Jump to content

Talk:List of energy storage power plants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length of this list

[edit]

I have a feeling this list (and it's category: Category:Energy storage projects) will become too long and/or are redundant. It should just list lists such as List of pumped-storage power stations which all fall under stored energy. The lists could also be placed in Energy storage.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the idea for this article is wonderful, and I'm really glad to see that it has been started. However, at present the order of the listings is random and awkward; but if sectionalized, even now it would be a long way down to the last subsection. Norty's idea of making this a list of lists therefore makes a lot sense to me. The collection of lists would then well organized, and each category of storage would be easier to find and use. Coastwise (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree - instead of listing the many projects, we need to createa series of wikipages similar to List of pumped-storage power stationsCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref></ref></ref>, then show those lists in a table here. If somebody has the knowledge and energy to begin creating such wikipages, please volunteer. In the meantime, does anybody object to removing the pumped-storage projects from the present page, and adding a note to the heading indicating that such projects may be found on the other page? --Spray787 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the list of pumped-storage power stations Â⟨//⟩mentioned above is quite abbreviated and uses a different format; further it is mainly a list of pumped storage powerplants that have articles in Wikipedia, whereas this list is meant to be significantly more comprehensive and to provide concise information up front. Since greater numbers of energy storage projects are coming on line, I do however agree with the earlier suggestion up top that this article be transitioned into a "list of lists".
The new proposed format would have this page show categories of energy storage, with each category of storage then listing the top 10 (or top 15 or 20) projects, rated by Total Storage Capacity (capacity x duration, expressed in MWh). Then the remaining projects of lesser capacities would be listed on separate article pages, with links provided to those pages. Thus, this page would have several lists, such as: 'List of the Top 10 Pumped Hydro Storage projects', 'List of Top 10 Battery Storage projects', etc....
In order to achieve this, a new column is needed to provide the 'Total Storage Capacity'. That's valuable info, as a site built to provide 200 MWh of power is obviously more important than one producing only 0.5 MWh, even though they may both provide the same current of 20 MW back to the grid while generating. Duration time is the obvious factor there. After adding the new column to allow for the rating, additional spillover article pages can be created, and then this article can be reformatted to reflect only the top 10 (or 15 or 20) projects in each category. Any volunteer help available? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list is too long as it stands. Couldn't it be split in three, into operational, under construction, and proposed projects, like most of our energy lists? Shouldn't the most notable projects be mentioned in the lead, as we normally do. I think this would help to orientate the reader. Johnfos (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable would be a mine field, each of the tech used attracts users who will find their tech most notable, better to do the most recent project on top. a operational, under construction, and proposed projects split into 3 lists sounds good. Mion (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a start on identifying most notable have now included those projects with a separate article in the lead. Please revise and expand as necessary. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler division would be into U.S. and RestOfWorld lists. I count 113 U.S. projects and 68 for the RoW. RoW could be listed in country order. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on storage categories

[edit]

I think the present category of "Cool Water, Hot Water or Ice Thermal Storage" should be split into two like these: (1) "Thermal Energy Storage: short-term (heat or cold)" and (2) "Thermal Energy Storage: inter-Seasonal (heat or cold)". At present, the listed thermal storages that are listed are all short-term storage. There also are many existing seasonal thermal energy storages (STES, actually inter-seasonal despite that common term for them) globally. Short-term storages are primarily used for peak-shaving, while STES is used for gathering waste or natural energy when it is available and holding it for use when needed in a different season. As an example, see Drake Landing Solar Community (in Alberta) for which solar heat provides 97% of the annual space heating as enabled by STES. A sample list (Germany only, six years old now) is on page 3 here. No time to add to the list in the article now, but I can some other time. Coastwise (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coastwise, the section on 'Common types was meant to reflect unique categories of energy storage. I've revised the organization of that section by adding a Further Information hatnote that directs readers to the STES article for further information. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong.

[edit]

'Grid Storage' should be removed from the list of common types of storage. 70.171.44.124 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)BGriffin[reply]

Hi BGriffin, your point was noted, and the item has been moved to the top as a hatnote. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of energy storage projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of energy storage projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?

