dependent on each particular transmission alternative. The overarching term is "non-wires alternatives" of which storage is just one alternative.
NYISO has a slide deck here, but unfortunately there's not much quantitation to the savings in their examples:
https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/40044890/2%20Storage%2...
NYISO has a slide deck here, but unfortunately there's not much quantitation to the savings in their examples:
https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/40044890/2%20Storage%2...
Rates should be lowered until PG&E profits are $0.
While that's an interesting proposition, that could at most reduce our rates by their profit rate, which is not nearly enough.
We need systematic changes to fundamentally lower costs to more reasonable rates, like what other smaller municipal utilities deliver in California, which are 1/3-1/2 the cost.
The problem is not profit, but how profit is established. PG&E takes a fixed rate of profit of the total cost, so they are incentivized to make everything as expensive as possible. This is in contrast to most market based systems, where a new competitor with lower costs gets to directly take the lowered cost as profit. We instead use regulatory boards, Public Utility Commissions, to determine which investments utilities can make and what prices they can charge customers. This is highly regulated, but the outcomes have been terrible. Even Arizona, whose equivalent of the PUC has been disastrously corrupt, or places like Ohio, which has sent state legislators to prison for their corruption on utility matters, have far lower rates than we do in California.
We have bad regulation in California. That's the fundamental problem. Gavin Newsom, and all the governors who came before, have failed us on our electrical grid. That said, clearly high electricity prices are not a huge problem for our economy, and the high cost of living from high housing costs is clearly a driver of expense for everything a utility does, but we fundamentally have not had the right controls on the grid to keep costs reasonable. We have not set up a system where PG&E profits from delivering lowered costs. Our regulation prevents us from achieving what Marx calls the "falling rate of profit" as we would usually see with a market. Something must change, but simply eliminating PG&E profits won't do it, it's not enough.
We need systematic changes to fundamentally lower costs to more reasonable rates, like what other smaller municipal utilities deliver in California, which are 1/3-1/2 the cost.
The problem is not profit, but how profit is established. PG&E takes a fixed rate of profit of the total cost, so they are incentivized to make everything as expensive as possible. This is in contrast to most market based systems, where a new competitor with lower costs gets to directly take the lowered cost as profit. We instead use regulatory boards, Public Utility Commissions, to determine which investments utilities can make and what prices they can charge customers. This is highly regulated, but the outcomes have been terrible. Even Arizona, whose equivalent of the PUC has been disastrously corrupt, or places like Ohio, which has sent state legislators to prison for their corruption on utility matters, have far lower rates than we do in California.
We have bad regulation in California. That's the fundamental problem. Gavin Newsom, and all the governors who came before, have failed us on our electrical grid. That said, clearly high electricity prices are not a huge problem for our economy, and the high cost of living from high housing costs is clearly a driver of expense for everything a utility does, but we fundamentally have not had the right controls on the grid to keep costs reasonable. We have not set up a system where PG&E profits from delivering lowered costs. Our regulation prevents us from achieving what Marx calls the "falling rate of profit" as we would usually see with a market. Something must change, but simply eliminating PG&E profits won't do it, it's not enough.
I just love paying higher rates to cover the fines for all the fires that have been started.
Someone's gotta pay to make sure people who build $2M houses in firezones don't have to pay ridiculous insurance premiums...
Someone's gotta repair and replace 100 year old crumbling infrastructure that they operate for profit in a fire zone during a wind storm.
Naw. Let's blame the tax payers for existing instead.
Naw. Let's blame the tax payers for existing instead.
Fires are a natural occurrence in California. They happened before humans were there. They're caused by dry conditions and the absence of sufficiently recent fires to have cleared out the abundance of fuel (i.e. dead trees). The source of the fire is not particularly relevant because the fire is the inevitable natural consequence of the conditions. If it isn't caused today by a power line it will be caused tomorrow by a lightning strike.
But if a lot of homes burn down and the insurance companies and/or homeowners have more political power than the electric utility, the liability gets shifted there by the politics. And then your electric bill is going to suck in order to pay for the people who built their homes in an inadvisable place.
But if a lot of homes burn down and the insurance companies and/or homeowners have more political power than the electric utility, the liability gets shifted there by the politics. And then your electric bill is going to suck in order to pay for the people who built their homes in an inadvisable place.
> They're caused by dry conditions and the absence of sufficiently recent fires to have cleared out the abundance of fuel
They're made possible by that. The stacking of fuel, on it's own, does not magically create fire.
