Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

> So it isn't clear how much capacity has been lost in this switch. They may also be other changes in the generation portfolio that aren't discussed in the article.

I understand why people are so quick to argue against batteries as a power supply when they are unproven in a given scenario. I think it's a narrow way of thinking that ignores everything we know about the progression of technology and devalues the skilled professionals actually doing this work, but I understand. What I don't understand is what compels a person to grasp at straws and pose speculative "what ifs" after a project is successfully in operation. What more do you need? Does it need to run fifty years before you're convinced?

View on HN

Well in terms of the various capabilities the article highlighted

    * dark starting
    * capacity
    * grid stabilization

it sounds like the battery plant is successful. But the article itself says that the plant does not replace the "energy" component of the old coal power plant, which is why I asked the questions I asked. And it is the energy component that is critical for really retiring base load capacity provided by fossil fuel plants at grid level. Without the ability to retire the base load capacity you aren't really solving the problem. Costs rise dramatically (you now have two energy systems) and/or you have to accept less reliability (running out of power when wind/solar/hydro/battery are inadequate).

I think you are mis-interpreting my comment and being unfair in characterizing what I'm saying as "narrow minded" or "grasping at straws".

> The old coal generator provided three key values to Oahu, Keefe explained: energy (the bulk volume of electricity), capacity (the instantaneous delivery of power on command), and grid services (stabilizing functions for the grid, wonky but vital to keeping the lights on).

> The battery directly replaces the latter two: It matches the coal plant’s maximum power output (or “nameplate capacity,” in industry parlance), and it is programmed to deliver the necessary grid services that keep the grid operating in the right parameters.

Yes, I was talking more about an attitude than your specific concern. Though your framing still contorts the issue in a way that makes a coal plant appear like the proper, ideal solution while this new "problem" method is some shady, questionable alternative that must have hidden flaws. And you continue to list more speculative flaws in this comment as well.

What do you think of the idea that, given proper experience and technology, we can have a grid system that does not suffer from inadequate wind/solar/hydro/battery? That is the mindset we need to shift our framing to as these technologies continue to expand and prove themselves on larger and larger scales. I have no doubt people had to shift their framing around the entire idea a reliable coal-based electricity production once upon a time as well.

With solar power, if there isn't sufficient energy storage, then any excess power generated has to be discarded. With a battery system it gets stored for later use. So the energy component from shutting down the coal plant is partially replaced, depending on how much excess solar power is available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com