If I'm reading this right, my thermostat's "rush hours" seem to be scheduled for gross load peak. They then seem to usually end (and kick my AC back to a desired temp causing a ton of usage) right around net load peak...which this is now reporting is when energy prices go through the roof.
So basically the "rush hour" program has likely been costing me more money than if I just ignored them to begin with up to this point. I do realize these programs are primarily about limiting peak gross load and not saving individuals money but maybe I won't go out of my way to abide by them now...
Maybe this is obvious, but make sure to check your rate structure with your energy company. Just because market prices are high later in the day doesn’t mean that’s when your prices are highest.
While this is true for much of Texas. I happen to live in a city that still has a public operator. So we just get more generalized flatter rates. I haven't looked into the details of my plan closely in a while as a result though, so you might be right.
En masse though, it seems not ideal from a cost perspective the way things have been scheduled up until now. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it might be adjusted better in the future.
Sorry for the late reply. That all makes sense. And it’s definitely possible that your power company’s rate structure isn’t really optimal for them (or the market, or you). Electricity rates seem to be generally messy and a mix of big compromises, in my experience.
After giving my electricity provider access to my EV for optimal charging pretty much killed the 12v battery (they were pinging it hundreds of times an hour, meaning it never went to sleep), I'm never going to give them access to anything.
I had no idea this was a thing that could happen, I thought (naively, I suppose) that all they'd get would be the equivalent of a meter reading with a suggestion to limit load at certain hours.
You can setup the integration in the app, but disconnecting requires you to send an email with absolutely zero acknowledgment that it's not going straight into /dev/null
My rush hour went off yesterday afternoon and the temp rise made me doze off and i woke up sweating with it set to 80 degrees. I'm in the process of canceling, it's not easy. I used the chat and someone is going to send me an email (which says it's canceled?) within 24-48 hours.
Harder to turn off than anything else in recent memory. If anyone has a pro tip on an easy way to cancel let me know.
When I had them hooked into my EV, I literally had to change my Kia password when they ignored my requests to disable the feature.
Presumably they similarly have some sort of cloud permission into your thermostat, which can be disabled by changing the password, resetting the device, or worst case scenario, get a new thermostat.
Wire them both up so that your cheap thermostat provides hard upper and lower limits.
Your HVAC doesn't care where it gets a 24V signal. An open relay won't mind being energized from the "wrong" direction. AFAIK, thermostats won't tattle.
They got back to me and wanted to do a phone call to unenroll me. I told them they could do it without speaking to me since I don't have any power in the process, so we got to skip the phone call. I'm officially out of rush hour.
> If I'm reading this right, my thermostat's "rush hours" seem to be scheduled for gross load peak. They then seem to usually end (and kick my AC back to a desired temp causing a ton of usage) right around net load peak
Either you are not reading it right, or there is a problem with your thermostat's demand response schedule, because the only way demand response makes money (hence rewards for users) is by reducing demand during net load peaks, because that completes with the high marginal cost of fossil spinning reserves.
Demand response also targets gross load because (assuming the renewables are not entirely rooftop solar) that electricity still needs to be carried by wires to consumers.
Sizing transmission for the absolute yearly peak is not cost effective, so various schemes are used to reduce that peak, including efficiency improvements and demand response.
This is entirely separate from questions of renewable cost and carbon and pollution and makes economic sense even on 100% fossil grids.
> Sizing transmission for the absolute yearly peak is not cost effective, so various schemes are used to reduce that peak, including efficiency improvements and demand response.
Nonetheless, voluntary curtailment of demand by consumers (for any objective) must be compensated, right? And generally speaking, demand response curtailment (especially on shorter notice) is compensated at a higher rate than peak energy rates (4x in my area). It shouldn't be the case that one spends more money by participating in a demand response program that not participating, which is what the OP implied.
It seems like it would be more grid efficient to use more power at 3-5pm to cool your house to temperature early while solar is still high in availability then to rush and cool from 5-6 when you get home.
The current rate structure for anyone not paying spot rate does not incentivize that of course.
Pretty interesting to see how this stuff is holding up. The market is evolving rapidly currently with absolutely massive amounts of wind, solar, and battery being deployed everywhere.
What's odd in Texas is that they are resisting the notion of connecting to the rest of the US grid. This would allow them to import power cheaply when they need to and export power when they have too much of it. My guess is that they actually curtail a lot of energy at this point because there's simply too much of it most of the time.
