And this is why co location of batteries matters. It’s an opportunity of using infrastructure already in place (grid connection) to maximise the benefit.
Raise the panels and put the battery containers underneath and it doesn’t even use more space.
The problem is that the Infrastructure is owned by the Providers, who mainly make money from selling (their own) power and billing you for pumping your own power back into the network.
The providers aren’t going to have Co-Loc batteries if they can charge more for generated power.
The Grid needs to be completely privatised piecemeal so it can be commercially competitive, or nationalised so the government can plan and design for maximum efficiency.
The depleted open cut mines would be the perfect locations for hydraulic batteries.
The original post is in relation to commercial solar PV, not residential, which is a power generator rather than power consumer.
Except via planning law, which is not in the direct control of grid operators (lobbying…), it is not within the gift of the grid operators to stop or agree to the co-location of batteries.
Given that both solar panels, and wind turbines, arr DC generators, the direct connection to batteries via DC-DC charge controllers (which is the most efficient way to charge batteries) does not have anything to do with grid operators, so their commercial interests are irrelevant to the implementation, if that is necessary to create a financially sustainable asset for the power plant owner.
In relation to residential solar PV…which I think you were commenting on, inverters can be set to zero export. If laws are created to specifically fuck over residential solar, the worst case will always be to decommission existing solar PV (say, it was taxed annually on a per panel basis, make it unlawful to self consume etc, but it is possible to set inverters to zero export so one should never have to pay a charge for exporting).
But so long as one can self consume and batteries are available (note even house batteries could be made unlawful, ie due to bullshit argument based on safety), there will always be a system that can reduce costs unless power costs 0 short of a truly broken system. ie grid operators charge power producers for both over production and at the same time charge users for using), but even then solar production cost is essentially 0: fill your own batteries and zero export once full, then discharge a portion at night if profitable.
Pumped hydro is without a doubt the most effective energy storage method but requires the right geology and geography, and is only part of a solution. Check the key statistics on this link to see just how nuts it can be when paired with reliable solar over production. https://british-hydro.org/pumped-storage-hydropower/
And this is why co location of batteries matters. It’s an opportunity of using infrastructure already in place (grid connection) to maximise the benefit.
Raise the panels and put the battery containers underneath and it doesn’t even use more space.
The problem is that the Infrastructure is owned by the Providers, who mainly make money from selling (their own) power and billing you for pumping your own power back into the network.
The providers aren’t going to have Co-Loc batteries if they can charge more for generated power.
The Grid needs to be completely privatised piecemeal so it can be commercially competitive, or nationalised so the government can plan and design for maximum efficiency.
The depleted open cut mines would be the perfect locations for hydraulic batteries.
The original post is in relation to commercial solar PV, not residential, which is a power generator rather than power consumer.
Except via planning law, which is not in the direct control of grid operators (lobbying…), it is not within the gift of the grid operators to stop or agree to the co-location of batteries.
Given that both solar panels, and wind turbines, arr DC generators, the direct connection to batteries via DC-DC charge controllers (which is the most efficient way to charge batteries) does not have anything to do with grid operators, so their commercial interests are irrelevant to the implementation, if that is necessary to create a financially sustainable asset for the power plant owner.
For reference: https://modoenergy.com/research/co-location-battery-energy-storage-solar-ac-dc-coupling
In relation to residential solar PV…which I think you were commenting on, inverters can be set to zero export. If laws are created to specifically fuck over residential solar, the worst case will always be to decommission existing solar PV (say, it was taxed annually on a per panel basis, make it unlawful to self consume etc, but it is possible to set inverters to zero export so one should never have to pay a charge for exporting).
But so long as one can self consume and batteries are available (note even house batteries could be made unlawful, ie due to bullshit argument based on safety), there will always be a system that can reduce costs unless power costs 0 short of a truly broken system. ie grid operators charge power producers for both over production and at the same time charge users for using), but even then solar production cost is essentially 0: fill your own batteries and zero export once full, then discharge a portion at night if profitable.
Pumped hydro is without a doubt the most effective energy storage method but requires the right geology and geography, and is only part of a solution. Check the key statistics on this link to see just how nuts it can be when paired with reliable solar over production. https://british-hydro.org/pumped-storage-hydropower/
The one at Kidstone seems to be taking forever. Supposed to be opened this year but not sure if its still on track or not?
https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/
Snowy 2.0 is again over budget i see (mine related).