▲ 236 ▼ Minnesota solar project set to replace retiring coal plant reaches 710 MW (www.solarpowerworldonline.com) submitted 2 days ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/climate@slrpnk.net 34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) But even 3GWh covers only 4 hours. That's industry standard at this point: storage of 4 hours worth of the nameplate power rating of the battery storage system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) If we really want to get rid of bad emissions for good, it should be way above that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) No, if you're only now discovering this fact, you're probably not very familiar with the engineering tradeoffs that led the industry to settle on 4 hours of capacity for any given power rating. These systems are designed to fully discharge every night, and 4 hours is a good guarantee that it can. If you have the batteries to build an 8 hour system, it's more effective, at this stage in the game, to build 2 separate 4 hour systems and place them in different places. That will offset more high-carbon peaker plant usage, compared to a single 8-hour system. In future buildouts, the number might be able to creep higher after peaker plants are obsolete year round, but for now building a bunch of 4-hour storage sites is the most cost effective way to decarbonize. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 day ago How does that work during winter? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) If we really want to get rid of bad emissions for good, it should be way above that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) No, if you're only now discovering this fact, you're probably not very familiar with the engineering tradeoffs that led the industry to settle on 4 hours of capacity for any given power rating. These systems are designed to fully discharge every night, and 4 hours is a good guarantee that it can. If you have the batteries to build an 8 hour system, it's more effective, at this stage in the game, to build 2 separate 4 hour systems and place them in different places. That will offset more high-carbon peaker plant usage, compared to a single 8-hour system. In future buildouts, the number might be able to creep higher after peaker plants are obsolete year round, but for now building a bunch of 4-hour storage sites is the most cost effective way to decarbonize. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 day ago How does that work during winter? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) No, if you're only now discovering this fact, you're probably not very familiar with the engineering tradeoffs that led the industry to settle on 4 hours of capacity for any given power rating. These systems are designed to fully discharge every night, and 4 hours is a good guarantee that it can. If you have the batteries to build an 8 hour system, it's more effective, at this stage in the game, to build 2 separate 4 hour systems and place them in different places. That will offset more high-carbon peaker plant usage, compared to a single 8-hour system. In future buildouts, the number might be able to creep higher after peaker plants are obsolete year round, but for now building a bunch of 4-hour storage sites is the most cost effective way to decarbonize. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 day ago How does that work during winter? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mihies@programming.dev 1 point 1 day ago How does that work during winter? permalink fedilink source parent