Talk:Grid energy storage

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)

The Importance of this topic for the planet

Please somebody who knows about this - we need a section on the history and evolution of the latest technology of energy storage, because many people don't even realise how much the technology has progressed and what difference this can make to the viability of green energy for our societies.

What is the latest on storing wind and solar and what are the implications for greening the energy supply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.104.138 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this article and there are plenty of sources - for example https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2024/11/20/grid-scale-storage-is-the-fastest-growing-energy-technology

so please go ahead and improve it Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hydrogen

"The AC-to-AC efficiency of hydrogen storage has been shown to be on the order of 20 to 45%, which imposes economic constraints." What does AC-to AC mean... alternating current to alternating current? Is this the best measure of "efficiency" and can be it applied to other types of storage across the article? S C Cheese (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Timescale for use of peakers

Welcome back @Femke,

My sentence about gas peakers was not very good so I understand why you deleted it. But now we only have peakers mentioned for the minute/hour scale. Shouldn’t they be mentioned instead as a competitor to grid energy storage for the day/week-scale or even seasonal or longer scales? For example here in Turkey the gas generation increases in dry years due to lack of hydropower. Unfortunately although we have a net zero target of 2053 unlike UK we don’t have a serious official plan for how to decarbonise electricity, although I might dig around the think tanks to see whether they suggest grid energy storage or something else. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was planning to add a paragraph about system value of storage duration. That is: say that there is a market now for <1 and 1-4h of storage, that with VRE + nuclear over 60%, there is a market for medium-duration storage, and only at nuclear+VRE > 90%, will there be money in long-duration storage (based on the Schmidt & Staffell book). I'll see if I can bring in peaker plants there too. I believe they do have a cost comparison I could add. There are a lot of academic sources & semi-governmental sources, so I don't think we have to rely on lower-quality think tank sources. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grid energy storage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Femke (talk · contribs) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

What a good and timely article. It's in the main very well-written and fully-cited, so my comments will mostly be few and minor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• The lead covers the engineering reasonably well, though it does not mention some of the 'Forms' at all (it ought to mention each of the 5 of them at least briefly). Economics is barely mentioned (indirectly in the first paragraph). The questions of cost and market and system value need to be mentioned in the lead.

  Rewritten to cover the article better. Should have spotted the omission before nominating. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Grid service batteries (IEA 2024).png: "Figure 1.9 Battery storage in power systems" - the embedded caption should be cropped off (CropTool on the left-hand menu on Commons) as irrelevant and indeed wrong in this context.

• File:Grid service batteries (IEA 2024).png needs to have its source cited in the caption.

• File:Grid service batteries (IEA 2024).png contains many text labels which are not discussed in the text. For example "Variable charge reduction" is nothing to do with capacitance... and "Distribution upgrade deferral" is nothing to do with dividends... And I doubt most readers will have an earthly what a "Ramping reserve" is, or why "ancillary services" (sounds like minor extras, no?) is glossed as "essential grid services". Basically, if we're going to use somebody else's table, we ought to be explaining all of it in the text, or better, it should be so clear and explanatory that it illuminates the text. I think it's actually slightly too power-gen business technical for the article's purposes (a general introduction), which is why the terms are a bit difficult for the average reader. It might be best to replace the image with an actual table: the text will be bigger and the cells can be fewer and simpler.

  Replaced it with a simpler table. The fact I can't link most of these words, or only to quite generic articles, does imply it was too difficult and that we have a huge gap in coverage around this topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• The fascinating 1917 image File:Light-plant-Fig1198-Page989-Ch45-Hawkins-Electrical-Guide.png and its ref make it clear that there is a century of history to this topic. This should be covered in a sentence or two, perhaps at the top of 'Forms' in a subsection 'History'.

  I've covered it mostly from a hydropower perspective, as that was by far the dominant form of storage in the 20th century, especially when nuclear power was growing. Doesn't fit perfectly in the section, but doesn't fit too easily in other sections too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but see next item. I'd say a 'History' could be short, but it should mention the other forms that I've linked below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mind you, Pumped-storage hydroelectricity#History goes back to 1907 as well, while Compressed-air energy storage#History goes back to 1870, so 'History' should perhaps be a short freestanding chapter before 'Forms', covering battery, hydro, and compressed air (at least). There's no shortage of refs in those articles.