A quick glance at the main page of gridstatus.io shows that right now California and Texas are burning a lot of gas while there is negative pricing due to wind delivering over capacity in the states in between. They are literally paying people to consume more power there while they are paying for huge amounts of gas to be burnt in California and Texas. It's night time there of course so, solar is out.
What's preventing states from doing the obvious thing here? The mid west could be exporting power at a profit right now and instead it has negative power. And California could not be burning many tons of gas right now because there's a surplus of power right next to it.
Correction, the fat cats who own ERCOT don’t like that.
Your regular run of the mill Texan may not care one way or the other, most times. But if they get into a crunch where their electric bills are much higher, I assure you that they will care.
>ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation,[11][12] and its members include consumers, electric cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities (transmission and distribution providers), and municipally owned electric utilities.[13]
You are uninformed. ERCOT is heavily influenced (“owned”) by Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) and market makers that are profit seeking entities. This is true of all ISOs for all intents and purposes. It is the primary reason why the U.S. grid is slow to innovate/change, e.g., implementing distributed generation participation in wholesale markets, etc.
I don't believe grid connections are the obvious and easy answer. That would assume those other grids do not have base loads plants themself. There is a massive cost to starting and stopping gas plants that you are also not accounting for. So while yes, there are periods of negative prices, the cost to run that plant 24/7 may be cheaper than turning it on and off and not just cheaper in $ but cheaper in less resources being used.
Negative pricing and "burning a lot of gas" are maybe not as bad as you think. As more wind/solar get added to the generation mix, there will be more peak times where prices may become negative. The lens I have is this means there is incentive for more storage to come on the grid to soak up those events and then offload at peak demand times.
> There is a massive cost to starting and stopping gas plants that you are also not accounting for
It's my understanding that basically the entire point of gas power plants is that they are very cheap to stop and start (as opposed to e.g. coal or nuclear), at least, that's the case in the UK - are these plants different in the US?
Your understanding is mostly wrong then. Modern combined-cycle turbines are more efficient but I would not call them cheap to stop and start. You are still looking at a 20-30min startup time and a similar cool-down period. So yes designed to be able to shutdown I think the general range is an on-time of 30-70% but I believe with those ranges you get different efficiency curves. You get increased wear, higher fuel cost and also need to predict that demand will not spike. When prices dip below zero it may be more cost effective to keep the plants online.
It's still expensive relative to batteries. If you think about it, a steam turbine has a lot of water that needs to be heated before you actually get any steam and a lot of heavy, moving parts that need to start spinning. Once all that is up and running it's fine and you just expend fuel to maintain the steam pressure.
But this takes a while. And to heat things up faster, you simply burn a massive amount of fuel; which is costly. And until you generate steam, it's not actually generating any power whatsoever.
Any thermal plant has this overhead that makes starting them expensive and stopping them undesirable because the shorter you run them, the more inefficient they get. You amortize the startup cost over the runtime. The longer it runs, the better it gets.
A battery provides power within milliseconds and it can switch from charging to discharging on a moment's notice as well. That's why batteries are displacing gas plants as peaker plants in a lot of places.
Pumped water storage or hydroplant can go from zero to 100 within tens of seconds. No degradation in storage capacity. Also greener than digging up all these rare earth metals although it still has an initial impact on the local eco system when you store water where it previously wasn't.
A gas power plant (specifically a peaker plant designed for this) is still more expensive to start or stop than a battery or hydro.
However, it is much more expensive to build the capacity for batteries and you need to charge the batteries with excess power that’s available cheaply during surplus times.
The advantage of a peaker gas plant is you can build it big and shovel fuel into it that you just brought over from wherever. Many of them were built with the expectation that they would not face competition from batteries, so the economics of running them is getting bad. However they’re still important as a backup because you cannot depend reliably on the batteries being charged.
Connecting your grid to other markets for the premise of cheaper energy also puts you in a situation where you no longer control your own destiny. My expectation is that the presumed gains of some cheaper power don't balance the risk on reliability and control.
I don't necessarily buy the argument but I am fairly certain that a big chunk of it.
As someone who very nearly lost a family member due to the state's complete inability to implement and enforce preparedness regulations, and due to ERCOT's herculean effort to do just barely not enough to keep the grid online... respectfully, fuck that argument.
We live in a time where functional electric service is a necessity for life. We also live in a time where extreme weather patterns are getting more frequent and more intense.
