As someone who's interested in all this, I agree it would be nice to have more precision around capacity. Especially as it relates to longer term storage. But! In this context, output is more salient than capacity. You'll see a lot of stories about grid-scale storage that use output. (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/854999 offers a fuller explanation than what I'll give here.)
This is because grid operators are most concerned with immediate power output. They need to keep the grid balanced, and if they need a gigawatt to do it, it doesn't matter if the batteries have 100 GWh if they can only discharge at 1 MW.
Since the batteries described here are used primarily to handle the peak of the duck curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve) it seems like 4 hours of capacity (the article mentions that the lithium-ion batteries have 4-6 hours of capacity) is sufficient to get over that difficult hump.
Anyway, to get back to your question of how many GWh, if we assume that the batteries have 4 hours of storage, then we're looking at around 4h * 15.7 GW = 63 GWh of battery capacity. (4 hours is what I've seen as standard for lithium-ion, conservative if the article's claim of "four to six hours" is true.)
Output is just one factor, capacity is another. If you're building a solar plant with the assumption that storage will make it provide consistent energy output throughout the day, then the difference between 12 hours of storage and 2 hours of storage is enormous.
You might want to clarify that the document you're linking to does NOT have the words "Biden-Harris FTC" in it, but simply that the action was taken by that Administration's FTC. In fact, the article doesn't mention Biden or Harris in any capacity.
The salient point is that "Trump-Vance" is being stamped on everything in an effort to build the Admin's brand.
My immediate reaction to the title was "Bezos must not have written a large enough check to the library fund" or whatever else the orange man wants funded. yeah yeah, Bezos isn't in charge blah blah. Someone from the smile logo didn't write a check.
This seems like a case of tunnel vision and confirmation bias, the nasty combo that sycophantic LLMs make easy to fall prey to. Someone gets an idea, asks about it, and the LLM doesn’t ask about the context or say that doesn’t make sense, it just plays along, “confirming” that that the idea was correct.
I’ve caught myself with this a few times when I sort of suggest a technical solution that, in hindsight, was the wrong way to approach a problem. The LLM will try to find a way to make that work without taking a step back and suggesting that I didn’t understand the problem I was looking at.
This particular bribe was reported on over a year ago, when Trump was raising money from oil execs for his campaign. It seems likely that the overall push against clean energy (pushing for dispatchable generation, canceling tax credits for green energy projects) is related.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-exec...
Rivian execs gave money to the Biden/Harris campaign and their causes, and they gave Rivian a ~6.6 billion dollar taxpayer subsidized loan. The idea an executive might have personal political opinions is not enough to claim it's corruption.
It feels like your argument is they will have to compete in the free market instead of just being given free money, which isn't corruption. Corruption would be giving companies 7B in grants through the EPA or 6.6B dollar loans through the DOE. Letting people plan on a fair playing field isn't corruption
Yep, the path for this official recognition was cleared by the executive order two years ago that allowed for hearing aids to be sold over the counter!
At the very least, spinning off individual businesses prevents self-preferencing. Google can right now leverage its dominance in one area to increase market share in another. For example, if I load my GMail account in a browser other than Chrome, Google will "helpfully" suggest that I change my default browser to the "recommended" Chrome. This behavior makes it harder for upstarts to get a foot in the door across a wide range of products — by removing these synergies we reduce the grip Google has across all its lines of business.
I suspect the AT&T example may be more similar to the current situation than you're thinking. AT&T wasn't just the network, they also manufactured the phones themselves through subsidiary Western Electric. They leveraged their monopoly in phone service to drive customers toward leasing their phones, similarly (if more aggressively) to how Google drives customers from one product to another. Whether this remedy will be so far-reaching beyond search I don't know, but in the abstract there would be benefits to splitting up the conglomerate.
People don't realize, you couldn't just buy a phone - you had to use the one provided by your monopoly phone company.
It was only after breakup that there could exist an ecosystem of phone peripherals like answerphones, direct-attach modems (this is why acoustic couplers were a thing), cordless phones, etc.
I’m frankly shocked that Google continues to think the juice on that annoying, constant Chrome-in-Gmail popup is worth even a marginal additional anti-trust attention squeeze.
It's worth a lot. People regularly fall out of Google's funnel and they must get them back. You think every user that switches to Firefox is a user Google's willing to walk away from?
> Whenever I want to buy anything, I check Amazon first. 9 times out of 10 it's the same price as every other retailer with the added benefit of free shipping and free returns.
That's the problem! The issue is that Amazon forces sellers to raise their prices elsewhere, so that Amazon is the best deal for a shopper. But if Amazon didn't have the power to do that (if it didn't have a monopoly as the gateway to online shopping) then other retailers would be able to lower their prices.
That's the "tax" referred to in the article. By inflating prices across the board, but still ensuring that they're the least expensive option, Amazon retains customers and increases profits. Individual consumers choose it because it's the best deal, but the system as a whole loses out because prices are higher than they "should" be.
> No surprises here. Come what may, Amazon has always strived to lower costs
Maybe it's just a goal to reduce costs, but it seems likely that this is a response to Google's introduction of AlloyDB, a Postgres-compatible database competing with Aurora that is advertised as having "no...opaque I/O charges". I doubt Amazon was feeling generous.
I think you missed why I am failing to understand this one. The full context there is:
> If I earn a dollar and don't spend it, it results in a lower GDP than if I spent it. Thus income can not be treated as equivalent to GDP.
It's the second part that I don't understand. Those two sentences read to me like: "Spending decisions impact GDP, therefore income is not equivalent to GDP."
I don't think anyone is claiming that spending would fail to increase GDP. But I still don't see how income is disconnected from GDP, since that spending would be someone else's income.
This is because grid operators are most concerned with immediate power output. They need to keep the grid balanced, and if they need a gigawatt to do it, it doesn't matter if the batteries have 100 GWh if they can only discharge at 1 MW.
Since the batteries described here are used primarily to handle the peak of the duck curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve) it seems like 4 hours of capacity (the article mentions that the lithium-ion batteries have 4-6 hours of capacity) is sufficient to get over that difficult hump.
Anyway, to get back to your question of how many GWh, if we assume that the batteries have 4 hours of storage, then we're looking at around 4h * 15.7 GW = 63 GWh of battery capacity. (4 hours is what I've seen as standard for lithium-ion, conservative if the article's claim of "four to six hours" is true.)
Hope this helps ease the peeve!