• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

New York, California Have No Clue About Grid Storage Batteries Or Costs

by Francis Menton
March 11, 2024, 9:27 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
4
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

storage battery fireFor a number of years, I’ve been observing the demands of activists and the promises of politicians that we transition our electrical grid to being supplied mainly by intermittent renewables, wind, and solar, with all large dispatchable sources (fossil fuel and nuclear) banished.

Early on, I thought it was obvious that such a transition would inevitably mean that the only way to make the grid function full-time would be energy storage — on a vast scale never before contemplated or attempted. [emphasis, links added]

How much storage, and at what potential cost? This is an arithmetic problem, somewhat cumbersome but conceptually very elementary, and easily done with today’s widely available spreadsheet programs.

To help matters along, in December 2022 I produced my energy storage Report (“The Energy Storage Conundrum”), laying out the main options and the calculations involved. My conclusion was that I could not see any way that this could be done at a remotely feasible cost. (Anybody who disagrees is welcome to prove me wrong.)

Today, if somebody wants to effect an energy transition in a state or country, they can just look to my Report to quickly understand the nature and extent of the energy storage challenge.

What has occurred since December 2022 is that our “climate leader” jurisdictions — in the U.S., that would be New York and California — have moved forward with energy-storage proposals that any moron can easily see will not work.

Both states are in the process of spending huge sums of money on storage capacity that is so small as to be meaningless to address the problem, and at the same time not technically capable of meeting the challenge no matter the cost.

Naturally, the federal government is also involved in picking up a big chunk of the wasted cost from its infinite pile of money.

As to New York, a reader sends me a link to this June 2023 federal Department of Energy letter to the New York bureaucrats, approving a loan guarantee for the construction of a 300 MW battery storage facility for grid backup.

The facility in question is proposed to be placed on some large barges and anchored in the East River in the bay that once was the site of the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

In some respects, 300 MW is a very large battery storage facility. These are four-hour duration batteries, so we are talking 1,200 MWh of storage. My Report had a picture of a 150 MWh battery storage facility then under development in Queensland, Australia:


This one for New York would be eight times bigger! But would it be a meaningful amount of storage for backing up wind and solar generation? No.

My report found, based on calculations from various jurisdictions, that about a month’s worth of storage would be the minimum needed to get through a full year without running out of power.

A (30-day) month is 720 hours. New York State’s average electricity demand (from a 2023 NYISO Report linked in my previous post) is about 17,000 MW.

So the 1,200 MWh battery provides storage to back up the grid for — about 4.2 minutes.

To get your 720 hours of backup, you will need about 10,200 of them. Bloomberg NEF gives the average 2024 price of a lithium-ion battery as $150 per kWh.

So one 1,200 MWh facility will run about $180,000,000 for the batteries alone. (Note that they are putting the batteries on barges and dredging the harbor to make it deep enough to anchor them there. Without a doubt, the final cost will be well more than double the $180 million.).

10,200 of these at the highly optimistic $180 million each will run close to $2 trillion.

Nobody in the New York government is making these simple calculations. Instead, they forge ahead undeterred, without any idea how much storage is needed, how it is going to work, or how much it will cost.

This August 2023 article from Canary Media says that the Governor has set a goal of 6,000 MW of battery storage by 2030:

[Governor Hochul] is pushing to increase the state’s battery storage capacity from about 300 megawatts today to 6,000 megawatts in 2030, to complement an expansive buildout of renewable generation.

As always, they speak of the wrong units: MW instead of MWh. But if these are the usual four-hour batteries, 6,000 MW would be 24,000 MWh. Now we’re up to about an hour and 25 minutes of storage for the State, versus a basic requirement of 720 hours. And that paltry amount will run us (at $150/kWh) at least $3.6 billion.

And California is no more numerate. Here’s a Los Angeles Times piece from October 2023 with figures on California’s plans for battery storage to back up its wind/solar-based grid:

If California is going to meet its ambitious goals to transition from electricity using fossil fuels, the state will need energy storage to shoulder a significant amount of the load. … Four years ago, the state counted a mere 250 megawatts of battery storage available to the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid for 80% of the state and a small part of Nevada. By the end of this year, that number is expected to grow to 8,000 megawatts. And the amount of battery storage integrated fully into the grid is expected to increase to 19,500 megawatts by 2035 and 52,000 megawatts by 2045.

Once again, it’s the usual MW instead of MWh. But assume that 52,000 MW in 2045 will be four-hour duration batteries, so 208,000 MWh. At $150/kWh, that will cost California a cool $31.2 billion.

And how long will that last if it starts fully charged and the wind is calm at night? This federal Department of Energy webpage gives California’s current annual electricity demand as 259.5 TWh, or 259,500 GWh. Divide by 8,760 (hours in a year) and you get an average demand of about 30,000 MW.

So the 208,000 MWh of storage will last about seven hours. You’ll need about a hundred times that amount — for $3+ trillion — to get the 720 hours of storage that you will need.

The amounts of storage that they are talking about are so ridiculously inadequate that I won’t even bother getting to the issue of whether these lithium-ion batteries can handle the physical task at hand, which in the real world would involve storing energy for a year and more before it is used, without having it drain away.

But before closing, I would be remiss not to mention that both the Canary Media and LA Times pieces linked above devote considerable space to the issue of lithium-ion battery fires.