The very least Texas could do is implement the equipment and procedures necessary to enable importing power from the national grid in an emergency. The cost to implement interconnects at key locations is infinitesimal compared to the costs incurred when there are systemic outages.
The "we can do it better ourselves" argument only works when you don't repeatedly catastrophically fail at "doing it better."
You should also remember that actually having a more connected grid makes it susceptible to reliability issues as well. If you look back to 1999 when the entire northeast electrical grid was crippled for a couple weeks as a function of that connectivity.
I'm not letting Texas off the hook -- not winterizing your natural gas pipelines and trying to blame renewables for the grid catastrophically failing is definitely a regulators issue and a return a much money as possible to the investor shareholders without concern to the citizens is the key feature of their system.
Forgive my ignorance but doesn't connecting to other grid allow them to buy energy when prices are low and still allow them to generate their own when the national grid prices are high? It would also allow them to sell excess no?
It does but it appears the market unit for a block of energy does not match well with what is actually needed. So you might need 1-2 hours worth of extra power to hit peak demand but you have to buy 6 and dump the 4.
Depends on the needs of the market and their own generating supply. Arbitrage opportunities would surely exist in the short run while long run pushes the price to a natural equilibrium.
I recall from reading the blog, there are definitely issues in Texas with grid capacity between the west where the bulk of the solar is and the east where there is load, and people and other grids. So grid interconnects to other grids wouldn’t necessarily be enough, you have to get the power to the interconnect as well.
I was just chatting with a friend on how we haven't received the conservation emails like we have in previous years. This year has not been as extreme either as the DFW metroplex has not had the extended 100°+ days. We've just had a run of 3 or 4, but we've had 30+ consecutive days in the past.
Austin here, we’re enrolled in a conservation plan through Austin Energy whereby they control our smart thermostats (Nest in our case). These “Rush Hour” notices have been firing a lot over the past two weeks; perhaps only two days where we haven’t been asked to conserve somewhere between 3-6 hours a day.
Are you sure? I just looked and there was a Rush Hour for Friday, Monday, Tuesday, and today. The last one before that was Aug 8. O16 days total this summer, the first being June 13.
The year before was worse to me, but followed by another one just as bad it just made it feel worse. I don't remember '23 being as humid as '22, but maybe that's just faulty memory shorting out from the humidity???
No, this summer is objectively one of the best we've had in a long time, at least in Austin. The fact that we've only had a few days above 105 is a blessing.
I mean, it's Texas - it's always blazing hot at the end of August, and that's to be expected. What's really changed over the past 25-50 years is that the plus 100 days have been starting earlier and earlier, and we've been having more of them. Thankfully, that wasn't the case this year.
Again, that is far from the definition of "great". I would say fortunate to not have those string of triple digits, but man, it's not great at all. 100°+ is still miserable, but it's amazing how different 98° feels from 105°. I get Texas hyperbole, but even my feet are firmly planted in reality to not accept "great" in this meaning. Bless your heart! ;-)
Everywhere I’ve lived where it actually does get to -40, none of the pipes burst if you lose power for extended periods. First, they’re buried well below the frost line, and secondly, there’s usually an pressurized air inlet nozzle somewhere so you can open a faucet and blow all the water out if you’ll be gone for a long time.
Fun fact, -40 is the same in F and C so it’s fine to omit the units for once!
It's not the pipes underground that you worry about, it's the ones in your walls. You don't really have the option of draining the water if you happen to be on a short vacation at the time. If it's overnight, you get to stay up all night wondering if you should do it or hold out hope that the power will come back on soon, since pipes in exterior walls (typically for the kitchen sink) don't have nearly as much insulation around them as do the rest of the house.
> You don't really have the option of draining the water if you happen to be on a short vacation at the time.
I know this sounds like I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing, and maybe I am … but everywhere i’ve lived that gets to -40 there’s been an incredible neighborly energy. This is a situation where I would 100% just call a neighbor to flush my pipes, even if I don’t typically get along with that neighbor.
There’s something about places where you have to shovel 1 foot of snow twice a day just to park your car in the driveway that leads to people just giving a helping hand whenever it might make a difference.
Idk, YMMV but the only place I’ve seen people pipes freeze and burst was in Texas. And that includes living places where school doesn’t shut down during a blizzard and -40 temps.
And yes, these places definitely can be very noticeably racist but even then people would still absolutely do this for a neighbor.
