I'm also convinced that separating generation and storage is simply an awfully, comically bad idea: generation that needs storage - solar and wind - is DC, storage is also DC. Transmission is usually AC or at least goes through AC/DC conversion at some point.
Why wasting a lot of additional energy to store it by doing an extra unneeded AC/DC conversion which happens if storage is separate from generation? Instead of storing DC energy as it is produced and discharging it - by converting to AC and feeding into the grid - as it is needed?
Transmission losses are on the order of a couple percent. Most of these large sites are literally composed of 1-2 mwh containerized units side by side.
While as other commenter said, this is only pertinent to solar, not to wind.
Speaking of saving on transmission capacity i didn't mean "limiting transmission losses" but "avoiding hitting the limit of transmission power lines because the power will travel a shorter distance between the producer and the battery".
Love the capacity transition from megawatts to megawatthours. This journalist definitely understands the topic
National grid operators measure power capacity in mw, not mwh, because their primary concern is dispatchable power.
Battery storage is optionally stated as MW/MWh
Battery storage has almost been exclusively used for ancillary services, where storage was almost irrelevant. Now that it’s starting to be expected to provide actually useful power to consumers it will slowly become the primary metric that matters.
Usually power capacity is used in press releases to greenwash things and be purposefully misleading to a naive audience. Nice to see this finally starting to change.
Just because someone doesn't know industry terms doesn't mean those terms are incorrect.
Regarding your point about nameplate power, dispatchable sources have existed for almost a century using this convention.
The only thing that came close to batteries would have been pumped storage hydro power. And rather small installations at that. These number in the dozens (at best) worldwide. They were irrelevant for public discourse on the topic, therefore nameplate capacity was a useful metric as it was the only material one that mattered.
Mentioning nameplate capacity for a source that has single-digit hours of fuel (storage) available is misleading at best short of writing targeted at industry insiders. Storage was simply an irrelevant metric until very recently, and it's very easy to leave it out (or not understand it's a missing bit of critical information) if you don't know anything about the topic at hand.
It's not a conspiracy and I never stated such. It's folks who have an agenda to push at worst, or much more likely folks who simply don't have a clue about what they are writing about and take press releases at their word without applying critical thinking.
It would be like quoting flywheel storage at nameplate and not mentioning that the rated capacity is only useful for single digit minutes to a naive audience. Misleading at best, but certainly not a conspiracy. Factually correct but incomplete information is typically no better than misinformation. It hurts the cause in the end.
I think battery storage is on the right track, but the past 5 years of journalism on the subject has left their audience with incomplete at best information on the topic. Adding 1GW of grid capacity in batteries is simply not the same as adding 1GW of natural gas, nuclear, or hydro power but most reading these articles would not come away with such an understanding. Having had casual chats with "laymen" on the topic the average person simply does not understand this level of nuance. You get to first attempt to explain the difference when someone tries to compare a battery source to a nuclear power plant. This is where my real-world frustration over journalism here stems from.
fwiw I think the writer here did a good job! I also disagree that the interchanging of units was incorrect. It read factually correct to me as they quoted both as any competent writing on the subject should.
I see this far more as an indictment of journalism (with a nod towards PR departments perhaps trying to greenwash) than anything remotely resembling a conspiracy.
https://www.zenobe.com/news-and-events/blackhillock-battery-...
The company also recycles EV batteries for other uses, but presumably not in this case or I'm sure they would have mentioned it.
> total capacity to 300MW/600MWh. This is equivalent to powering more than 3.1 million homes for two hours
It can deliver 300MW for 2 hours = 600MWh total energy storage.