It seems that in both New York and California, the tiny amounts of grid-scale battery storage built to date have been plagued by repeated major fires. From New York:

New York state is grappling with how to adjust its ambitious buildout of clean energy storage after fires broke out at three separate battery projects between late May and late July [2023]. … First, on May 31, a battery that NextEra Energy Resources had installed at a substation in East Hampton caught fire. … Then, on June 26, fire alarms went off at two battery units owned and operated by Convergent Energy and Power in Warwick, Orange County; one of those later caught fire. On July 27, a different Convergent battery at a solar farm in Chaumont caught fire and burned for four days straight.

Funny how these fires don’t seem to be news in the mainstream press. Here from the Canary piece is a picture of the fire at the Chaumont facility:

It’s the same story in California — repeated fires at the handful of grid battery storage facilities that have so far gone operational. From the LA Times piece:

[A] persistent problem keeps coming up — fires igniting at battery storage facilities. Most recently, a fire broke out at the Valley Center Energy Storage Facility in San Diego County on Sept. 18 [2023]. Although fire officials said the blaze was put out in about 45 minutes and extinguished by the site’s internal fire prevention system, businesses and the small number of homes within a quarter-mile of the industrial park where the facility is located were evacuated and shelter-in-place orders were in effect within a half-mile of the site. . . . In September 2022, a Tesla Megapack caught fire at a battery storage facility operated by Pacific Gas & Electric in the Northern California town of Moss Landing. No injuries were reported, but California Highway Patrol closed a section of Highway 1 and redirected traffic away from the site for hours.

Just wait until they have 208,000 MWh worth of these things out there.

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Extreme Weather

Climatologist Rebuts ‘Hottest Year Ever’ Claims: ‘Not Even Close’

May 16, 2025
Bipolar

Antarctic and Arctic Ice Trends Defy Climate Models And Dire Predictions

May 16, 2025
Energy

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Presses Officials On RGGI Carbon Tax

May 16, 2025

Comments 4

  1. Steve Bunten says:
    1 year ago

    These simpletons have no clue about the required installed battery banks necessary. They are told numbers like 1200 MWH and think those a BIG numbers. Even if somehow magically the required storage for 720 hours of power was available (question: Is there enough minerals available to make these batteries while also making the batteries for all the EVs they want us to drive?) there will also need to be even more wind turbines and solar panels to not only provide the necessary electricity to meet demand but also sufficient additional capacity to charge these vast banks of batteries when there isn’t sufficient “green” electricity to power the grid.

    • David Lewis says:
      1 year ago

      Steve, the following youtube video is long, but it carefully and indisputably shows that the minerals needed for the energy transition are not available.

      youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg

      • David Lewis says:
        1 year ago

        Most will not take the time to watch this video so I’ll summarize. There are not enough minerals to drive the desired energy transition. As these mineral are used, it is necessary to use ores that have smaller concentrations. The amount of ores with lower concentrations that need to be mine is greater and it is a logarithmic relationship. As the demand for a commodity increases, the price sky rockets. Even if all of those problems didn’t exist, it takes sixteen years from the first permitting to first materials coming out of a mine. This does not support the time table of the current political ambitions.

  2. SPURWING PLOVER says:
    1 year ago

    new York and California are of course run by the Stupid Jackass Party(Liberal Democrats)Newsom has sawdust for Brains and he is stupider Then a stump

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • city summer sunClimatologist Rebuts ‘Hottest Year Ever’ Claims: ‘Not Even Close’
    May 16, 2025
    Media headlines say it's the hottest year ever—but the real climate story gets buried under data tricks, historical erasure, and narrative control. […]
  • Antarctica sea lionsAntarctic and Arctic Ice Trends Defy Climate Models And Dire Predictions
    May 16, 2025
    New data shows Antarctic ice is growing and Arctic sea ice has stabilized—raising serious questions about climate models and mainstream climate claims. […]
  • power lines electricityPennsylvania Supreme Court Presses Officials On RGGI Carbon Tax
    May 16, 2025
    Pennsylvania's high court grilled state officials about whether the money it wants to collect from the RGGI pact constitutes a fee or a tax. […]
  • german wind farmGerman Wind Slump Triggers Energy Losses, Industry Turmoil
    May 15, 2025
    Germany's wind power output plunged in 2025 as wind speeds hit a 50-year low, slashing profits and sparking doubts about energy reliability. […]
  • Geothermal PlantGeothermal Gold Rush: U.S. Digs Deep To Power the Future
    May 15, 2025
    America is racing to unlock geothermal energy using shale-era tech — and it could power AI, homes, and industry while cutting reliance on China. […]
  • mississippi floodingDebunking The Weather Attribution Theater Playbook
    May 15, 2025
    The media exaggerates climate change flooding in the Mississippi Valley, ignoring peer-reviewed science for so-called attribution science. […]
  • the climate change graph that liedExposed: The Global Warming Graph That Duped The World
    May 15, 2025
    This viral video exposes the truth behind the iconic climate change graph used to justify extreme policies and global warming panic. […]
  • gov kathy hochulTrump Dismantles Biden’s Climate Legacy While New York Chases Green Delusions
    May 14, 2025
    As Trump unravels Biden’s costly climate agenda, New York doubles down on its net zero fantasy despite no federal backing and no workable plan. […]
  • Hurricane WindsThe Media Hype Extreme Weather—But Data Tells A Different Tale
    May 14, 2025
    Despite rising alarm over extreme weather, Americans are safer than ever from natural disasters thanks to better forecasting, buildings, and tech. […]
  • gavel earth money courtTrial Lawyers To Swamp Louisiana Energy Sector With Climate Lawfare After Chevron Verdict
    May 14, 2025
    A $745M verdict in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish kicked off a wave of lawsuits that could gut the state's energy sector under the guise of eco justice. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch