"East of San Antonio in Bexar County, 500 electric vehicle batteries at the end of their automotive lives will soon be repurposed to provide energy storage for Texas’ electric grid, a California company, B2U Storage Solutions, announced last week.
The batteries, housed in 21 cabinets the size of shipping containers, create a second life for the technology made from critical minerals, including lithium, nickel and cobalt, for another eight years, said Freeman Hall, co-founder and CEO.
Once the site is built and in operation later this year, the batteries will charge when there is an excess of renewable energy production on the grid and the cost of power is cheap. The Texas facility will have a total capacity of 24 megawatt hours.
So the two solar developers purchased 300 Nissan Leaf batteries. The carmaker had run into a powertrain warranty issue with the world’s first mass-market EV, as the range they promised in the lease with the customer fell short."
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/06/texas-ev-batteries-electricity-storage-power-grid/
In this case the batteries had plenty of charging cycles left because the cars were defective. However, more modern batteries are actually lasting longer than the life span of the typical car. So, battery recycling can be delayed and the batteries repurposed for grid support for years.
Texans would be so angry to know they are now using renewable energy. ENERGY IN RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES IS FOR LIBERALS
I'm pretty sure that Texans are aware they are using renewable energy. Since their state produces the most renewable energy in the US.
"Texas produced 184.39 million megawatt hours of electricity using renewable energy sources."
https://www.fool.com/research/renewable-energy-by-state/
People generally know we have wind and solar in Texas, but they tend to think of it as a tiny contribution. Few Texans have any idea that we're about to drop below 50% of electricity coming from fossil fuels (roughly 1 year away).
https://preview.redd.it/xs8ircsh11cg1.png?width=1343&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d9a1983472182d245b30f9e6dfb909b138f240a
To be fair, there are more democrats than Republicans in Texas, so maybe this shift shouldn't be that much of a surprise.
No, it's mainly because Republicans will happily profit off of government subsidy whenever possible.
[removed]
Keep it civil.
So what's destabilizing the grid?
I'd assume that solar and wind energy generation aren't something we can control.
Sometimes they produce more than it's needed; without batteries, the power is discarded.
Sometimes, they produce less than it's needed; we'll need to rely on other sources to avoid blackouts.
With batteries: excess power is stored, and when solar and wind isn't there, we draw from stored energy from batteries.
And how much energy is actually being stored in Texas right now? how much does the installation in this post store? And when it charges does it really only store energy from wind and solar?
It must be enough excess for them to be doing it in the first place lol.
Wonder at cost also. That has to be passed down to customers.
For Texas? Exemption from federal regulations mostly
How will unregulated battery installations help?
Uh, by charging when there’s excess renewable energy production?
So the renewables are destabilizing the grid?
“Oh so you hate pancakes?”
He’s the mod of /r/nuclear and spends his days attempting to sow discord in renewable conversations. Expect talking in circles to a brick wall without a shred of dignity.
See this 500+ comment long thread:
https://reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1polome/the_cheapest_form_of_energy/nug7emn/
Yeah, I picked up that he’s arguing in bad faith
Why are you stalking me across reddit?
[removed]
[removed]
Be like what?
And no, I'm not paid to post here or anywhere else.
No, the lack of interconnect is destabilizing the grid. Renewables and batteries increase grid stablility.
Wind and solar are less stable than other sources.
Ignore reality all you like, this is a fact.
Sure wind and solar are intermittent but batteries stabilize the grid, so what's your point?
Why introduce instability that then needs to be fixed?
Because the solar and wind generates cheap electricity with very low CO2 emissions.
You are so weird
Why?
Because they're dispatchable load and also dispatchable power. Incredibly helpful for grid stability.
How much stability are they providing?
https://preview.redd.it/fs480mkt5ecg1.png?width=779&format=png&auto=webp&s=865d00bffeeaff57367ab6fc8ee268a5d54b1a3b
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-TEX-ERCO/live/fifteen_minutes
Clicking the link, a bit over 3GW of instantaneous stability right this second currently with another 7GW of instantaneous surge capability.
Not small at all.
Don't forget to pop into the FCAS market for Texas, where actual stability is priced in and bid for. Batteries in that market are providing a super majority of stability.
Here's the Ancillary Services market in Texas last year, largely filled by batteries.
https://preview.redd.it/75dm9hbw6ecg1.png?width=898&format=png&auto=webp&s=b57c5958d7cc0c3e593ef23e06e7ba73485e4fbf
And here's the pricing efficiencies that that stability provides:
https://preview.redd.it/2t4chv047ecg1.png?width=977&format=png&auto=webp&s=742401062e3443cbb4cbafe0fdde1d2d57386ee2
Batteries give you regulate up, regulate down, ECRS, and spinning reserve for free just as part of installing them. No extra costs.
Whereas other generations need to spend money to alter their huge mass to provide them, or incur costs of not running optimally (aka spinning reserve).
