Batteries and Gas: Frenemies of the Power World Face Off
"It was only three years ago that natural gas overtook coal to become king of America’s power mix, and its throne is already being challenged -- by batteries.
As battery costs fall, solar farms are increasingly installing storage systems, allowing them to sock away cheap electricity by day and pump it onto grids at night. Solar-storage projects are already cheaper than gas plants to build in the U.S. Southwest. And that’s bound to spread, some analysts and executives said Tuesday at the BNEF summit in New York."
Apparently you didn't read this paragraph in this article:
To be sure, gas has a tremendous lead. The U.S. added 23 gigawatts of new gas-fired power plants capacity last year -- the highest in at least a decade, Sekine said. Compare that to 4 gigawatts of new energy storage projects installed worldwide.
And while prices for solar-storage projects vary across the U.S., the cost of building and operating gas plants is affordable nationwide as improved drilling techniques have radically reduced fuel costs, Browning said.
“Solar and storage makes sense,” said Steve McKenery, vice president of storage solutions at project developer 8minutenergy Renewables LLC. But they aren’t ready to take over the power sector: “We don’t advocate getting rid of gas today,” he said.
Your headline seems to have missed the mark.
Quoted from the article....."Solar and Storage make sense"....and making sense is a far cry from being economically feasible and/or practical.
20 years ago.....Nuclear Fusion power made sense....and now is projected to be available....20 years from now....
Battery technology has few technological improvements in the offing...we have ridden that horse to near death....fossil fuels will remain a significant contributor to the Energy consumption profile into the next millennia...
Google 'South Australia and the Tesla Battery Array'....stop getting your science from the mainstream media...do the work.
Yes he is....but wishing for something, while disregarding the Laws of Physics, is a recipe for disaster.
Battery technology has reached it's virtual zenith....there will be no significant improvements in Li batteries....electrons do what they do!
Why doesn't the Green Mob get behind nuclear power? If we started now, we could make inroads in electricity generation in 10-15 years.
Coincidently, that is about the time we will see the Solar and Wind industry admit their 'optimistic useful life' is about half of their expectation.
Gosh, Paul....that was a really short and uninspiring drive-by.....certainly you can do better??
Some back of the envelope numbers showing what natgas is currently providing ...
The average US residence consumes 168 cubic feet natgas per day.
Round that 61,000 cubic feet per year up to 75,000 cubic feet per year per household.
New, top producing Marcellus wells regularly produce 5 Billion cubic feet FIRST year.
Average cost to drill and complete these wells is under $10 million.
Using 3 inhabitants per household, a 10 million buck investment provides fuel for almost 67,000 homes ... over 200,000 people.
That is to say, a single gas well could provide fuel for hot water, dry clothes, heat homes, cook food, for over half the people in Cleveland... 2/3 the population of Pittsburgh or Cincinatti ... for an entire year.
Did I mention this source cost 10 million dollars to produce?
And how many 1000's of PV panels or 100's of turbines would it take to accomplish the same? At what cost?
And because of the intermittency, ya still need the NG/Coal/Hydro/Nuclear backup.....spinning reserve.
And don't say battery storage....that is a pipe dream still many years (many say 'if ever') in the future.
What color is the Sky in the renewables folks' world?
To further this train of comparison, take that idiotic offshore wind project off Massachusetts - Vineyard Wind.
Nameplate capacity of 800 Megawatts translates into 320 Mw "real world" juice as the capacity factor is 40% (precisely 39% for the Block Island fiasco).
Now, the project manager, Erich Stephans, has said the cost would come in at about $2 BILLION ... to be paid for via PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements) aka consumers on their monthly bills.
For contrast, the new Footprint power plant in Salem - output almost 700 Mw - cost consumers ZERO.
Likewise, the Towantic plant in Connecticut - 800 Mw - ZERO cost to consumers.
Bridgeport Harbor - 450 Mw, Killingly Energy Center 650 Mw, proposed Burrillville plant - 1,000 Mw...ALL are privately financed and use natgas as they are Combined Cycle Gas Plants (CCGP).
All the aforementioned power plants - cumulatively able to produce OVER TEN TIMES the offshore joke - are already - or to be in the future - located in New England and cost the ratepayers NOTHING except for the electricity provided.
The sheer size of this renewable scam is so vast that I cannot fathom how honest, sane people put up with this horseshit for even a minute.
Truly a picture worth a thousand words! Thanks for the chuckle this morning
Very few solar (or wind) generating plants would be built in the U.S. if not for the tax subsidies and the state laws that raise energy prices to their residents by requiring a certain percentage of energy to be generated from renewable sources. When oil replaced whale oil, it did so because of the economics. There were no federal subsidies tilting the scales or laws requiring the use of oil. The same approach should be used now. Let the consumer and market determine which technologies are used for producing power--not politicians or government bureaucrats deciding to which technology they are going to grant favors.