Talk:Grid energy storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unsigned Comment[edit]

I'd rather not see this article merged into Energy storage.

Energy storage includes small batteries (i.e. nanobatteries). And large-scale energy storage is much more than grid storage (it can be used locally). --Nopetro (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate information[edit]

Mrand - In deleting my edits, you have once more made it appear that Pumped Storage systems can make up for lost generating capacity on windless days. The items now cite a Chinese system with 2% of national capacity and world systems with 3% of world capacity. But this is deliberate nonsense, for these systems only generate for 5 or 6 hours. What matters is kwh (or total demand over time) and if electrical energy was required to cover two days without wind (assuming all renewable energy supply) then those figures quoted would have to be reduced tenfold. In other words, the Chinese system can only cover 0.2% of demand over 2 days - much less than the article makes out.

These paragraphs need to be changed, to reflect the truth. Will you let me do it, without deleting everything again? Narwhal-tooth 11:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Broad subject[edit]

  • Energy storage is a rather broad subject. Frankly, it's so broad I'm not sure what the article can say other than have a taxonomy of various kinds of energy storage.
  • Grid energy storage is a more specific problem: maybe I should have titled it grid electricity storage. The problem is to most cost-efficiently match the peaky electricity demand profile to production and storage technologies. The cost efficiency part of the problem makes it different than, say, the problem of electrical energy storage on board the Space Shuttle, or any of a number of possible problems that could be addressed in the energy storage article.
  • The grid energy storage article is in better shape than the energy storage article.

Your impetus for requesting a merge may be that the current grid energy storage article doesn't address the grid-connected nature of the problem specifically enough. That's a real problem, of course, but I don't think the answer is to merge the two.

Iain McClatchie 01:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. I put up the merge message a while back. At the time it seemed a little redundant, but it's really a pretty good article. So you can remove the "merge" messages, but I would strongly suggest two changes. The first paragraph should start out somethink like:
Grid energy storage is the use of energy storage for the purpose of ...
In other words, put the article title in bold, maike it descriptive, and provide a link to the general "energy storage" article. Mackerm 05:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed the merge notice, but couldn't come up with good wording to start the article as you suggested. I agree that it is useful to use the article title in a sentence near the beginning of the article, but forcing it can just add pointless words.
It's not just useful, it's required by the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Mackerm 11:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the article about?[edit]

I've always understood "grid energy storage" to mean using the grid like a battery, so that you can firm up undependable energy sources like wind and solar. The article spends most of its time talking about storage devices connected to a grid - which is the opposite end of the way I've understood the term. --Wtshymanski 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs some serious editing. The content is pretty good, and interesting, but is mostly not about grid energy storage (which is a misnomer, of course, but common).--Gregalton 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of opening[edit]

I agree with everything said above. I had difficulty understanding the "grid energy storage" description. Rewrote in bullet format with an opening sentence that explicitly explains GES essentially word-by-word. Mostly rearranged and slightly rephrased prior text, then made more explicit the "time-of-day pricing" that makes GES useful. Scimike 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work[edit]

The article has a lot of mistakes. I fixed the most glaring ones. Most of the rest are about how the grid works and how different energy sources are used. Also, some areas need rewriting, especially the first section (the first section is everything before the "Economics of energy storage"). I think that part of the problem is that people write about how things are in their region. However, the electrical industry varies greatly geographically in the U.S., let alone other countries. For example, in much of the East, coal makes up the majority of the electricity generated, while in much of the West, there are no coal power plants at all. In the Middle East, oil can make up a large percentage of the electricity generated (77% in Egypt in 1999), while the U.S. gets very little of its electricity from oil (about 3%). Natural gas might be used primarily for peaking power in the Eastern U.S. (the article previously said that natural gas plants are peaking plants), but it is used for base load, intermediate (AKA load following) and peaking power in the West. This variation does not mean that an article cannot be written. It just means that the article must be written carefully by knowledgeable people, preferably in collaboration. -- Kjkolb 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Conservation is Not Grid Energy Storage[edit]

