Great post! Thank you. Thomas Edison is well known for his DC dynamos, and inventing "arguably" the first incandescent vacuum tube lightbulb. What a lot of people don't realize is Edison's early patents were for parts to make stock tickers more mechanically efficient, and in distributing their analog signals across a multi-stock ticker network to brokerage offices in NYC. He started out as a highly skilled telegrapher. The challenge was to produce power for the stock tickers and then power multiple units on the same network. He had to do it in a manner that one stock ticker could not keep the signal from reaching the other stock tickers on the network. The first patent he made money on was a re-set device on the stock ticker. Every so often operators were suppose to pause, and send out enough impulses so that each stock ticker hit a stop on the device. Kind of like hitting the space bar on an old type writer. Then they'd all be back to the same spot on the print wheels, reducing errors in stock price reporting. I think that might be considered the first electrical grid. JP Morgan had an early Edison stock ticker in his house. It was JP Morgan along with other Wall Street users of the stock ticker that supported Edison's continuing work in telegraphy, and eventually supported him in powering Pearl Street (featured in this article), and his work at Menlo Park, New Jersey. So, Edison successfully came up with the electric lightbulb, almost simultaneously with other inventors around the world. But Edison's real advanced technology and gift to humanity was the first electric grid. I don't think Edison or Tesla would recommend hooking non-dispatchable power sources into the grid. Somehow we've got to get the engineers back in charge.
Thanks for adding the story of Edison's other accomplishments. Edison's background was indeed very important in leading to his development of the first power grid. I remind my energy students how simple Edison's grid was to balance versus how incredibly complex power grids are now, especially with the addition of non-dispatchable power sources. You are exactly right to note that it is time to get the engineers back in charge, hopefully before there are epic failures. Thank you very much, Shawn, for your informative comment. I hope you will keep reading and commenting on my Substack articles. Ed
Inverters match exactly the same frequency as the grid and slightly increase the voltage in order to push an available amount of watts. It is physical generators that then become the problem as they cannot cope with instant changes to the demand. The other problem is inductive load and motors which might phase shift their power factor back to the grid. Normally they fight the huge physical generator but cause inverters to trip out and disconnect only to reconnect later once the grid gets rebalanced. This will cause a constant oscillation of load and supply. Unfortunately it is the large generators that are outdated on today’s grid.
Ed, Great article! you have clearly explained the concept of power reliability and it should become a mandatory reading assignment for all students in American universities!
Thanks for the comment, Satish B. This piece is required reading for my students and I hope others find it. I appreciate you reading my Substack and am very appreciative of your kind comments. Please keep reading and commenting! Ed
Eventually we will have a big enough catastrophe on the grid that the only "solution" will be nationalization. The politicians will step in and explain how only they can ensure you will have electric power when you "need" it (which the same politicos will decide). This is a classic example of never letting a (manufactured) crisis go to waste.
I agree with you, Jim. That possibility is the best argument I can think of for ERCOT to remain independent and not interconnect with the other grids. I wrote an article a few months ago warning that the FERC and others have been trying for years to get Texas to agree to be controlled by FERC. Hopefully, Texas will never consider it.
Very good explanation of the importance of maintaining 60Hz on the grid. This makes my electrical engineering heart happy.
I still continue to see battery storage being touted as a big savior but it still has the same issues as wind and solar when it comes to power density. In comparison to sources like natural gas, fuel oil, and coal it doesn't even remotely compare. Comparing it to something like nuclear will really get your head spinning.
And just like wind and solar, these massive battery installations will fall in the same NIMBY (not in my backyard) pattern of placing them way out in expansive rural areas and then being forced to build out transmission lines to get the power to the dense city centers. Not only will building out the large transmission lines be nearly impossible (reference the work of Robert Bryce) but it will increase voltage drop and losses on the line compared to building a combined cycle or nuclear power plant inside the city.
This also doesn't talk about the issues of battery fires. With EVs gaining more popularity (at least temporarily) it's started to rear it's head a bit that a battery fire is a whole different animal compared to the fires that our emergency services have been fighting for some time. So increasing the scale of these batteries will require a whole different set of specialized skills to manage the fire risk. And with the labor and skill shortage being what it is today, we are jumping head-first into the ground with no helmet.
Thanks for the great article! Just figured I'd add my 2 cents.
Great comment, B Apple. I agree that battery storage is not a viable solution to the intermittency problems created by wind and solar. The main problems with batteries is that they discharge for 4 hours or so and then they are out of commission for the next 4 hours. Of course, the theory is that if you have enough of them, they can back up the grid. That argument just doesn't hold water. A friend who has invested in battery storage says that the numbers don't work and he will not invest in more. Battery storage is another bad idea just like wind and solar. Their best contribution is to help maintain frequency at 60 Hz.