Bless your heart for trying to be so witty but in fact coming off foolish.
Texas is simply hot and has been for our timelines. You could make the same silly comments about locations that have long and cold winters. Texas is hot we get it, you don't like it but it does not change that this summer has been great, it is a lot cooler than usual.
He’s saying Texas is hot for humans, which is objectively true. One’s willingness to tolerate it is subjective, but that’s not the point here. Don’t take it so personally.
No. The 130 MW remaining capacity was the amount available "in SCED within 5 minutes", which in super simplified terms means "the amount of energy available quickly and economically".
The grid actually had ~4 GW spare capacity (according to the graph) if it was needed, but it wasn't part of SCED.
My understanding is that it's the latter. "in SCED" basically means they have pre-planned availability that is cheap.
The "Physical Response Capacity" in that graph is the amount of capacity actually available, but it's not part of SCED. However it doesn't say anything about the timeframe it would be available in. Given that ERCOT didn't call for conservation, I would have to assume it was capacity that was "quickly available, but not cheap" rather than "not quickly available", but I don't know for sure.
Being in SCED just means that the resource bid into the real time energy market (which clears every 5 mins), it does not necessarily mean that the resource is cheap to dispatch. The confusion here might be caused by the differences of the ancillary market (PRC) and the energy market (SCED).
This is a state that should basically be peppered with residential rooftop solar.
Of course, there's zero chance of any sort of state governmental policy to help incentivize it in deep red state land.
But if recent history has shown anything, I would consider it a primary feature of any home in Texas to be relatively grid independent with its own generating capacity and storage.
Texas has a lot of incentives for residential solar. I'm not sure where you live, but in my DFW suburb, my neighborhood _is_ peppered in rooftop solar.
A lot of the incentives are from local power companies like Oncor, but one notable state-wide incentive is that solar installations are exempt from property tax by state law.
I dunno why people act like Texas is staunchly anti-renewable. TX state politicians have said some goofy stuff about "windmills freezing over", but overall Texans are extremely pro-wind and pro-solar. It's a huge economic driver for a large part of the state, and it's seen as an overall part of Texas's strong energy industry, complimentary to oil rather than as a competitor to it. George Bush and Rick Perry were both Republican governors but both were _very_ pro-renewable and oversaw massive booms in wind energy especially. In 2005 Texas (including Perry at the time) passed a law to invest billions of state dollars into building transmission lines specifically to make it feasible for renewable energy generation in west Texas to bring power to the populated areas in the east, which is attributed to the massive wind boom. Abbot, on the other hand, has sadly not been very pro-renewable, but much of the state still is.
Here just north of Austin, PEC implemented one of the most regressive solar programs in the country. Their argument in their study was that they make less money off solar since they can't sell as much power.
Regressive in what manner? Historically a lot of solar buy-back programs were incredibly inflated. Residential solar can be great for the resident but is usually not great for the grid. Paying resi. solar producers greater than market rates always felt foolish to me.
PEC never paid greater than market rates, they simply gave a net credit since solar was only reducing load at the service drop for a neighborhood. The cost to them was swapping the meter for a bidirectional one. Now at some point if enough people started using solar, they have the option of either curtailment (which would be automatically reflected in the existing meters), which at that point would justify an increase in fees, but their study was specific that they lowered solar compensation due to being able to sell less power to solar users (not for infrastructure reasons), which makes no sense why they are singling out solar since they offer incentives for other efficiency measures such as more efficient AC units to lower power consumption.
Regressive in that solar programs are not inflated, but do require distribution upgrades to realize their efficiency advantages over centralized power transmission. These distribution upgrades are costly to IOUs because they cut into their margins when the efficiency of distributed generation is considered.
Paying distributed generation export at retail rates or higher (DR, etc) makes plenty of sense because there are significant load, resiliency, and efficiency advantages to homeowners who are supposed to be the ones to benefit most from the grid.
The only change needed for solar users is a different meter swapped at the house that supports bidirectional metering. Solar power at the residential level only lowers overall demand in the neighborhood and on the grid, and in the very rare case where the net solar production exceeds the entire neighborhood's demand, PEC could choose to simply not use that excess (curtailment) and the meter at each person's house would accurately reflect that with no upgrades needed (Texan power utilities are not required to buy back excess solar). So the added cost to PEC is entirely optional. At its worst PEC was only crediting almost half of the power they were reselling from solar users (from originally a simple net credit), although they've thankfully been starting to backpeddle on that.
