California has got good at building giant batteries

Grid demand, data centers, and California’s context

• Some argue AI/data centers will soak up surplus power and help drive storage investment; others note California currently has relatively few large data centers compared to states like Oregon, Virginia, or Iowa.
• Commenters highlight California’s extreme peak demand (heat, AC, large economy) plus wildfire risk as a unique stressor on the grid.

High electricity prices and utility/regulatory structure

• Many posts complain that California’s very high retail rates are driven less by generation costs and more by transmission/distribution, wildfire mitigation, and regulatory design.
• PG&E is repeatedly singled out as unusually expensive versus other Western utilities, with debate over how much is due to wildfire liability, neglected maintenance, geography, and regulatory incentives that reward higher capital spending.
• Municipal utilities (e.g., Sacramento, some city utilities) are cited as evidence that much lower rates are technically possible in-state.
• Several argue the core problem is “bad regulation” and guaranteed profit on rate base, not profit per se; cutting profits alone wouldn’t be enough.

Role and economics of large batteries

• Batteries are seen as valuable for peak shaving (especially evening ramp after solar) and for “non-wires alternatives” that can sometimes avoid expensive grid upgrades.
• Multiple commenters stress 4‑hour lithium batteries are not yet an economical full baseload replacement; they earn their keep in a few high-price hours, not 24/7.
• Live CAISO data is cited: solar often meets or exceeds daytime demand; batteries are now a significant share of evening peak, but gas still supplies a large share annually.

Natural gas, nuclear, and long-duration storage

• Ongoing debate:
  • One side: future grid = renewables + batteries + some gas peakers (cheap to keep idle, flexible).
  • Other side: if gas runs only tiny fractions of the year, fixed costs (plants, pipelines) make it very expensive per kWh, and nuclear could capture high prices during shortfalls without emissions.
• Green hydrogen is mentioned as a potential long-duration, low‑capex storage medium, trading efficiency for cheap bulk capacity.

Battery technologies, manufacturing, and safety

• Discussion of US LFP and other chemistries: some US manufacturers exist, but China (CATL, BYD) is far ahead on cost and scale.
• Sodium‑ion and future chemistries (LMR, sulfur/solid‑state) are seen as potentially transformative for cheap stationary storage.
• Several note LFP is safer than older lithium chemistries, but there are concerns about large residential Li‑ion installations (e.g., garage-mounted packs vs alternatives, BYD blade design, etc.).
• Flow batteries (iron, vanadium) are mentioned; some companies have gone bankrupt, suggesting lithium-based tech is winning economically for now.

Rooftop solar, NEM, and fairness

• Comments note policy shifts (NEM 2 vs NEM 3, proposed high fixed charges) can strongly affect rooftop solar economics and are perceived by some as utilities trying to protect revenue from customer-owned generation.
• Others argue fixed grid costs must be recovered from all users; those still needing grid backup shouldn’t avoid paying their share of transmission/distribution.

Lifecycle and recycling

• Concerns are raised about eventual battery retirement; replies say recycling technology exists and is being scaled, with several US firms named.
• Global recycling rates are described as uncertain but potentially substantial; economics, not physics, are the main barrier.

Language/Meta and skepticism

• A side thread critiques the article’s title (“has got really good”) as ungrammatical; others defend it as standard British English and highlight dialect differences.
• A strongly skeptical commenter frames grid batteries as evidence of scarcity (more expensive, less reliable power), but this view is not widely developed or endorsed in the thread.