I'm wondering if a company in my state of Oregon might become part of the solution - what do you think? Here's their description of their grid battery backup product: "ESS Tech, Inc. is a long-duration energy storage company specializing in iron flow battery technology. The Company designs and produces long-duration batteries using earth-abundant materials. Its batteries provide flexibility to grid operators and energy assurance for commercial and industrial customers. Its technology addresses energy delivery, duration, and cycle-life in a single battery platform that compares favorably to lithium-ion batteries. Using its iron flow battery technology, the Company is developing two products, such as Energy Warehouse and Energy Center. The Energy Warehouse offers energy storage ranging from 50 kilowatts (kW) to 90 kW and four to 12-hour durations. Energy Warehouses are deployed in shipping container units, allowing a turnkey system that can be installed easily at a customer's site. Energy Center offers a customizable configuration range and is installed to meet customers' power, energy and duration needs. Its batteries are non-flammable and non-toxic."
Thanks for the comment, Al. ESS Tech has an interesting product for sure. The size 50 to 90 KW sounds like a good backup solution for retail and some industrial applications but it is not grid-scale unless they can connect multiple units. Having said that, battery storage is a hot item right now, so they should contact ERCOT and see if they might could put them in touch with battery operations already on their grid. They could also contact me and I will see if I can help. Thanks for reading my Substack articles and commenting, Al.
I agree with you that the generators do need to come up with their own reliability solutions. Since they seem to be the chosen ones (wind, solar and batteries) they will not feel the need to do much of anything I'm afraid.
Even with backup battery power I'm not sure how they will be able to address the lead time on charging and discharging unless they have very sizeable backup. Maybe you could explain that to me further. Another question on batteries maybe you could answer for me - do they pull all their power from the grid via the substations or directly from solar before it goes to the substation and the grid?
Thanks, JF. Battery storage has been over-hyped for sure. It is very expensive to build and its return on investment is questionable. The time it takes to charge the batteries which is effectively unpaid down time. This explains why it is not taking off on power grids, especially on ERCOT. All of the battery storage on ERCOT that I am aware of is stand alone and is charged from the grid, not from wind and solar. My argument is that wind and solar should provide their own battery backup in order to reduce its intermittency. Ed
Great post! Thank you. Thomas Edison is well known for his DC dynamos, and inventing "arguably" the first incandescent vacuum tube lightbulb. What a lot of people don't realize is Edison's early patents were for parts to make stock tickers more mechanically efficient, and in distributing their analog signals across a multi-stock ticker network to brokerage offices in NYC. He started out as a highly skilled telegrapher. The challenge was to produce power for the stock tickers and then power multiple units on the same network. He had to do it in a manner that one stock ticker could not keep the signal from reaching the other stock tickers on the network. The first patent he made money on was a re-set device on the stock ticker. Every so often operators were suppose to pause, and send out enough impulses so that each stock ticker hit a stop on the device. Kind of like hitting the space bar on an old type writer. Then they'd all be back to the same spot on the print wheels, reducing errors in stock price reporting. I think that might be considered the first electrical grid. JP Morgan had an early Edison stock ticker in his house. It was JP Morgan along with other Wall Street users of the stock ticker that supported Edison's continuing work in telegraphy, and eventually supported him in powering Pearl Street (featured in this article), and his work at Menlo Park, New Jersey. So, Edison successfully came up with the electric lightbulb, almost simultaneously with other inventors around the world. But Edison's real advanced technology and gift to humanity was the first electric grid. I don't think Edison or Tesla would recommend hooking non-dispatchable power sources into the grid. Somehow we've got to get the engineers back in charge.
Thanks for adding the story of Edison's other accomplishments. Edison's background was indeed very important in leading to his development of the first power grid. I remind my energy students how simple Edison's grid was to balance versus how incredibly complex power grids are now, especially with the addition of non-dispatchable power sources. You are exactly right to note that it is time to get the engineers back in charge, hopefully before there are epic failures. Thank you very much, Shawn, for your informative comment. I hope you will keep reading and commenting on my Substack articles. Ed
Inverters match exactly the same frequency as the grid and slightly increase the voltage in order to push an available amount of watts. It is physical generators that then become the problem as they cannot cope with instant changes to the demand. The other problem is inductive load and motors which might phase shift their power factor back to the grid. Normally they fight the huge physical generator but cause inverters to trip out and disconnect only to reconnect later once the grid gets rebalanced. This will cause a constant oscillation of load and supply. Unfortunately it is the large generators that are outdated on today’s grid.
Ed, Great article! you have clearly explained the concept of power reliability and it should become a mandatory reading assignment for all students in American universities!