• There are some infelicities in the text. For instance "Providing short-term flexibility is a key role for energy storage." could be rewritten as "Short-term flexibility is a key goal for energy storage." or "One of the key roles for energy storage is to provide short-term flexibility." To give just one more example at random, " For instance, consumers may have cheaper night tariffs to encourage them to use electricity at night. Industry and commercial consumers can also change their demand to meet supply." treats "consumers" firstly as domestic consumers and then as "all consumers including commercial", not ideal; this would be better as two sentences.

  I've rewritten those two and read the article from top to bottom again for others. Found a few typos, but I'm not as good at spotting infelicities. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Images

• Not a GAN issue, but File:Grid energy storage.png needs to be redrawn as an SVG with larger text labels. It might help in the meantime to make it a bit bigger.

• Not a GAN issue, but File:Grid storage energy flow.png, a very helpful diagram, should really be an SVG as well. Again, it'd be more readable a bit bigger.

  I find it a difficult one to understand, to don't want to sink time in that diagram. Have decided to make a new one from scratch, loosely inspired by [1] and [2]. Will take a bit, as my Inkscape skills are rusty. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I find the easiest way is Powerpoint, export as SVG ... and the result is without the SVG errors that Inkscape creates ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Attempt 1:

  

  Example energy production showing periods of oversupply and battery charging and periods of battery discharging

  Not sure I understand that one. What's the solid line? If it's demand, why are there different coloured areas above it? I found the existing diagram easier...

  Interesting. The solar line is indeed demand. The coloured areas above are surplus supply; supply that gets stored in batteries. Some graphs show it as negative values instead, which I don't like as much.. I'll think a bit more about the design here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not a GAN issue, but File:Grid service batteries (IEA 2024).png would be better as an SVG or actually as a table, the text is all a lot smaller than the article's normal text (the guideline is not to use anything where the text is less than 85% of normal). Again, a temporary kludge would be to make it larger, no reason why not.

  Ah, this seems to have been done unannounced, striking it now.

• Not a GAN issue, but File:Battery-cost-learning-curve.png works pretty well as a PNG even though the text labels are minuscule, as the curve tells the story visually. Still it ought to be an SVG really, and the absurd amount of text, some of it so pale grey as to be practically invisible, should be reduced severely.

• All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.

• The NASA flywheel image should be |upright.

  I fixed this for you.

Sources

• All the academic paper refs I checked are fine and indeed well-chosen. I'll take the book refs AGF; they all appear to be highly suitable for the topic.

Summary

• This is an excellent article. The main issue is simply that the lead needs to cover the parts of the article a little more thoroughly, and a bit of history is needed. Then it'll be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Femke, we're only awaiting a little History and a bit in the lead, i.e. almost there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've rewritten the lead. What do you feel is still missing? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think 'History' should be a named subsection, and should discuss not just hydro but battery and compressed air: all three have over 100 years of history, and you'll easily find details and refs here on Wikipedia! Then please add a very brief mention of the history in the lead, and we're complete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I've been slow is that batteries have only very recently come to play a role in grid energy storage. There aren't that many sources that discuss the history specifically of grid storage (energy storage in general is more common), and those that do rarely cover the topic. I've not seen a general source discuss CAES history and don't think it's due here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translations of the top 2 graphics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A: Simplified grid energy flow with and without idealized energy storage for the course of one day (PNG)

B: Femke's 24 Nov SVG

C: SVG uploaded 1 Dec 2024

D: GIF uploaded 7 July 2024

I have asked at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Nov 2024#Please could these grid storage diagrams be vectorized Chidgk1 (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm - I now wonder whether it might be better to ask for completely new diagrams as the existing ones are a little strange do you think? Actually I would be happy just to replace them both with the one above by Femke so long as the black line was labelled "demand" and the wind above the line was also labelled "charging". Chiswick Chap? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Closed above request and moved below graph to talk page here because firstly it is png so hard to translate and secondly I find it confusing - feel free to revert Chidgk1 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded graphic C on 1 Dec and I am open to suggested changes (be specific). I would plan to remove "(megawatts)" as unnecessary, and change the green-to-red-to-green progression of rectangles to a smooth gradient. I see C as a more generalized version of B. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My attempt in B is to show more how it works in the current transition (with solar and wind), rather than in the 1980s with nuclear/coal, which is what figure C implicitly shows. That said, it's much much cleaner than my version, and cleaner than A too.