Each battery we install also means we need less non-spinning reserves, since each battery essentially provides free spinning reserve.
I'm not saying that batteries are useless.
However they will not compensate for the troughs in wind/solar production without other sources charging them.
If you think that's possible please provide a working example of a grid, no matter how small, that runs 100% wind/solar/storage 24x7x356.
It's obviously possible.
There's just not really a reason to do it, since most places also have hydroelectricity. Why would they shut off all of their hydro? That would be downright silly. What would be the point of excluding other carbon-free electricity sources that already exist!?!?! Just demolish them for fun? What a weird state you're trying to envision.
And I'm saying that grid scale batteries are fairly new and have only been started to be deployed at scale over the last handful of years. But they have proven themselves, and can obviously provide stable long term power. It will just take time to install them.
We went from installing <1GW in most states a year less than 5 years ago to installing >5GW a year in many states and now are scaling to >10GW in individual states.
Once they stop fully scaling, then we can have a discussion about what they can and can't do -- otherwise you're comparing a scaled system that took 70+ years to build against one that's still being built out right now. It's an obviously disingenuous take.
So obvious that you can't point to an example of it ever obtaining at any scale.
This like an anti-vaxxer saying it's obvious that vaccines kill people, but not being able to point to it ever happening.
I literally pointed to an example I own, lol.
Small scale, but that’s technically “any scale”.
As I’ve said before, why the fuck would anyone blow up their hydro dams or existing other point plants? Because you’ve decided “it’s about time” that is should have happened by now? What a convincing reason, lol.
Hey guys, Redditor says you should shoot your dick off and blow up your hydro dams. Why haven’t you done it yet?!?!
It's nothing like an anti-vaxxer. Go back to r/nuclear.
It's normal. There are always loads coming and going, generators unexpectedly failing, etc. Something needs to respond to these changes quickly to keep supply and demand balanced.
What's happening here isn't that they recently started needing to stabilize the grid. What's happening is that they always needed to stabilize the grid, and now they're switching from other technologies to using batteries for that stabilization.
Lots of info here:
https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2024/10/07/ERCOT-Ancillary-Services-Study-Final-White-Paper.pdf
https://preview.redd.it/8q2hpdqrv0cg1.png?width=1141&format=png&auto=webp&s=27d3bc48c2e7c9c69f8eff5fc90b4fef38af247f
Oh, so there must be an example of a 100% wind/solar/storage grid somewhere. Can you point to one? They’re stable enough for that, right?
Can you point to a 100% nuclear grid?
No one is calling for that.
And noone is calling for a 100% solar/wind grid.
The best grids use a diverse set of power sources that complement eachother, dependant on the location.
Whether it's nuclear or hydro or geothermal or batteries or even CCS backed Gas, all of them can back modern renewables.
Wind and solar have both had an incredible last 2 decades, and are growing almost exponentially, thanks to their improvements. It is clear to anyone that if you want cheap electricity, they are going to be at the core. But expecting them to do it alone is just as silly as expecting nuclear to do it alone.
Oh, the nations of Germany and Australia don’t really mean it when they they want 100% RE?
That's an entirely different claim. Aiming for 100% renewables is a great idea. I just outlined a bunch of other technologies to use with solar and wind.
So they’re lying about actually wanting to achieve 100% RE. They’re just “aiming for it” and will always use fossil fuel?
That was really your take away?
Why are you so anti renewable?
Kodiak Island. Was there a bit ago, was told it was 100% renewable; mostly wind (and water, thanks for the correction; doesn't change the point or claim at all).
Had no power outages while I was there.
No point engaging. He's the top mod of /r/nuclear and spends his days sowing discord in renewable conversations when his precious is being threatened by reality. Expect talking in circles to a brick wall without a shred of dignity.
His currents goalposts are, when pushed:
I know.
I’m just kind of clowning on him for fun at this point.
Whenever I see him around, I know that I’ll be able to twist him into pretzels. And do so for fun sometimes.
He got shit scared when I showed him this 2017 project. Went on a maniac spree desperately trying to discredit it through several rounds of edits combing through the internet archive.
https://www.eon.com/en/innovation/innovation-frontline/success-stories/success-story-simris.html
Yea, there are lots of things happening now that 5 or 10 years ago he would have used as the “show me an example” benchmark. He will just keep moving the goalposts.
I find it particularly funny because I used to be a nuclear engineer. I know way more about all of this than him.
My signature is on some of the drawings for Vogtle.
I am a big fan of Kairos and a few other companies.
I’m just also a big fan of Solar, wind, batteries, enhanced geothermal, etc.
He’s just a tool.
Great that you support nuclear too.
Yea, no shit sherlock.
I am abjectly disgusted with our nuclear industry in the US. It’s literally the worst, and why I don’t think that nuclear can currently scale in any effective matter in the US.