Thanks for the comment, Satish B. This piece is required reading for my students and I hope others find it. I appreciate you reading my Substack and am very appreciative of your kind comments. Please keep reading and commenting! Ed
Eventually we will have a big enough catastrophe on the grid that the only "solution" will be nationalization. The politicians will step in and explain how only they can ensure you will have electric power when you "need" it (which the same politicos will decide). This is a classic example of never letting a (manufactured) crisis go to waste.
I agree with you, Jim. That possibility is the best argument I can think of for ERCOT to remain independent and not interconnect with the other grids. I wrote an article a few months ago warning that the FERC and others have been trying for years to get Texas to agree to be controlled by FERC. Hopefully, Texas will never consider it.
Very good explanation of the importance of maintaining 60Hz on the grid. This makes my electrical engineering heart happy.
I still continue to see battery storage being touted as a big savior but it still has the same issues as wind and solar when it comes to power density. In comparison to sources like natural gas, fuel oil, and coal it doesn't even remotely compare. Comparing it to something like nuclear will really get your head spinning.
And just like wind and solar, these massive battery installations will fall in the same NIMBY (not in my backyard) pattern of placing them way out in expansive rural areas and then being forced to build out transmission lines to get the power to the dense city centers. Not only will building out the large transmission lines be nearly impossible (reference the work of Robert Bryce) but it will increase voltage drop and losses on the line compared to building a combined cycle or nuclear power plant inside the city.
This also doesn't talk about the issues of battery fires. With EVs gaining more popularity (at least temporarily) it's started to rear it's head a bit that a battery fire is a whole different animal compared to the fires that our emergency services have been fighting for some time. So increasing the scale of these batteries will require a whole different set of specialized skills to manage the fire risk. And with the labor and skill shortage being what it is today, we are jumping head-first into the ground with no helmet.
Thanks for the great article! Just figured I'd add my 2 cents.
Great comment, B Apple. I agree that battery storage is not a viable solution to the intermittency problems created by wind and solar. The main problems with batteries is that they discharge for 4 hours or so and then they are out of commission for the next 4 hours. Of course, the theory is that if you have enough of them, they can back up the grid. That argument just doesn't hold water. A friend who has invested in battery storage says that the numbers don't work and he will not invest in more. Battery storage is another bad idea just like wind and solar. Their best contribution is to help maintain frequency at 60 Hz.
I'm wondering if a company in my state of Oregon might become part of the solution - what do you think? Here's their description of their grid battery backup product: "ESS Tech, Inc. is a long-duration energy storage company specializing in iron flow battery technology. The Company designs and produces long-duration batteries using earth-abundant materials. Its batteries provide flexibility to grid operators and energy assurance for commercial and industrial customers. Its technology addresses energy delivery, duration, and cycle-life in a single battery platform that compares favorably to lithium-ion batteries. Using its iron flow battery technology, the Company is developing two products, such as Energy Warehouse and Energy Center. The Energy Warehouse offers energy storage ranging from 50 kilowatts (kW) to 90 kW and four to 12-hour durations. Energy Warehouses are deployed in shipping container units, allowing a turnkey system that can be installed easily at a customer's site. Energy Center offers a customizable configuration range and is installed to meet customers' power, energy and duration needs. Its batteries are non-flammable and non-toxic."
Thanks for the comment, Al. ESS Tech has an interesting product for sure. The size 50 to 90 KW sounds like a good backup solution for retail and some industrial applications but it is not grid-scale unless they can connect multiple units. Having said that, battery storage is a hot item right now, so they should contact ERCOT and see if they might could put them in touch with battery operations already on their grid. They could also contact me and I will see if I can help. Thanks for reading my Substack articles and commenting, Al.
Thanks - I'll find a contact person at ESS and pass this on and also let them know about your substack...
Great article and easy read.
I agree with you that the generators do need to come up with their own reliability solutions. Since they seem to be the chosen ones (wind, solar and batteries) they will not feel the need to do much of anything I'm afraid.
Even with backup battery power I'm not sure how they will be able to address the lead time on charging and discharging unless they have very sizeable backup. Maybe you could explain that to me further. Another question on batteries maybe you could answer for me - do they pull all their power from the grid via the substations or directly from solar before it goes to the substation and the grid?
Thanks, JF. Battery storage has been over-hyped for sure. It is very expensive to build and its return on investment is questionable. The time it takes to charge the batteries which is effectively unpaid down time. This explains why it is not taking off on power grids, especially on ERCOT. All of the battery storage on ERCOT that I am aware of is stand alone and is charged from the grid, not from wind and solar. My argument is that wind and solar should provide their own battery backup in order to reduce its intermittency. Ed