> The source of the fire is not particularly relevant
Of course it is. We're talking about liability and costs. It's extremely relevant.
> caused tomorrow by a lightning strike.
Then no one should live in California at all. Lightning can strike anywhere. Yet we have a precise map of where all our infrastructure is. Just because one category of risk is difficult to manage does it give you a free pass to ignore others that are easier.
> homeowners have more political power than the electric utility
Do you honestly expect this wouldn't be the _norm_? Why shouldn't it be? You really want to live in a state where a utility has more political power than you? And supposing they did, are you suggesting that would be better than the current outcome?
> who built their homes in an inadvisable place.
Take a look at the map of the lightning fires from 2020. Show me which people were in an "inadvisable place." We're talking about millions of people here representing billions of dollars of economic activity.
Do we want to measure risk realistically? Or are you just enjoying some bizarre modern schadenfreude of watching someone's life burn to the ground because you don't like the plot of land they were on? What about those who inherited that land and home?
It's a weird form of inhumanity that exists here.
They're made possible by that. The stacking of fuel, on it's own, does not magically create fire.
> The source of the fire is not particularly relevant
Of course it is. We're talking about liability and costs. It's extremely relevant.
> caused tomorrow by a lightning strike.
Then no one should live in California at all. Lightning can strike anywhere. Yet we have a precise map of where all our infrastructure is. Just because one category of risk is difficult to manage does it give you a free pass to ignore others that are easier.
> homeowners have more political power than the electric utility
Do you honestly expect this wouldn't be the _norm_? Why shouldn't it be? You really want to live in a state where a utility has more political power than you? And supposing they did, are you suggesting that would be better than the current outcome?
> who built their homes in an inadvisable place.
Take a look at the map of the lightning fires from 2020. Show me which people were in an "inadvisable place." We're talking about millions of people here representing billions of dollars of economic activity.
Do we want to measure risk realistically? Or are you just enjoying some bizarre modern schadenfreude of watching someone's life burn to the ground because you don't like the plot of land they were on? What about those who inherited that land and home?
It's a weird form of inhumanity that exists here.
> They're made possible by that. The stacking of fuel, on it's own, does not magically create fire.
The fire triangle is fuel, oxygen and heat. Oxygen is in the air at all times. When the fuel is on the ground, the only thing remaining is heat, and there are both artificial and natural sources of heat. Which means there is going to be a fire whether there is an artificial source or not.
> Of course it is. We're talking about liability and costs. It's extremely relevant.
We're talking about snookering the electric ratepayer for the cost of inevitable fires by pretending that removing one source of heat could have prevented the fire.
There is a plausible case that having more frequent fires is less damaging because it prevents fuel from accumulating. The more fuel is allowed to accumulate the bigger and faster spreading the next fire is when it happens, and the more difficult it is for firefighters to prevent it from spreading into populated areas.
> Then no one should live in California at all.
There aren't that many fires in modern urban areas because the urban areas aren't full of dead vegetation.
The people who choose to live in fire-prone woods are making a different choice.
> Do you honestly expect this wouldn't be the _norm_?
The issue is that decisions should be made using reason rather than political machinations. Because it isn't actually the power utility paying for this, it's the rate payers. When it should be the people buying houses in a tinder box.
> We're talking about millions of people here representing billions of dollars of economic activity.
Which seems like a dumb thing to put in places that are inevitably going to be incinerated?
> Do we want to measure risk realistically?
The way you do this is by putting the cost of the fires on the insurance companies rather than the utility companies, and in turn the insurance premiums of the people who live there rather than the utility bills of the people who live somewhere else.
> What about those who inherited that land and home?
You're not required to use something dangerous just because you got it from your parents.
The fire triangle is fuel, oxygen and heat. Oxygen is in the air at all times. When the fuel is on the ground, the only thing remaining is heat, and there are both artificial and natural sources of heat. Which means there is going to be a fire whether there is an artificial source or not.
> Of course it is. We're talking about liability and costs. It's extremely relevant.
We're talking about snookering the electric ratepayer for the cost of inevitable fires by pretending that removing one source of heat could have prevented the fire.
There is a plausible case that having more frequent fires is less damaging because it prevents fuel from accumulating. The more fuel is allowed to accumulate the bigger and faster spreading the next fire is when it happens, and the more difficult it is for firefighters to prevent it from spreading into populated areas.
> Then no one should live in California at all.
There aren't that many fires in modern urban areas because the urban areas aren't full of dead vegetation.