Honestly, I would prefer they simply charged the cost of swapping meters and adjusted the flat infrastructure fee for solar users (when necessary) for cases where upgrades are needed in neighborhoods with excess solar generation. Instead, PEC is able to resell solar power for a very significant profit with their current rates.
Please don't bring red or blue into the argument. Texas is indeed peppered with residential solar, it can make real economic sense for the homeowner. Of course you probably won't see the inflated solar programs that California created back in the day but they also have largely pulled back on those as they don't help the grid and can become quite costly to buy back at inflated rates. In my experience the best you will get in Texas is close to ercot market rates, so not much. On the other hand that can make on-site storage more economically attractive.
I don't know anything about durability of solar panels but it should be known that in Texas there is always expectation of annual hail damage to roofs.
Replacing solar panels is cheaper and easier than replacing roof tiles, so you can even use solar panels as hail protection for your roof :^) (I'm half-serious, ofc)
They provide a legitimate demand response service i.e. when the grid is generating excess energy that there's no other demand for, Bitcoin miners buy what no one else wants/needs.
Texas has a lot of gas plants (51%) that we want to idle when possible. Just because it's cheaper power doesn't mean we should be generating it when the only customer is cryptocoins.
If the cost of gas isn’t covering the actual impact then the cost should be higher, doesn’t matter if the kWh is used by a bitcoin miner or someone with their AC at 70, it’s still the same externality.
I think it’s pretty easy to understand that what amounts to a game isn’t even vaguely comparable to something that provides an immediate and quantifiable impact for someone. Perhaps you don’t understand that bitcoin is a leech on society with no real benefit.
The reality is that fiat is the leech on society. It's a cancer on the world, slowly destroying it. Bitcoin is the cure. It's one of the most important inventions in the history of mankind and it's positive effects on the world will be profound. I'd go as far as saying that it's more important than the internet itself.
Watch some Michael Saylor/Robert Breedlove interviews and educate yourself. Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island".
Thank God Texas generates power from unlimited resources. In my place, the more we generate and consume, the less we have left for the future. In Texas, the plants have to generate as much as possible for some reason !
> ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas and others gave shocking testimony today in the Senate Committee on Business & Commerce that within only six years (that’s only three legislative sessions), our power grid needs will grow from about 85,000 to 150,000 megawatts. That is much higher than the 110,000 megawatts they previously projected. The 110,000 megawatts was already a big increase, which is why the Senate pushed our incentive plan to build more dispatchable power last session. 150,000 megawatts is almost double the megawatts we now have on the grid.
> Later testimony said the growth is due to the increases in population, normal business growth, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, crypto miners and data centers will be responsible for over 50% of the added growth. We need to take a close look at those two industries. They produce very few jobs compared to the incredible demands they place on our grid. Crypto mining may actually make more money selling electricity back to the grid than from their crypto mining operations.
> Texans will ultimately pay the price. I’m more interested in building the grid to service customers in their homes, apartments, and normal businesses and keeping costs as low as possible for them instead of for very niche industries that have massive power demands and produce few jobs. We want data centers, but it can’t be the Wild Wild West of data centers and crypto miners crashing our grid and turning the lights off.
> The Senators asked why this had not been disclosed before today. #txlege
---
The theory is/was that Texas grid works "best" (the market runs most efficiently) when its running at the most capacity (everyone with something that can generate power is making money - this is better than conserving and asking polluting or less efficent sources to spin down when the demand isn't there ... in theory) with the ability to have things that can't pay for the increased price (in theory, that was supposed to be crypto) scale back their use when other demand goes up.
And the fact that in some time periods it seems the miners made more money from downscaling energy demand during peak loads than they did from mining activities.
Plus residents in some areas are up in arms that these companies got a variety of tax exemptions and sweetheart deals, jobs never materialised (because how many people do you need?), and what they seem to get in return is more expensive power bills.
After background thought for an hour, they should ask. Their load projections and needs should be fed out to the network somehow, and it should be opt in for the customer to help support the projected load shaping IF they desire and can. It should never be forced upon the customers.
The incentives and potential for abuse of the billing provider to provide data that negatively shapes the customer's use into more expensive use is an issue that should be avoided.
Texas has these free electricity nights. Anyone know of a battery system that can fill the batteries at night (from the grid) and use them during the day? And then recharge at night again. Due to location solar isn’t an option but still interested in batteries due to free nights.
