Talk:Grid energy storage

Energy B‑class Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'd rather not see this article merged into Energy storage.

Inaccurate information

Mrand - In deleting my edits, you have once more made it appear that Pumped Storage systems can make up for lost generating capacity on windless days. The items now cite a Chinese system with 2% of national capacity and world systems with 3% of world capacity. But this is deliberate nonsense, for these systems only generate for 5 or 6 hours. What matters is kwh (or total demand over time) and if electrical energy was required to cover two days without wind (assuming all renewable energy supply) then those figures quoted would have to be reduced tenfold. In other words, the Chinese system can only cover 0.2% of demand over 2 days - much less than the article makes out.

These paragraphs need to be changed, to reflect the truth. Will you let me do it, without deleting everything again? Narwhal-tooth 11:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broad subject

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)

What is the article about?

I've always understood "grid energy storage" to mean using the grid like a battery, so that you can firm up undependable energy sources like wind and solar. The article spends most of its time talking about storage devices connected to a grid - which is the opposite end of the way I've understood the term. --Wtshymanski 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article needs some serious editing. The content is pretty good, and interesting, but is mostly not about grid energy storage (which is a misnomer, of course, but common).--Gregalton 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of opening

I agree with everything said above. I had difficulty understanding the "grid energy storage" description. Rewrote in bullet format with an opening sentence that explicitly explains GES essentially word-by-word. Mostly rearranged and slightly rephrased prior text, then made more explicit the "time-of-day pricing" that makes GES useful. Scimike 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of work

The article has a lot of mistakes. I fixed the most glaring ones. Most of the rest are about how the grid works and how different energy sources are used. Also, some areas need rewriting, especially the first section (the first section is everything before the "Economics of energy storage"). I think that part of the problem is that people write about how things are in their region. However, the electrical industry varies greatly geographically in the U.S., let alone other countries. For example, in much of the East, coal makes up the majority of the electricity generated, while in much of the West, there are no coal power plants at all. In the Middle East, oil can make up a large percentage of the electricity generated (77% in Egypt in 1999), while the U.S. gets very little of its electricity from oil (about 3%). Natural gas might be used primarily for peaking power in the Eastern U.S. (the article previously said that natural gas plants are peaking plants), but it is used for base load, intermediate (AKA load following) and peaking power in the West. This variation does not mean that an article cannot be written. It just means that the article must be written carefully by knowledgeable people, preferably in collaboration. -- Kjkolb 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]