• Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 天前

        Where did you find this info? I found this “Battery storage is planned as well, with as much as 600 megawatts eventually possible if approved” which assuming it’s 600MWh, it’ll provide less than an hour worth of energy. But even 3GWh covers only 4 hours.

        • sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 小时前

          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.

        • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          24 小时前

          Would that not be 4 hours of not consuming non-renewables? Like not burning so much coal is a good thing no?

          Are we arguing about the measure of progress in the United States? Cuz buddy I’ll take any progress at this point.

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 小时前

            Are we arguing? I thought we were talking 🤷 . Yes, but that also means that the rest of the time the energy has to come from somewhere. Like a coal power plant or similar. So this photovoltaic power plant is not a complete replacement for old power plant, but more like a partial one while still relying of fossil fuel, especially during winter and cloudy days.

            • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              22 小时前

              We typically use more power during the day (industry, mostly), so the solar helps us reduce carbon based infrastructure need even without batteries. And it’s just a baby step in the progression to renewables. Yes, we have a long way to go.

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                22 小时前

                As all the world has. If we really want to prevent CO2 (and other bad) emissions, we need energy storage and a lot of it. Or nuclear. That said, these are steps (without proper energy storage) in right direction, but only as long as they replace energy from fossil fuel power plants.

            • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              23 小时前

              Sorry, I might have gotten a little defensive there.

              My point is if it supplements their energy consumption with cleaner energy it’s a good thing.

              Even if its for a couple minutes or a couple hours its a positive improvement.

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                22 小时前

                No worries. It is, if it replaces fossil fuels. But it soon gets tricky if it is supposed to be a stable source of energy. For that we’d need awful lot of energy storage, probably in some form of batteries (sodium perhaps). Today it’s relatively easy to slap solar panels everywhere, but it’s not that easy to provide energy outside of daylight.

                • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  20 小时前

                  Yes we need to go further but, sometimes it feels like we make perfect the enemy of progress.

                  I’d love to see a large public works project that aims to increase the energy storage capacity/development across the world.

                  I don’t feel like we get there by focusing on it not being a complete solution.

        • rbos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 小时前

          @kindtoeveryone in another thread:

          The exact figures:

          735.5 MW AC 2,942 MWh

          Verified from Minnesota PUC and EQB.

          Also, overnight you won’t be needing the full output, I would guess. And I’m sure they can draw on other sources.

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 小时前

            So it is 3GWh. Better than 600MWh. While the power requirement during nights might be less, it’s still a problem, specially during winter (short days, clouds, heat pumps etc.). And you need to charge those batteries as well which significantly lowers the power output during the day.

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 小时前

                Pumped hydro is better, but not available everywhere.

                Depending on geography, but yes, it’s rare that you have all requirements for it (hill, river etc.)

                I expect sodium-ion batteries to be the main type of storage going forward, but who knows?

                These certainly seem like the future. There is also fusion, but it won’t be feasible in near future if ever.