(Oops, I hit the “post comment” button too soon: ... continued post:)

Because one-way broadcasting of news and content is far more “cost efficient” than the Internet. You may want to rethink your idea of “cost”.

Stefano, its all about costs.  When cost effective storage is developed or available—(for example pumped hydro now), it will be used anytime it is profitable.  If you follow the various thermal storage technologies in development you would find none are there just yet. On the other hand pumped hydro works as long as you have inexpensive water, elevation gain and water storage available.

Stefano, Steve,

I would argue that the the renewable companies (solar PV, solar thermal, wind) are not seriously considering storage because they don’t have to. Regulations are set so that the system operators and utilities have to take renewable energy in whatever form and whatever time it is produced - the power producers are not required to use storage to smooth it out or match demand. This is different from conventional power sources, which have specific capacity requirements.

These regulations were put in place to encourage more renewable development, and everyone else (ultimately us, the ratepayers) bears the cost of the intermittency of these sources. Ultimately, this will likely have to change to get to very high levels of renewable penetration.

Just my $.02

Steve and , thanks for you reply

@ Steve

I think that you are right, it’s all about costs.
Anyway, while BrightSource mya have not found yet a cost effective solutions, other companies are already building plants with thermal storage. Take Abengoa, for instance.

@ Cdog

About regulations: the situation it’s not exactly like you describe, at least in Europe.
As a renewable energy producer you have the right to have your energy retired by the grid operatoer, but you are not compelled to.
You may have a more active sales policy and try to sell electricity at higher prices, thus increasing your margins.
And, like Steve says, “peak power production is much more valuable than nighttime power from say wind”.

This sounds to me quite strange, from all I’ve been recently reading about this topic.

Most of the documents I’ve been reading state that thermal storage may be the single most important innovation that can lead CSP to become competitive.

For, instance, DLR claims (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/events/doc/tamme_dlr_storage.pdf, ex fig. p. 5) that using thermal storage may lower the levelized cost of energy produced by the plant.

I think It’s a matter of capex, mainly: It may be that Bright Source hasn’t yet found a solution cheap enough to reach a financial sense.

It would be interesting to listen to some qualified opinions.

Cdog, actually many states offer much higher rates to buy baseload renewable power, and time of day significantly effects price they pay; peak power production is much more valuable than nighttime power from say wind.

In my mind, storage only makes sense at the building level, not at utility scale. Imagine every building in the grid having a storage system. The grid would only have to sustain average load. No peaks. But utilities hate this idea because it is disruptive to their business model. They want everyone to depend on them.

Peter, no disrespect, but your proposition is ridiculous from a cost perspective not to mention, a little tin-foil-hat paranoid; storage cost are WAY too high, added construction costs required to meet fire codes and added maintenance costs make your proposition “cost-impossible” during the foreseeable future.

My proposition is ridiculous?

Did you notice that a month ago we had a major ice storm that left a million or more people without power for two weeks? What’s so “tin-foil-hat” about that?

By your logic, we should never had invented the Internet and we should still be getting our brains programmed by the same big 5 media companies.

Scott,

Batteries are really expensive *now*. Don’t forget the time element

If we just mandated utilities to purchase excess kilowatts produced by homeowners, and small producers, as apposed to net metering, it would go a long way to spur all forms of realtively small ” green ” generation, nation wide.  Running your electric clothes dryer at night ( off peak) should cost less to consumers, but without time-of- use metering their is no insentive to do so.
This simple change in our energy consumption would save more money than all the solar, wind, and Hydro combined.  It would also be much much cheaper.  The old saying that a kilowatt saved is the cheapest kilowat surely applies.

Storage from solar plants is limited to a dozen hours or so, enough to make quite a difference in
the price it can command. However, if California has followed its normal practice of screwing things up, they probably require the same price to be paid for green electricity regardless of whether it’s worth anything. Most green electricty has little value - those windmills, solar PVs, etc. are useless for meeting peak demand and thus of no value when power demands increase , which will happen every year for the next few decades. Build a million windmills and you’ll still need to build reliable power generators next year.  Even with storage, there are many days when the sun doesn’t shine enough so there will be no juice, regardless of storage capacity.
Green energy is , except for hydroelectric and some solar thermal, dumb energy. It has no place in an advanced civilization. Nuclear power is the only way to go. Even Obama understands that. And he hasn’t the ability to understand anything.

He is not saying its a bad idea because it would not be helpful, only that noone is going to pay for it. Batteries are really expensive.

Also storage is still useful for peaking plants as the peak hours are offset from the sun by about 2-3 hours.  People in Arizona still use AC in the summer when the sun goes down.  Same in Southern CA.  The time of day pricing in CA extends past sundown as I recall.  That being said it all depends on how much it costs if it is useful for a peaker plant.