Hacker News Reader

Comment by infecto | Hacker News Reader

You’re right that in the strict physics sense a battery doesn’t generate anything new. But in energy markets and system ops, classification is less about first principles and more about how resources interact with the grid. That’s why most ISOs/TSOs register a battery as both a load and a generator, it consumes on charge and supplies on discharge.

So when people talk about the “generation mix,” batteries get bucketed alongside gas, wind, solar, etc. Not because they magically create energy, but because from the grid operator’s perspective they look like a dispatchable generator when discharging.

It’s one of those cases where common-sense semantics (“it’s storage”) diverge from industry practice (“it’s modeled as generation”).

Please let me know what’s confusing.

View on HN

This is correct. What's important for industry is understanding the energy balance, i.e. entries and exits to and from the grid. "Generation" is a catch-all term for grid entries.

So why not use the term grid entries? especially when there are also things like connections to other grids?

I appreciate the context. Generation isnt the best name for an input to the grid. Perhaps you are right and it's common in the industry but I wouldn't expect non-industry people to anticipate batteries and connections to the Danish, French, etc. grids to be generators.

And frankly I can't find evidence for the claim that the energy sector uses the term generation for inputs to the grid in general, as opposed to just the things literally generating electricity. Which does not surprise me.

Go look at any of the hundreds of energy dashboards. Batteries are both a source and use when thinking about fuel mix. You might not understand it but for most of the world we understand batteries are not magic.

>Batteries are both a source and use when thinking about fuel mix

That doesnt make them a generator. Other grids are sources of energy as well. Are they generators?

Again, I see absolutely nothing published anywhere classifying batteries as generators. It's a source. It's an input into the grid. But how can you argue all grid inputs are considered a generator, therefor batteries are generators? You seem quite alone in that.

You’re hung up on semantics. In practice, ISOs/TSOs report batteries in the generation mix because when they discharge, they inject MW just like any other generator. Interconnectors are treated the same way — not because they “generate,” but because they’re modeled as supply.

If you don’t like the terminology, take it up with the grid operators. That’s how the industry classifies it, whether you agree with the wording or not.

Again, I have no idea what you are trying to argue. We all understand how batteries work, yes they are not magic. From a fuel mix perspective or “generation” perspective they are lumped together. Most folks who are looking at this data recognize batteries are not magic, not sure why you are hung up on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com