# Talk:Grid energy storage

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)

Please somebody who knows about this - we need a section on the history and evolution of the latest technology of energy storage,  because many people don't even realise how much the technology has progressed and what difference this can make to the viability of green energy for our societies. 
What is the latest on storing wind and solar and what are the implications for greening the energy supply?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.104.138 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 

Anyone can edit this article and there are plenty of sources - for example https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2024/11/20/grid-scale-storage-is-the-fastest-growing-energy-technology
so please go ahead and improve it Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back @Femke,
My sentence about gas peakers was not very good so I understand why you deleted it. But now we only have peakers mentioned for the minute/hour scale. Shouldn’t they be mentioned instead as a competitor to grid energy storage for the day/week-scale or even seasonal or longer scales? For example here in Turkey the gas generation increases in dry years due to lack of hydropower. Unfortunately although we have a net zero target of 2053 unlike UK we don’t have a serious official plan for how to decarbonise electricity, although I might dig around the think tanks to see whether they suggest grid energy storage or something else. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was planning to add a paragraph about system value of storage duration. That is: say that there is a market now for <1 and 1-4h of storage, that with VRE + nuclear over 60%, there is a market for medium-duration storage, and only at nuclear+VRE > 90%, will there be money in long-duration storage (based on the Schmidt & Staffell book). I'll see if I can bring in peaker plants there too. I believe they do have a cost comparison I could add. There are a lot of academic sources & semi-governmental sources, so I don't think we have to rely on lower-quality think tank sources. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 
I like this. A couple of questions. Right hand box is mislabelled as "generator" whereas it should be "consumer"? (although for water I guess it is correct but maybe too detailed, just not for batteries) Bottom left arrow should be counter-clockwise? Maybe don't need word "excess" as obvious from "charge" going on off? Maybe don't need "current demand"? Could the box under the sun be more obviously solar panels? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Generator" means electric generator. It is generic—the opposite of "too detailed".
Bottom left arrow must lead from Renewable source to Power grid. That is the direction power flows.
"Excess" is needed because "Current demand" draws power to the Power grid; it's the excess that can charge the battery, fill the reservoir, etc. "Excess" and "Current demand" are complimentary.
"Current demand" refers to the instantaneous amount of power demanded by the power grid. Anything more that the Renewable source provides is "excess".
Renewable source should not be limited to solar panels. It is meant to be generic. (I chose solar in the upper left, because wind is invisible.)
—RCraig09 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I meant bottom right arrow but yes for water a generator would be needed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@RCraig09 Is there a tool to translate gifs like the svg one do you know? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I doubt there is any tool to translate GIF text. My GIF is made from 60 successive PNG frames, which are raster graphics that don't recognize what "text" is. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 
My comments below are not a criticism of the original author @Wikichesterdit but perhaps they agree the subject has moved on since 2009. 
I wonder whether the schematic should show some different positions for the storage. For example I understand one idea for preventing a recurrance of the 2015 Turkey blackout is to increase storage at one (or both I am not sure) end of the main east-west transmission line.
Whereas Ukraine might have storage in the west (kind of like the existing diagram) to be safer from attack or maybe distributed I don't know.
And your country might have the storage somewhere else. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The various arrows are inconsistent, and some are wrong. I don't think this graphic should be used, unless substantial changes are made. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it should be removed but some of the ideas incorporated into your animation? For example I like the idea of having house and factory icons to show consumption. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I think some of the labelling (such as Pload) is related to the png I removed. For now would it be easy for you to just delete any wrong or confusing bits rather than removing the whole graphic? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The animation concerns storage, not use by houses and factories. The 2009 graphic requires substantial revision to be correct and consistent. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I plan to start a completely different diagram. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new diagram, shown at right. It simplifies the basic concepts of grid energy storage, and avoids the contradictory and unnecessary arrows in the 2009 diagram. It omits unnecessary elements and clutter. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Nice, that looks much neater! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
One of the things that's probably too difficult to put in a diagram: there are three places in the system you typically find batteries. Collated with renewables/nuclear, somewhere in the network, and at the end-user location. Might make the diagram more informative. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, adding local batteries would add many symbols to a chart that already has nine boxes or icons. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe 3 separate diagrams for different storage locations? Also instead of a box for “power plant” and another for “renewable sources” maybe just one box labelled “power source” or something? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This should definitely be added in my opinion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Previous comments were:

My attempt .... is to show more how it works in the current transition (with solar and wind), rather than in the 1980s with nuclear/coal, which is what figure C implicitly shows. That said, it's much much cleaner than my version, and cleaner than A too.
I can simplify my figure in a few ways:
make it more symmetrical around noon (same evening and morning peak)
Remove nuclear from it algother
Move storage to underneat the graph?
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Femke, the general idea of your chart is excellent. I agree with your suggestion for symmetry (though around ~13:00) and removing nuclear. However, adding "storage" would complicate things and appear to duplicate what "Batteries" already accomplishes. The asymmetry makes chart B appear ~authoritative (quantitative) when it's only a simplified example. Specific suggestions:
Remove "peak demand", but label the black line "Demand" or "Customer demand".
Change "Generation" (on vertical axis) ---> "Power" (because axis also applies to demand).
Change "Charging" ---> "Charge batteries", and change "Batteries" ---> "Discharge batteries". (The shapes would have to be enlarged to fit this text.)
The area for wind should be more even or constant (chart currently suggests stronger winds at night, which I think is generally not true).
The areas of "Charge batteries" and "Discharge batteries" should preferably be equal (so system will work day after day).
Generalize "Gas and hydropower" ---> "Other power sources" (there is also coal, geothermal, etc.).
Change "Daily generation and demand" ---> "Power generation throughout the day" (or similar).
—RCraig09 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Femke: Would you object if I revised your file to form a Version 2 and overwrite your original? I would make changes like those I describe at 18:23 above. I understand you are suffering from long covid and I can save you time and effort. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@RCraig09 If @Femke agrees and if it is not too much extra work while making the changes could you possibly also make it easier for future translators who use
https://svgtranslate.toolforge.org/File:Daily_energy_generation,_battery_discharge_and_demand_sketch.svg
by putting each label in just one box to translate. For example at the moment “wind” and “power” are in 2 boxes whereas there should just be one box as “wind power”. This is because in some languages “power” might come before “wind”. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually in this example it can be simplified to one word “wind”. Below is a better example. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
SVG coding requires different lines to be separated, either in separate text declarations (as I do here) or using tspan declarations (which cause rendering problems on Wikimedia). Either way, the different lines of text are separate. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to change! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I've created a separate graphic so that the two can be compared (at right). I centered solar around 12:00. Winds generally increase after the sun heats the Earth, so I made wind's contribution larger after 12:00, and smallest at night. I also tried to make the battery charging and discharging areas (orange and purple) ~equal. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I’d be happy with either of those being put in now and further improved later.
For example a tweak in B could be to put the “Battery charging” text in the middle and get rid of the single headed arrow. Re wind I am not an expert but I think it differs in different places. You could consider using the word “storage” instead of “battery” and “filling storage” instead of “Battery charging”. That generalizes it to all types of energy storage.
Anyway that is detail - my main point is that they are both good and you should put one in now. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09
Don’t bother if it is tricky but if easy, as above please could it be made easier for translators - for example “Energy flow to and from storage” should be a single item to translate. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

SVG coding requires different lines to be separated, either in separate text declarations (as I do here) or using tspan declarations (which cause rendering problems on Wikimedia). Either way, the different lines of text are separate. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks I did not know that. I just had a read and apparently this problem will be solved in svg version 2.
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/svg-text-layout/9781491933817/ch04.html
says “SVG 2 will support text that wraps to a new line without explicit intervention by the SVG author.“ Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: I don't think that feature is implemented yet, but I have started a conversation at Wikipedia:SVG_help#Recognition_of_inline-size_attribute_in_text_declarations to see if others know its status. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks - there is not much text so I think translators will be able to work around the limitations of current svg Chidgk1 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the graphics in the lead be moved down into the body and the lead to have one or 2 pics of the most common storage, that is water and battery. Or possibly a quartet of pics like some other articles. I feel that would attract people to read more whereas the “grid energy storage flow” graphic in particular might be putting off very young or very casual scrollers. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)