No batteries I know of will make economical sense though. Batteries are expensive, wear down and/or require maintenance. After x years / cycles your batteries will be dead and will need to be replaced.
Storing your "free" energy in a battery will end up costing more than just buying the energy when you need it.
Expensive energy storage is a big part of the reason why "green" energy countries like Germany have some of the highest energy prices in the world. And also some of the highest CO2 emissions per kWh in the EU (they need coal and gas powered plants as backups for when there's no wind and solar, because batteries don't make economical sense).
I agree about home batteries being too expensive, hopefully prices will come down with scale.
But the part about battery degradation is not true. Tesla Powerwall has a 10 year warranty[1] with 70% capacity retention. This means that Tesla has data showing that the battery will have higher capacity than 70% after those years. That's a lot of cycles and a lot of renewable energy that the battery will provide in its lifetime.
There's a reason why Tesla picks 10 years (8 years for car batteries) as a warranty period. Ask yourself: why 8 years and not 10 for cars? Why 10 years and not 15 or 20 years for home batteries? It's not arbitrary.
Battery degradation is not linear. It's not like: 10 years = 70%, 20 years = 40%. It's probably closer to 20 years = 20 % capacity left. The decay becomes exponential-like after a relatively linear period of roughly 10 years.
The Tesla warranty will fall under "first life" in the image in the link above.
So batteries (even Tesla Powerwalls) do degrade and do degrade to the point where you need to replace them a bunch of times during lifetime of a house.
Tesla and other car makers set their warranties at the mandatory minimums. Why would they offer more when they don't have to and consumers find them long enough and/or other car makers aren't competing on warranty length? That doesn't tell you anything about battery longevity.
Edit: Does my MacBook Pro die after 1 year when it's applecare warranty is over?
The mandatory minimums? Got a source of the mandatory minimum for cars (US and/or EU) as well as power walls?
The fact that other car makers aren't competing on warranty length seems to me to prove my point, but you seem to think it doesn't? What I mean is: if battery degradation for cars isn't that bad after 8 years, then why are other brands not offering significantly longer warranties to compete with the Tesla one?
Not sure about the competition argument anyway, since Tesla didn't have any competition initially and arguably still doesn't have real competition (depending on what features of the car you value most).
Edit: Does my MacBook Pro die after 1 year when it's applecare warranty is over? --> Pretty close yes IMO. My personal experience is that my laptop and phone battery capacities degrade very fast after 1 year and need to be replace after about 2 years, 3 years if you really really push it and are OK with constantly charging.
RE: MacBook Pro dying close to a year right after it's warranty it over --> well now you're just trolling. My iPhone 15 pro battery still maintains 100% battery health a year after its manufacturing date. It obviously won't need replacing in 1-2 more years even if I "really really push it and are OK with constantly charging". I used an iPhone XS until last year after it was about 5 years old, 5x longer than your supposed device-dead date. I don't think this is unusual.
LFP cells prices for direct sale to consumer are about 70 EUR/kWh right now. With 5000 cycles that's 1.4 EUR cent per kWh cycled out of the battery, so it fully makes economical sense in all electricity markets.
Fully integrated consumer battery prices haven't (yet) followed the decline in cell price, probably because there's lot of demand for this kind of product.
The real number is likely still significantly higher than 0,12 EUR / kWh due to battery capacity (and charge discharge efficiency) going down due to wear over time.
It does look like when the price of integrated storage products goes down more, it could become interesting for countries who have had very expensive energy policies (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands etc).
Your computation is off: it's 0.014 EUR/kWh, ten time less and far below kWh market prices about everyhere in the world.
As for cycling the industry standard is give the number of cycles to 80% capacity remaining so the battery is far from dead at 5000 cycles. The simple division I used is conservative.
No, it's not. From the link I posted (in Dutch unfortunately, I'll translate the relevant bit):
Small integrated battery:
3.5 kWh
Starting at about € 2.100,-
You yourself indicated in your post that integrated batteries (as in: the ones with battery management, that you can actually use to store energy in as opposed to a bunch of lose cells) are more expensive. They are more expensive indeed. I did the calculation. They boil down to 0,12 EUR / kWh in the example above.
The price of cells is not directly relevant, since you can't actually buy cells and just throw them at your house to magically start charging/discharging when you desire.
Well I bought cells a few years ago and use them with the necessary components, and those don't multiply the system price by ten.
