I wish we could. That capacity is already booked. Our batteries needs to be used as local storage. And this is before the EU mandate on solarpanels on all roof tops has taken effect. The grid can’t expand at that rate, unfortunately.
Comment on Solar will get too cheap to connect to the power grid.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
All I’m hearing is excuses not to invest in battery storage at the grid level.
Tobberone@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Valmond@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What do you mean? Worst case put the batteries with the panel?
Tobberone@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
That’s what we are reduced to. That is what I mean. I also say that in the EU directive called EED, the union demands that, starting 2026, every public body needs to put PV-cells on the roofs of the buildings they use.
That will be noticeable.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Plug in EVs are the most immediate solution to battery storage.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
But they are not home at peak solar.
BangersAndMash@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
But generally they would be parked, right? At the office, or transport hubs? Maybe that’s where the batteries need to be installed. Take the responsibility off private citizens and install it where there’s going to be a mass of cars parked.
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Grid scale storage will be built en masse the moment it becomes economical, or when governments decide to use tax payer money to do it or subsidize it.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
That’s fair, but the reason it’s not economical right now is mostly poorly thought out contracts and subsidies. We are already paying for this mess.
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
From the calculations I’ve seen in recent scientific reports, that doesn’t seem to be the case, barring major economic changes on a global level.
Even the cheapest grid scale storage solutions are an order of magnitude more expensive than constructing more electrical generation capacity.
Particularly closed cycle fossil gas thermal plants have a massive advantage in markets where variable renewable electricity generation (wind, solar…) achieve high degrees of market penetration due to the volatility they cause in the grid.
Hydro, transmission and nuclear are currently the most accessible non-fossil options to counteract the disadvantages of solar & wind.
shalafi@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Is your area not undergoing a massive expansion? I’m in NW Florida, hardly a hotbed of environmentalism, and brother, business is booming.
I fully expect the 20-miles between the edge of town and my camp to be covered in the next decade. Any non-residential and non-commercial land is getting bought up and covered. I expect to see solar panels all they way in the space between the interstate and the state highway, already a few spots where you can see clear from one road to the other over the panels. Very exciting!
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Where I live (Sweden) our grid has been essentially fossil-free since the early 90’s, thus we haven’t had the same need. Particularly since our electricity prices (excluding grid fees) already dip into the negatives in the summer, and solar is useless in the winter (<3hrs of light and snow cover).
Unfortunately though, recent politically motivated shutterings of nuclear plants during the 2010s combined with higher volatility in continental Europe has led to the volatility of our own electricity market skyrocketing, and more decentralized electricity production has led to huge increases in grid fees (state monopoly).
During a recent winter we had prices (when accounting for taxes and fees) in excess of 1$/kWh. This, in a country where almost all heating is electric, is disastrous. For context, we live in a small villa with a geothermal pump, and despite keeping indoor temps as low as 12°C at times we ended up with 1000s of USD equivalent in power bills for the winters 22/23 and 23/24.
Quite sad really.