Preferences

freddie_mercury parent
My understanding was that the companies aren't getting rich because competition has saturated the market and revenues from energy arbitrage have plummeted in 2025 because everyone needs to discharge during the same limited window.

"Vermillion said, adding that most battery operators in Texas earn the bulk of their revenue during a handful of extreme weather days, so “there might be 15 days over the year that matter for capturing revenue.”

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/05/15/is-texas-battery-landsca...


ZeroGravitas
That specific article is talking about the transition from ancillary services which drove the early battery adoption to actually buying and selling power which was only part of the business case for the initial battery rollouts.

The same story is repeating everywhere, batteries will very quickly supply all the ancillary needs for a grid at a fifth of the cost of spinning gas turbines if you let them.

The article seems written to intentionally confuse the saturation of that market with the wider abitrage market.

The high prices in a few days is likely more to do with Texas using those high prices to incentivize peaker plants rather than contract separately for capacity which some other markets do. They both still pay for it, just as different items on the total grid bill.

It would be strange if peaker style plants didn't make most of their money from peak times, whether they get paid via high market prices or capacity payments.

And when you enter a new market with batteries, it's shaving the peakiest peaks you've based your business model on. This also saves the most money (and carbon) for utility customers.

But all reporting on renewables needs to act like the whole thing is about to collapse into mad max for some reason.

sidewndr46
I'm not really sure how you can argue that a battery saves carbon. I'm assuming you mean carbon emissions. If the battery is charged up from a coal plant, then discharged during the day in lieu of a natural gas turbine it's probably measurably worse in all aspects. Carbon into the atmosphere & numerous other emissions from coal is pretty bad.

Since we're talking about Texas apparently most coal plants by kw-h are either offline or in some cases even decommissioned. Apparently in 2023 13.2% of generation was sourced from coal.

ZeroGravitas
In any well functioning grid that should all be priced in and batteries will be charging during the cheapest and cleanest times and discharging during the dirtiest and most expensive times.
sidewndr46
If externalities were priced into the grid, we basically wouldn't have air pollution.
ZeroGravitas
Well they literally are in some grids. Other grids in dysfunctional areas can take advantage of the decades of work that have led to wind and solar being the cheapest and cleanest available sources of power to get a similar effect.
There’s still a fortune to be made by whoever can crack seasonal storage. This is the ur-problem of humanity: to pay for the winter using the summer.
ZeroGravitas
In Europe wind power peaks in the winter so with batteries and hydro to smooth out the gaps you can get a combination of solar and wind to match your demand with relative ease. This does depend on location though, Texas wind peaks in Spring apparently.

A parallel and necessary step (one that has, suspiciously, suddenly become a culture war for the far right in europe) is electrification of heating with heat pumps, which lets you use your existing gas infrastructure to meet winter generation needs.

Paradigma11
The problem is that you still need the infrastructure to sustain through longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute . It does not matter if you have to pay the fixed cost of the infrastructure to use it once or ten times a year. If we only need it every few years things will probably get worse since politicians might try to skirt it and hope nothing will go wrong during their tenure.

I am not arguing against intermittent energy sources but we need to address these problems.

bestouff
ffsm8
That's about storing heat, not electricity.

While related insofar some electricity inevitably gets converted back into heating, I don't think its really relevant to this discussion which is explicitly about electricity.

ZeroGravitas
The winter peaks in gas and electricity are driven by heating demand. Electrification of heat combines the two and will make winter electricity peaks even peakier.

So anything that reduces that heat demand at a lower cost is a relevant fix, this includes heat storage, district heating, general efficiency and insulation improvements etc.

jmatthews
Even if the round trip efficiency is 25%?

Seasonal storage at competitive prices per megawatt hour is somewhat of a solved problem it just doesn't seem to be getting investment.

sidewndr46
Since we're talking about Texas, you could just come up with a way to store all the natural gas we flare each year. Which is a huge amount. Or you could just sell it to places that could use it.
SideburnsOfDoom
> the companies aren't getting rich ... revenues from energy arbitrage have plummeted

To be fair, there is an upside for such a company no longer being able to extract huge amounts of money from the general public on a regular basis. An upside to the public.

Enron was in this business and in this state.

This item has no comments currently.