BTW because I'm lazy to expand my system I just ordered 14 kWh of fully packaged LFP battery (box, BMS, cells, breaker) for $1800, $130/kWh, $0.026/kWh cycled.
Not sure why you consider them to be "green" given the facts you brought up. Germany has never been particularly green energy wise. It's a big population and lots of heavy industry with relatively little energy resources like hydro.
The are building solar and wind quickly now. Maybe that's why you got the impression that they are "green".
Germany is still very much captured by its coal lobby. The extent to which they are green is that they have a fairly vocal green party .. with 14% of the vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens
(This is incomprehensible to Anglosphere FPTP two-party systems)
The reason I wrote "green" is because, Germany actively hypes itself up as being very green and many people believe them because they have such a vast amount of solar and wind installed.
Germany's energy policy is one huge cognitive dissonance at best, gross mismanagement in the base case and a three-decade-long foreign intelligence job at worst.
This is a bit like the joke about economists seeing money on the ground and not picking it up because if it was there someone would have already taken it, but:
Note how ridiculously fast the battery rollout in Texas and California has been recently.
If you've not got some local regulation that stops early adoptors from being left high and dry when the market changes, then you're in head to head competition for that cheap nighttime energy with big corporations building out grid scale batteries.
You would have to be able to store a significant portion of your daily usage to make it worthwhile and that's before you even consider the price of the batteries.
I have to say, I don't understand very well these graphs, but this sounds like a good thing, but is there any information relative to other energy sources in TX ?
We have lots of variable production (wind and solar) and those peaks don't line up with peak load (generation peaks in the morning and peak load is noon-8pm). So utility scale batteries to capture the morning excess and discharge in the afternoon makes perfect sense.
Unfortunately it these batteries are unable to multiple gigawatts over many hours of excess wind energy. It will be at least a decade before the battery energy storage systems are close to big enough to absorb the oversupply of wind energy that happens a few times a week.
Don't get me wrong. The BESS helps with frequency, synchronization and voltage issues. They just do very little to flatten the wind spikes without turning off 10-20% of the wind fleet.
Summarizing from the article, this link [1] shows that there were more sources of generation that ERCOT didn't ask to come online. Specifically, all the capacity that could come online with 5 minutes was online except for a tiny 130 MW of generation.
The graph has units of Megawatts. In other words, the thing that was record setting about the batteries was not the Megawatt-hours, or total storage in battery systems.
What set the record was the instantaneous power usage, and apparently the batteries in Texas were at their hottest ever. (No idea if anything caught on fire though!)
Here are some more assumptions I am reading into this:
* The 130 MW that didn't come online may have been rotated around. Maybe all the generation jumped in at different times, guided by supply and demand, but ERCOT regulations likely played a role in keeping the existing systems from exceeding the demand or blowing up transmission lines, etc.
* The article says "Solar and Demand Were High Throughout the Day" but I assume that simply means that over time, more and more solar will be installed and more businesses and cities are becoming aware of https://www.ercot.com/services/programs/load (Demand Response). It means they can get cheaper electricity at night for instance, so they run their power-hungry machines when the prices are low.
* Never underestimate the power of Nature. Probably the daytime temps in Texas right now drove the high solar production and high demand. High temps usually mean clear, sunny days and everyone huddling near an air con.
> Probably the daytime temps in Texas right now drove the high solar production and high demand.
Probably?
> High temps usually mean clear, sunny days and everyone huddling near an air con.
Or all of those mandatory RTO forcing large open spaced cubicle farms to run AC in a building made of glass. Not sure of the image you have in your head being the reverse of homeless huddled around a barrel fire.
RTO is actually energy positive from a heating/cooling point of view (i.e., excluding transportation). People set their home HVAC to "away" to reduce use, and the central HVAC systems found in commercial buildings are far more efficient than home systems.
Contingency reserve services are used to maintain system reliability during unforeseen events. Think of power plants that can quickly ramp up generation, or other assets that can quickly reduce their demand.
In this case, ERCOT tapped 2,000 MW of capacity from ECRS.
afaik there are no residential loads in emergency response programs in Texas
ECRS is a program run by ERCOT, they trigger the battery discharge directly, or in some situations the resources might respond to an under-frequency relay.
So basically the "rush hour" program has likely been costing me more money than if I just ignored them to begin with up to this point. I do realize these programs are primarily about limiting peak gross load and not saving individuals money but maybe I won't go out of my way to abide by them now...