I hope Kairos and others can shake it up some, but most SMR companies are just yet more paper reactors by people looking to cash in and no plans to actually build a reactor. There’s only a few that I have any hope for.
Scared? That you tried to claim a failed project was a valid example?
No. :)
I love the insanity trying to claim that a soon 10 year old pilot project that ran its' course and concluded as a banging success is a "failed project".
Just take the L man.
It did fail. By your own admission.
Do you have links to generation data?
Just because there's 100% RE for a short time doesn't mean it's a 100% RE grid. The best example of this is El Hierro, Spain. They claim 100% RE, but this is the reality:
https://preview.redd.it/zun099nv7ecg1.png?width=773&format=png&auto=webp&s=41b1ee3610db9eb04456fd9e893a0d2668a807d4
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/ES-CN-HI/3mo/daily
Best I can see is this article that claims "almost 100% renewable" and it seems to have been "almost" since 2017 at least, with Terror Lake Hydro plant providing most of the power: https://www.uaf.edu/acep-blog/powering-up-the-nations-second-largest-island-with-100-renewable-energy.php
That's not "100% renewable; mostly wind." Try to not make false claims. :)
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/wind-power/offshore/how-wind-and-hydro-power-plus-energy-storage-are-paving-the-way-to-100-percent-renewables-in-alaska/
Powering up the nation's second largest island with 100% renewable energy | From the Grid
"over 99%" is basically 100% and proving the ability to be stable at 100%.
Pre-emptive "Hydro is storage" claim by me. They don't let water out of the dam, they decide to store it when needed rather than continually run it.
Sure, they conserve hydro resources, but hydro and diesel are the ultimate backups.
Not 100% wind/battery.
Not 100% RE.
When you have massive hydro capacity compared to load you can do this.
Does Texas have massive hydro capacity compared to load?
Does any grid lacking massive hydro capacity run 100% RE+storage?
Hey, look at those moving goalposts! Wow, watch them get so far off into the distance.
You asked if a grid of RE-only could be stable. I simply mentioned a place I visited that said they were a grid on 100% renewables while also being stable. Technically they're at "over 99%", which to me is enough to make the claim.
I never said shit-all about Texas having hydro or any of these other tangents you just brought up out of nowhere to try and use as a defense.
You told me not to make inaccurate claims and pointed out an incorrect claim I made, and I edited my comment thanking you for the correction.
Let's see if you are mature enough to do the same, or if you'll just not admit that I provided the data that you asked for with the caveat I stated up front about hydro storage.
No, that's the goalpost I've always had. If 100% RE folks want to make claims that wind/solar/BESS can run a grid that's great. It's well past time that there's a physical demonstration of that.
This thread is about batteries on ERCOT. ERCOT does not have significant hydro, right? Do you believe that ERCOT could run 100% wind/solar/battery?
Ok, so if not moving goalposts, then it's a massive strawman. No one claims 100% RE + currently economic BESS is feasible for most places. Nor is that relevant for whether it's economic to install projects like this.
They could.
(future tense).
Would they? Meh, maybe, maybe not. Enhanced geothermal near the new mexico border looks really promising. Maybe some fusion too if that pans out.
There's not technical reason why they can't, imho. And you've never proposed one.
I have a cabin in the forest that has been 100% solar + battery for about 3 years now. Even electric heat; I curtail a lot of solar, but I haven't been below 50% charge on the batteries even after a week of snow while being up there. You just...add more, lol. It's not hard. It just takes time and effort.
Why aren't they currently? Oh, I dunno, because the last 100 years exist? Things take time to get swapped out.
Grid also might not be sized to meet peak demands in general. Especially with climate change when it gets unusually cold or crazy hot demand spikes and they might not be able to get emergency power plants up in time (start ups take time. It's not just flipping on a switch)
Believe it or not grid operators plan ahead.
They do but weather isn't always predictable and if a plant is in the middle of a shutdown for repairs timing can be really bad.
Also it's generally cheaper for corporations to just not care about peak demand and let brown outs happen
So wind and solar are unpredictable and can have a destabilizing effect on the grid?
I wouldn't call it destabilizing
No point engaging. He's the top mod of /r/nuclear and spends his days sowing discord in renewable conversations when his precious is being threatened by reality. Expect talking in circles to a brick wall without a shred of dignity.
His currents goalposts are, when pushed:
So why is BESS specifically needed for stabilization?
You are twisting words.
Wind and solar don't cause destabilizing of the grid. Wind and solar paired with energy storage improve the grid and stabilize it.
It can be destabilized by spikes in demand, bad weather ect. Adding energy to the grid doesn't cause destabilizing
The BESS is stabilizing.
Not the wind and solar.
Okay? The wind and solar still don't "destabilize" anything.
That's like saying a bottle of water caused you to be thirsty. I you might notice you're thirsty from seeing one but you needed the water anyway eventually.