I appreciate the context. Generation isnt the best name for an input to the grid. Perhaps you are right and it's common in the industry but I wouldn't expect non-industry people to anticipate batteries and connections to the Danish, French, etc. grids to be generators.

And frankly I can't find evidence for the claim that the energy sector uses the term generation for inputs to the grid in general, as opposed to just the things literally generating electricity. Which does not surprise me.

▲

infecto 6 days ago | parent [-]

Go look at any of the hundreds of energy dashboards. Batteries are both a source and use when thinking about fuel mix. You might not understand it but for most of the world we understand batteries are not magic.

▲

nonethewiser 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>Batteries are both a source and use when thinking about fuel mix

That doesnt make them a generator. Other grids are sources of energy as well. Are they generators?

Again, I see absolutely nothing published anywhere classifying batteries as generators. It's a source. It's an input into the grid. But how can you argue all grid inputs are considered a generator, therefor batteries are generators? You seem quite alone in that.

	▲	infecto 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You’re hung up on semantics. In practice, ISOs/TSOs report batteries in the generation mix because when they discharge, they inject MW just like any other generator. Interconnectors are treated the same way — not because they “generate,” but because they’re modeled as supply. If you don’t like the terminology, take it up with the grid operators. That’s how the industry classifies it, whether you agree with the wording or not. Again, I have no idea what you are trying to argue. We all understand how batteries work, yes they are not magic. From a fuel mix perspective or “generation” perspective they are lumped together. Most folks who are looking at this data recognize batteries are not magic, not sure why you are hung up on this.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]