The people who choose to live in fire-prone woods are making a different choice.
> Do you honestly expect this wouldn't be the _norm_?
The issue is that decisions should be made using reason rather than political machinations. Because it isn't actually the power utility paying for this, it's the rate payers. When it should be the people buying houses in a tinder box.
> We're talking about millions of people here representing billions of dollars of economic activity.
Which seems like a dumb thing to put in places that are inevitably going to be incinerated?
> Do we want to measure risk realistically?
The way you do this is by putting the cost of the fires on the insurance companies rather than the utility companies, and in turn the insurance premiums of the people who live there rather than the utility bills of the people who live somewhere else.
> What about those who inherited that land and home?
You're not required to use something dangerous just because you got it from your parents.
But at least the dollars we pay for electricity aren't the dollars they spend to advertise to us constantly about how safe they are. /s
I'm paying 13 cents per kWh in the MISO/Entergy region. Moving across a certain invisible line in Texas can cut your electric bill in half or better.
Yes. My energy costs have exploded over the last decade.
But if we can figure out how people can live inside batteries, the housing problem is solved!
I think one of the Tesla execs also started a battery recycling company there as well.
Related:
Californian batteries set new output record - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44119878 - May 2025
Californian batteries set new output record - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44119878 - May 2025
BYD does batteries at scale now for about $45/kWh.
The cheapest US made ones are $120/kWh.
The yield and the lack of automation is the holdup.
Source: recent article on Works In Progress.
The cheapest US made ones are $120/kWh.
The yield and the lack of automation is the holdup.
Source: recent article on Works In Progress.
The 400 MWh scale project started operating here in NZ last week. Total project cost $537 USD (900 NZD) per kWh.
Current FIR/SIR cost seems to linger around $0.2 NZD / MWh. No idea how do calculate payback on this.
Current FIR/SIR cost seems to linger around $0.2 NZD / MWh. No idea how do calculate payback on this.
> has got really good
For whatever reason that turn of phrase seems very amateur/lazy coming from the Economist.
For whatever reason that turn of phrase seems very amateur/lazy coming from the Economist.
This is a perfect example of why complaining about grammar is so stupid. Got is correct in UK English, it just sounds wrong in US English.
Different dialects do things differently.
Different dialects do things differently.
I complain about people complaining about grammar.
For the most part I really like the UK, but one thing I can't stand is how they think that their English is "the real one". I once used the American "gotten" in the above construction and was "corrected" by a British person. I think that correcting other country's variants as if your country somehow had the objectively correct variant, makes you sound provincial.
For the most part I really like the UK, but one thing I can't stand is how they think that their English is "the real one". I once used the American "gotten" in the above construction and was "corrected" by a British person. I think that correcting other country's variants as if your country somehow had the objectively correct variant, makes you sound provincial.
Thank you, thought I was going crazy. Maybe this is the new thing, adding grammatical errors so people won't think the content was written by AI.
Human slop to compete with AI slop. It's not like they have the balls to sign articles with their names personally.
I have to agree.
I was going to say, just plain grammatically incorrect.
At first I though this had to be a truncation for the purpose of the HN subject line, but no, it's the actual title of the article.
Could this be a difference between English and American?
I was going to say, just plain grammatically incorrect.
At first I though this had to be a truncation for the purpose of the HN subject line, but no, it's the actual title of the article.
Could this be a difference between English and American?
It's a British vs. American difference. Americans prefer "gotten": "California has gotten good at building batteries." The British view "gotten" as ungrammatical.
It’s incompetence,
Or
it’s purposeful (“think different”) to get attention,
Or
It’s a shout out to a common slang where past participles (gotten) get used in place of simple past tense (“I seen this before” which should be “I saw this before”) but here is the other swap, the simple past "got" used where the past participle "gotten" belongs.
Or
it’s purposeful (“think different”) to get attention,
Or
It’s a shout out to a common slang where past participles (gotten) get used in place of simple past tense (“I seen this before” which should be “I saw this before”) but here is the other swap, the simple past "got" used where the past participle "gotten" belongs.
Languages change, get over it. "Proper" language is directly the result of the same things that you're complaining about happening over and over again.
If we actually stuck to a perfect defined grammer, language would never evolve
If we actually stuck to a perfect defined grammer, language would never evolve
I've got years of linguistics background, nothing to get over here.
