Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson         Red Bluff Daily News 10/28/2025

        Store it? Sure, but at what cost

It seemed a “co-inky-dink” to have a news article about Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power’s industrial-level battery storage of solar electricity, next to last week’s column on our RV solar panel/battery system. A seemingly solid principle: storing electricity when it’s flowing from solar installations, for use during above-normal demand, avoiding economic and personal inconveniences, even catastrophes. But is it practical?

Given California’s aversion to building its own conventional power supplies—natural gas, coal or nuclear—the only way to avoid third-world-type power interruptions is to add expensive storage to the “renewable” power from solar or wind (when it’s sunny or windy, that is).

Such power system build-outs require expensive technology. It’s a costly attempt to compensate for the lack of “scalable” power that simply generates more electricity—as has been the pattern for the entire history of electricity production and use. Please note that home battery storage of solar power has existed and evolved from a shed full of conventional batteries not unlike our RV’s battery compartment, to wall-mounted units found on the Internet, with capacity and storage specs listed—and, of course, the hefty price tag.

What struck me as I read the article, “Battery storage helps California skip Flex Alerts,” was that the cited 3,000% increase, to 15,700 megawatts (MW) of storage, lacked context regarding how much electricity California actually uses. It’s a searchable question for Google: How many megawatts of electricity does California use daily? The average ranges from around 73,000 MW to over 100,000 MW per day.

However, “California's total installed generation capacity was 89,000 MW (89 GW). This indicates that the state's daily energy usage is a significant portion of its total capacity.” Significant portion? It looks more like a systemic shortage to me. Hence, the obsession with adding storage to solar systems that are incapable of being turned on and off, or cranked up for increased demand, i.e. “scalable power.”

The “googled” cost for home battery storage ranges from $10,000 to $25,000 which (unlike the ratepayer subsidies for rooftop solar paid for by folks without the solar panels) is not subsidized. All that for backup batteries that will get you through the night until the sun starts refilling the batteries. Seems like a pretty poor investment for a homeowner, compared to a bi-fuel, sub-$1,000, generator like we have.

However, “Yes, solar batteries can be worth it, especially if you want to save money on energy bills during peak hours, need reliable backup power during outages, or have a time-of-use rate plan.” (Google AI overview). Up to $25,000 worth of “savings”? Me: I don’t think so.

So, is a utility better off going down that path? Near the end, we find: “Battery energy storage is not without challenges, however. Lithium-ion batteries—the most common type used for energy storage—typically have about four to six hours of capacity. It’s enough to support the grid during peak hours as the sun sets, but can still leave some gaps to be filled by natural gas.” “Natural gas” power?

What about a “cost-benefit” analysis? Can’t be done based on that article; the complexities may even confound Google AI. However, all it would take would be to add up the cost of LA DWP’s solar plus the storage batteries, versus the cost of a natural gas or nuclear power plant that would supply a similar amount of electricity.

That electricity would, of course, be “scalable,” capable of meeting demand 24/7, 365 days a year. The solar panels only last so many decades, needing eventual replacement.

My “wild arse guess” is that a single such power plant would cost significantly less than the solar plus battery backup. The article dismisses even asking the question because “the average cost of a new gas plant [is] often on par with four-hour lithium-ion batteries.” That’s not the issue as the batteries are in addition to the fortune already spent on the solar installation. That is what needs to be compared, not the batteries alone vs natural gas power.

Reporters provided no such information; they simply regurgitated the solar industry advocates’ claims. A Google question fills in the blanks. “How much does a 10 MW battery storage system cost?” Answer: … in the range of $2.5 million to $5 million, or even higher.

So, that 15,700 MW storage could cost roughly $4 billion, plus perhaps a billion dollars for the solar field to partially supply the population and charge the batteries; you would still need some natural gas-generated power to back that all up.

If you’ve read this far, you’ll easily see how the economics of “green” energy for large populations is a pipe dream driven by mind-numbing fanaticism over “climate change,” which constitutes a threat approaching nil for the foreseeable future. Logically, we should no longer spend good money on any of it.