Grid energy storage is when you take electrical energy from the grid, store it, then re-inject it to the grid later. The methods of doing this, or forms, of energy storage are ways in which to accomplish the storing and then re-release of the energy. If a fuel is left unused and can be kept for a rainy day because of the use of replenishable energy sources, that's a positive thing for humanity, but its NOT grid energy storage because it was never converted to electrical energy in the first place. To call fuel conservation grid energy storage is like saying that reducing is a way of recycling - both are measures to be taken to increase efficiency, but they are different.Wikichesterdit (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if A there is a requirement to convert to electricity and B if this requirement is lacking in this example, lets say for example, at the moment depleted gas reservoirs and salt domes are filled with natural gas as grid energy storage, pumped as gas to the enduser, and used there for work, heating and maybe to make electricity, the same goes for hydrogen. Mion (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this topic refers to storage of energy on the electrical grid, the energy must be injected to the grid before it can be stored. If we were talking about some kind of chemical fuel based "grid" where the fuel is distributed using pipelines or vehicles, I could see your point. In your example, the energy in the natural gas bypassed the grid completely by going straight to the end user. Aside from that, the idea of conserving fuel (which constitutes stored energy) by getting energy from renewables is a different beast than the spirit of grid energy storage, which is as a buffer to smooth out rapid fluctuations of supply and demand so that expensive-to-run, fuel-based plants neednt be cycled on and off, up and down to meet the fickle demands of electricity consumers. The energy supplied by renewables is also subject to random rise and fall when the sky clouds over or the wind fluctuates, and thus does not help to solve the problem of how fuel-based plants need to be cycled up and down as a response to the demand for electricity.Wikichesterdit (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Its still about the storage of energy on the electrical grid, but as typical energy losses in natural gas transmission systems range from 1-2%. Energy losses on a large electrical system range from 5-8%, the provided drawing is correct for one setup, the other setup shows natural gas pipelines to homes with micro combined heat and power and then from the homes the surplus electricity is fed back into the grid.I think the intro needs some rewriting. Mion (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems it is well covered as smart grid which enables the mass feed in of electricity at the home site is covered in a section of electrical power grid as mentioned in the intro.Mion (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move. Consensus at this time does not support a page move. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Grid energy storageLarge-scale energy storageUser:Nopetro 13:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Grid wins two to one on the web (856,000), large scale four to one in news stories (79), and 12 to one in books (615). Take your pick. The pedantic name is large scale, the common name is grid. (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

table request[edit]

A table of the : a) round-trip efficiency b) cost per kilowatt.hour c) installation cost per kilowatt.hour d) energy density (kW.h/kg + kW.h/liters) for each technology would be most welcome, as many people keep on trying to push forward forms of energy storage that could never be economically sound or inadapted for some applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea, if someone can find published data. It is very difficult to understand the article as written, because so many of the items included seem to say, "XXX batteries (or whatever) would be a good storage system, if they were adapted for large-scale use." There is little indication of the numbers that represent the actual engineering considerations. References for some of the items mentioned in the article seem to point instead to "pie in the sky" puff pieces with no technological feasibility.
It would be very helpful to see in a table the relative capacities and efficiencies of the possible systems, and perhaps have a separate table for the efficiencies and economics of proposed systems that are only imagined, such as storing grid energy in the batteries of parked electric cars. (I'd really like to see some verifiable numbers for that idea. I'm trying to imagine how cars that were charging while parked at night would return energy to the grid while they are on the road during the daytime usage peaks.) Snezzy (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Technology comparison for Grid-Level applications[edit]

Is it just me, or is this table complete gibberish? From a moment's glance it looks like most of the table data is plainly wrong. I'm tempted to WP:BOLDly fix it, but if anyone can explain what its supposed to mean, I'd be happy to stand aside.--R.S. Peale (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit equating Storage and Smart Grid[edit]

In my opinion the two points of information that were deleted about (1) the historical context (current power grid designed to respond on-demand) and (2) the intermittency of power sources such as wind and solar were really important. More information was added later on, but the issues of history and intermittency are not addressed. I think the article is missing something now...--Graham Proud (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully it's back now with a common list of advantages of grid electrical storage, other storage of potential such as hydroelectric pumped, and of demand side management which is in some cases literally storing energy as warmer water, more deeply frozen food etc.
Also some good references are provided on using electric car batteries as grid level storage and how that makes it easier to consider using them as mobile dispatch — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Round Trip Efficiency[edit]

There is some text under the hydrogen topic that needs to be lifted up to a separate section, as it is relevant to all forms of grid energy storage.

"The price ratio between purchase and sale of electricity must be at least proportional to the efficiency in order for the system to be economic."

Some discussion under the Economics heading does quite well but I think it deserves its own sub-heading. Any thoughts?--Graham Proud (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Electrochemical batteries[edit]

I heard that the Lithium–titanate battery is also being considered for use in grid energy storage. Perhaps worthy to mention it in article ? KVDP (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)