New York’s Enormous Battery Storage Plant

From GreenTech Media:

New York’s utility regulator approved construction of a 316-megawatt battery storage plant that would replace fossil-fueled capacity in New York City.

The Ravenswood project, if built, will be the largest battery plant in the state, providing emissions-free power to the New York City region during the hours of greatest demand. It also marks the first major use of energy storage for peaking power in the Northeast. California and Arizona have tapped energy storage for this role, but East Coast batteries have been smaller and generally geared toward fast-response grid services. The new plant could have enough capacity to discharge for up to eight hours.

This is big. The dam is breaking.  Large-scale energy storage is in the process of replacing gas peaker plants, thus enabling the integration of far more than intermittent power coming from solar and wind.

Interestingly, the pro-nuke (anti-renewables) people I’ve mentioned numerous times often point out that adding more wind means building gas plants to deal with the variability, and that gas leakages are causing a huge rise in greenhouse gases.  The extent to which this is true is debatable, but it will soon become a moot point.

Tagged with: , , , ,
One comment on “New York’s Enormous Battery Storage Plant
  1. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    “This is big. The dam is breaking”.

    Not really, New York city uses 16, 000 Megawatt-hours HOURS of electricity on average each day so a storage facility of 316 megawatts capacity is very small.

    “Large-scale energy storage is in the process of replacing gas peaker plants, thus enabling the integration of far more than intermittent power coming from solar and wind”.

    No, that’s not true. The Battery will be built on a site formerly occupied by obsolete Peaker plants, but will be connected to the Ravenswood gasfired plant and used as emergency back up and smoothing out production.

    Only the first stage is to be built, 96 megawatts, to test the economic viability of the concept.

    So not “dam breaking” or game changing, nor increasing wind or solar. Not even very big.

    That’s the trouble with interpreting information to suit an ideological preconceived idea, it bound to be disappointing when viewed through the cold light of reality!