[edit]

This list puts together energy storage forms that are not comparable. All pumped-storage hydroelectric power plants should be automatically inserted in the list, but only very few are listed. Pumped hydro accounts for practically all electric grid storage worldwide. Compared to hydro, almost any other project is insignificant. How can we list them together? I propose to remove all pumped storage projects and just refer to the List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, possibly adding an estimation of storage capacity in that page. We can keep just battery storage and the other minor storage technologies in this page. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving out the pumped storage. I agree they are sufficiently different to warrant being handled differently. However, I must strongly disagree with your characterization "Compared to hydro, almost any other project is insignificant.", and I think the reasons are important to a clear understanding of the role that storage plays in the grid.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with any edit, just clarifying a potential issue!
For most purposes, you only need to shift power for a matter of hours at most. Demand peaks, generation coming on-line or off-line, variations in renewable outputs, etc. The role is to stabilize the grid, matching demand and supply. It isn't a matter of saving up for a rainy day. This is why you consistently see projects rated in units of power, not energy capacity. It's how much power can be removed from, and added to, the grid.
That's not to say that the vast capacity of hydro doesn't have additional value! And it will have greater value as we move more toward wind and solar, where averaging across days, weeks, or even seasons will bring additional robustness and reduce the need for over-capacity (similar to how peaking plants are over-capacity).
But we should take care to not give the impression that battery systems are not major contributors to the storage capability. 4 hours of 100 MW battery do the same job of stabilization on a day-to-day basis as 100 MW of pumped hydro, with the additional advantage of being able to respond more quickly to changes.
Presently, while battery storage is growing at a rapid rate, it is still a tiny fraction of the pumped hydro, even measured in power capability rather than total storage. People often fail to understand the huge role that storage, in the form of pumped hydro, has played for over a century. And in that time, we've built, almost unnoticed, a vast inventory (though we could always use more).
The total capacity is important, but so much less urgently so than the ability to adsorb and add power dynamically, that the total MWh often goes without mention (usually assuming 4).
But we need both, and as you say, they are energy storage forms that are not really comparable. There's overlap in their roles, certainly, but it was confusing to see them in the same list.
Bob Kerns (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Depending on the specific need, storage capacity or power can be more or less important. As you said, batteries today are mostly used for frequency regulation, as they can be much faster than conventional generators. Frequency regulation is a high value service that is particularly suitable for batteries, but there is limited need for it, as the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia has shown (see [1]). Batteries are mostly uneconomical for shifting load in bulk because of their relatively short duration and high prices. The largest batteries today are in the order of 100 MW, which is considered relatively small for pumped hydro projects, which can be in the order of GW. Of course here I'm only talking about power capacity. In terms of storage capacity pumped hydro projects are orders of magnitude larger. But even only talking about power, there is still a full order of magnitude difference. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalian VFB - UET / Rongke Power - what happened with that

[edit]

The article mentions the plan for the world's largest battery, at Dalian VFB - UET / Rongke Power. But info is pre-construction, and it was supposed to be finished in 2018. Trying to find later info, but not succeeding. Was that project finished? John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List Desperately Needs Year Information

[edit]

Without being able to sort this list by year (year of commissioning), the list lacks the 4th dimension which is arguably most informative to folks looking to understand this topic area, and how things are developing. Could someone with the requisite technical ability please add this as a column? DMSchneider (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMSchneider: agree, I added the year column. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to raise threshold to 10 MW/10 MWh

[edit]

The list is getting quite long, and with the very fast development of battery storage, it has become impossible to list all projects up to 1 MW scale. There are just way too many in the world. I propose to raise the threshold for inclusion to at least 10 MW or 10 MWh, as has been done in other energy related lists (such as in List of photovoltaic power stations). This would remove about 30 entries, mostly US installations (that naturally get more coverage in English), thus also helping to address the bias towards the US. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, raising the threshold to 10 MW/MWh or even higher to 20 MW/MWh is reasonable.Jklamo (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Bath County Pumped Storage Station with Fengning Pumped Storage Power Station

[edit]

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station is now the largest pumped storage battery?

Meekohi (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_energy_storage_power_plants&oldid=1200412032"