Interesting conundrum. '.sufficient to power 329,000 homes for more than two hours'.

So in reality, how long does it take to fully charge the battery bank? Not to 80% but to 100% charged.

Many facts are left out to make this sound wonderful but the charge needed to recharge will add further load to the grid and two hour is not a long time for a supply voltage. I fear this is BS baffling brains. As power cuts to homes for two hours is not enough time for catastrophic failures or losses. It's just an inconvenience for a while.

If it was to an industry then two hours can be costly in may ways. So how long does it take to charge up to 100% to gain two hours of household load? And how long will the 100% charge last when being cycled. i.e. what is the life span of the batteries before they need to replace them? Five years maybe. The how do they recycle them or dump them? And at what cost?

This would mainly be used to reduce the max demand on existing plants and enable elimination of coal plants that are used for this purpose.Demand load balancing has a much larger effect than simply reducing of usage.

Two hours is not enough to run many homes full-tilt,but enough to supply power to homes that have life-sustaining medical equipment.

The main reason for power failure in disasters is destruction of distribution systems and it will not make any difference what type of power you have if you cannot get it to the people.

I recall it was clearly stated that this was to supply homes. However, it would not reduce max demand in any efficient way for any length of time. Not unless the indusrty closed down much plant and surplus equipment not needed for actual production.

As for the infirmed, the smart way is to install back up batteries in homes. This can then be utilised only for the life saving equipment, and maybe boiling the kettle for a cuppa and it could certainly last longer than 2 hours. Tesla has Smart Walls for this use. Surely in the USA this is far cheaper and uses less land space, less of an eyesore to public and more efficient and versatile than a fixed 2hr backup and a substation?

This would then allow the utilities to fix their downed poles and wires and damaged cables, as this is not a 2 hour job replacing poles and wires re-jointing cables.

So there is a recycle saving for used solar panels and electric car batteries,

10 x 200Ah batteries $1500.00 used

5 x 250W solar panels $1000.00 used

Consumables $100.00

$2600.00

15000 infirmed people $39m. No legal costs, no land purchasing, no risk if you loose power, no maintenance costs, no enviro involvement, no hassles, quick easy installations, creating new jobs. Reduce waste costs and land fill area and cost. And much great PRO on looking after the infirmed and no extra land being taken up by utilities and no further blight on the landscape.

And the informed being secure in knowing their machines will keep them alive for a while longer if their is a power cut or load shedding. They could even keep their cell phones charged up for emergency use too. And all that waste was just recycled and now 'fit for purpose'.

By the time one adds the incidental costs not shown, I'm sure the savings would be far higher. Worth a thought. And ten batteries and five panels is planning for over the top. At sensible 2nd hand values, but no doubt as it could be life saving, the price would be prostituted to the highest value.

The article is based on the FPL press release, cited therein. The example of 2 hours for 300,000+/- homes was just that, enabling the average reader to put the size of the installation into easily understood terms. The intent of the facility is to balance the always varying output of the adjacent PV fields against the customer's expected uses. They are also installing 1000 charging stations for electric vehicles, and much more.

You raise a valid point about having the solar generation and storage localized at each home, which avoids the problems you stated regarding reliability of the distribution network, etc. Such installations are sold and installed many times over. However, there is a need to maintain these installations and ensure they integrate well into the electrical grid (or convert the owners and their properties into stand-alone users who have no connection to the grid). By putting the maintenance and reliability into the existing infrastructure of the utility company, which already has had considerable experience in solar and related fields, the individual's need to maintain one more thing about the home is avoided. The infirm and many others do not have to face a sudden surprise when they find their own system has failed at the most inopportune time.

Balance the different characteristics of the power generation sources--solar, gas or diesel combined cycle plants, wind, hydrogen, heat storage, batteries, etc. The LONG view suggests that our lives and activities have changed radically from what they were 3-10 generations ago, due to changes in energy, distribution, etc. They will change more in the next 3-10 generations. Hopefully these changes will be incremental and not catastrophic. I believe the PV/battery approach is a good way to be incremental.

--JMM

Maybe I did not make it clear. I meant just having the infirmed folks utilising the back up for the medical equipment they might need, but certainly not networking this into a grid. That just complicates everything.

They can have a stand alone system just for their medical needs. Dialysis machine, electric tooth brush, etc. So that removes the need for much maintenance and I am sure these folks who depend on their med equipment working will know if its lacking in an instant, long before it fails.

If they really needed 10 x 200Ah batteries then they should be in a hospital in a room full of life support devices.

They were just random figures from the ether, but it would be feasible and a good recycling process and very inexpensive. It removes a risk to the utility supplier who should be grateful to gain a grace period of time for repair works.