They also pair exceptionally well with solar power, because grid demand is highest in the few hours around sunset, and batteries can store the extra solar during the day to meter out over that peak period after the sun sets.
Using the same batteries as in automotive applications, as is common in the storage market right now, doesn't make any long term sense. Those are optimized for things that simply don't matter in grid storage. Like size and weight. Energy density doesn't matter for grid storage. Cost per kwh is what matters. Decimating that cost is going to drive adoption further. And who says it will stop there? Using cheaper chemistries (e.g. sodium ion, metal oxide, redux, etc.) is going to open up much more of the market.
And while battery and renewables cost continues to come down; we're pretty much at the end of the road for gas plants. They've peaked technologically and they are about as efficient as they'll ever be. Worse, they might get more expensive to operate as they come under pressure to implement carbon capture. Also carbon taxes might increase the price of fuel for these plants. And of course the fluctuations in gas prices means operating gas plants becomes more risky.
There are already a lot of gas plants designed for 24x7 operation just sitting there and idling until the rare moment the operators can justify the cost of firing them up. Utilization rates for these plants are dropping. That's going to have an impact on related investments and the return on those. Anyone banking on 24x7 running operations is going to be in for a nasty surprise.
The article mentions a Californian plant from 2008 that has already been decommissioned. That's a great example of this. This is going to repeat across the market. Most gas plants operating today will be decommissioned long before their scheduled end of life and they won't be generating as much of a return on investment as was hoped for at the moment of their opening because of poor utilization and a shortened life span.
That's going to significantly affect the interest of investors in building new gas plants. That probably already is a huge factor.
Serious question because articles like this [1] made me skeptical that renewable energy outputs could be transferred between seasons.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-tr...
IMO, hydrogen and biogas are going to be playing dominant large roles in seasonal storage once the grids becomes so renewable-heavy that normal daily operation during normal weather can be covered by wind and solar.
There’s some countries where the geography doesn’t work out, but most midsized countries already depend on exchanging power with their neighbors simply on economic grounds.
Grid storage is not about long term storage at all but about demand shifting so that you can shift over production when demand is low to peaks (evenings typically) when demand is high. That's it. There are some setups with multi day capability but essentially most of the market is about 4 hours or less. That's what's killing the demand for gas plants. It's not long term storage. People build gas plants for base load that is supposedly needed. But then they end up being pushed into peaker-plant roles because the demand for base load just is a lot less than assumed.
The reality is of course that we actually have a lot of base load in the form of nuclear and gas plants. That's not going to go away overnight. We probably have more of it than we need. So as long as we have too much of that, demand for seasonal storage is not going to pick up. That might change over the course of the next decades. But it will be slow and probably cost driven.
Can we build huge batteries that store many GWH/TWH of power? Sure. Factories are already producing batteries by the TWH per year. That number is going to go up pretty rapidly as more factories come online. There's a lot of potential energy stored in (mostly) fully charged batteries in cars, grid storage, etc. That number is only going to go up.
A simple question: how much demand for seasonal storage is there actually? In gwh please. It's a simple question but I've never heard a coherent answer to it. As soon as you put a number on it, it becomes an engineering challenge that you can put a price on. Most of the reports on this front are based on very flawed assumptions. That's how you end up with stupendously large numbers.
It's so easy there are no actual working recycling facilities for lithium ion facilities. Multiple projects to do so, including two only in Sweden, but nothing in operation.
So maybe it's not economically viable?
See for example Redwood Materials:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-18/redwood-m...
Given the expense of shipping materials long distances, it's quite likely that recycling will be far cheaper than processing from freshly obtained materials. But it remains to be seen what innovations will happen in the mining space or in the recycling space to change that balance.
For something like a big battery station, you can easily ensure the optimal battery conditions for long life.
And then there's using alternate chemistries as mentioned.
But to summarize: this is not an issue. Not even a little bit. There are no nasty surprises involving batteries suddenly not working because they flaked out after a few months/years/whatever in the grid storage industry. This simply doesn't happen. Sure, individual battery cells might fail and then they get replaced or disabled. But there is zero indication that that is in anyway a frequent thing or a big deal in the industry. Mostly all we have is success stories. New batteries get deployed. News flash! They work exactly as advertised and operators save some money.
This is of course not surprising. Batteries used for grid storage are built to certain specifications. And that includes specifying how long they are expected to last (measured in charge cycles typically). So, all that is factored into the cost of the setup. Mostly all indications are that grid batteries are 1) very reliable and predictable 2) work exactly as advertised 3) might reasonably be expected to continue working quite long beyond their rated life time.