The interesting thing you may or may not know is that this use of a past participle for a simple past actually has become normalized, in the languages change sense, in Russian, for one example. In English, it's usually less educated or second language acquisition speakers who make that substitution.
The interesting thing you may or may not know is that this use of a past participle for a simple past actually has become normalized, in the languages change sense, in Russian, for one example. In English, it's usually less educated or second language acquisition speakers who make that substitution.
Yeah, so what?
English itself has been shaped by speakers of various languages in its entire history, and native dialectics do this kind of thing all the time too
English itself has been shaped by speakers of various languages in its entire history, and native dialectics do this kind of thing all the time too
Yes, of course.
I came here to say exactly this. I feel like I learned the proper way to write this before first grade, and that was in rural Iowa. How are the editors of a historically respected publication allowing this through?
Back in the Second Millennium when I used to hang out at Radio Shack, their ad slogan was "You've Got Questions; We've Got Answers!"
And I made friends with one fellow tending the store there, and I would overhear him answering the store's phone: "Thank you for calling Radio Shack! You have questions; we have answers!"
And I would be mildly amused that he steadfastly held to the rules of grammar in verbal discourse, but I was also a bit disappointed; a loyal Radio Shack employee would lean into the dissonance and take one for the team.
I myself would gladly say the line, with a big grin on my face every time. I would, however, welcome my telephone persona being replaced by an A.I.
And I made friends with one fellow tending the store there, and I would overhear him answering the store's phone: "Thank you for calling Radio Shack! You have questions; we have answers!"
And I would be mildly amused that he steadfastly held to the rules of grammar in verbal discourse, but I was also a bit disappointed; a loyal Radio Shack employee would lean into the dissonance and take one for the team.
I myself would gladly say the line, with a big grin on my face every time. I would, however, welcome my telephone persona being replaced by an A.I.
> Because most lithium-ion batteries provide just four hours of power, they cannot yet replace baseload generation
Huh? You just need more and discharge individual ones slower.
What a bizarre claim
Huh? You just need more and discharge individual ones slower.
What a bizarre claim
It's that they're not economical to replace baseload generation. Those four hours they provide are during the time when demand most outstrips supply, i.e. after solar stops generating but before the load trails off for the evening. The price per kWh is highest then, which is what makes battery storage economical then but not necessarily at other times of day.
standardUser(5)
Oh wow, now the utilities can go pat themselves on the back and raise raises another $.20kWh. Even the middle management could use porsches!
Tesla marketing plot !!
Just in time for datacenters spiking AI usage to eat all of that peak time excess. Luckily the super scalers are some of the folks driving investment into this stuff.
There are, relatively speaking, not significant data centers in California.
That's great. Now look at literally any other state.
what do other states have to do with anything?
They have to do with your invocation of the phrase "super scalers" thus setting a false context for the amount of California grid load attributable to data centers.
See my other comment about AI demand increasing. I never mentioned any other state lol… you are reading too much into it
I used to think big batteries were just for short-term backup. Didn't expect California to reach the point where they can actually support part of the grid.
Before, when the wind stopped or the sun went down, you'd need gas to kick in. Now, in many cases, batteries are enough.
That said, I do wonder what happens when all these batteries get old. Are we just pushing the next problem down the road?
Batteries can be recycled, just like solar panels can.
Maybe not as easy as metals or glass, but can be recycled nonetheless
Maybe not as easy as metals or glass, but can be recycled nonetheless
I didn’t know batteries could actually be recycled. I always thought it wasn’t very common.
But now I’m curious how high the actual recycling rate is. Are there any good examples of it working well?
It's very difficult to tell what the global recycling rate is, here's a good article about that: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/battery-recycling-.... It might be as high as 59%. There are a lot of companies working on ramping up this industry in the US, some examples are https://ascendelements.com/, https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/, https://ecobat.com/our-business/ecobat-solutions/lithium-ser.... There's no real technological barrier, it's just about making the economics work.
Who cares? Electricity is literally the flow of electric charge, typically measured in terms of current (amperes). China has substantial baseload capacity. China adds an America of capacity every 18 months. Batteries connected to the grid, imply shortages. A need to balance supply and demand, manage variability in energy sources. They are also very expensive. So we have net on net, less power, that's unreliable, that's more expensive. Nothing to brag about.
https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso
At its peak today (May 29), solar was 75% of CA's power generation. And at the peak yesterday (7 PM, May 28), batteries provided 25%.
Seems like solar often produces more than 100% of CA's demand during the daytime and is curtailed. Maybe to charge batteries?