I can simplify my figure in a few ways:

• make it more symmetrical around noon (same evening and morning peak)
• Remove nuclear from it algother
• Move storage to underneat the graph?

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would be happy to have both B and C in the article for the moment (but both in the body not lead). But if you guys think that would be overloading the article I will ponder longer Chidgk1 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Re translation I am waiting for a reply from the Turk who was planning to write the Turkish article as to whether they can actually do so (my Turkish is way not good enough). If they go ahead I am sure I will have more to say about the translatability of both B and C Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think both B and C can be included.

Femke, the general idea of your chart is excellent. I agree with your suggestion for symmetry (though around ~13:00) and removing nuclear. However, adding "storage" would complicate things and appear to duplicate what "Batteries" already accomplishes. The asymmetry makes chart B appear ~authoritative (quantitative) when it's only a simplified example. Specific suggestions:

1. Remove "peak demand", but label the black line "Demand" or "Customer demand".
2. Change "Generation" (on vertical axis) ---> "Power" (because axis also applies to demand).
3. Change "Charging" ---> "Charge batteries", and change "Batteries" ---> "Discharge batteries". (The shapes would have to be enlarged to fit this text.)
4. The area for wind should be more even or constant (chart currently suggests stronger winds at night, which I think is generally not true).
5. The areas of "Charge batteries" and "Discharge batteries" should preferably be equal (so system will work day after day).
6. Generalize "Gas and hydropower" ---> "Other power sources" (there is also coal, geothermal, etc.).
7. Change "Daily generation and demand" ---> "Power generation throughout the day" (or similar).

—RCraig09 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think GIF image D should be added. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll be changing C, as "Generated power (with energy storage)" (based on A) doesn't make much sense to me. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hah, TIL that wind speeds are not highest at night in general, and in many regions even higher during the day. Wind is highly variable over time, so I do want to show some of that, even though it smoothens out if you have good interconnections. I've got a long covid crash now, so this will be a while probably. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 I want to continue the discussion with you (and of course Femke if she feels up to it and has time and is interested). But in the hope of attracting other editors comments I am just closing this section as my title is now misleading. Unfortunately it seems the person who started the Turkish article with “work in progress” now cannot continue and I see it has been deleted. So no urgency for me to translate yet and anyway we should probably get the general ideas in order first. So perhaps easiest to have one talk section for each graphic we want to talk about. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that energy on the grid can be stored in sand and salt?

• Source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/thermal-storage-system-concentrating-solar-thermal-power-basics

• ALT1: ... that electric cars may provide enough storage by 2030 via vehicle-to-grid to meet all short-term grid energy storage needs? Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35393-0
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Palaeotherium

Improved to Good Article status by Femke (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC).

• Good nomination! Either original hook or ALT1 is fine, though I would spell out "electrical power grid", not just "grid". —RCraig09 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Article reached GA status on November 29 and was nominated in the proper time frame five days later. As one would expect from a GA article, it is long enough and is within policy with no copyright violations. Both hooks are interesting, verified to inline citations, and are usable. I will leave it to the promoter to decide which hook to use. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Charging discharging animation

Animation showing renewable energy source charging energy storage device (e.g., battery) when renewable energy is available, and storage contributing to power grid even when renewable energy source is dormant

I like this. A couple of questions. Right hand box is mislabelled as "generator" whereas it should be "consumer"? (although for water I guess it is correct but maybe too detailed, just not for batteries) Bottom left arrow should be counter-clockwise? Maybe don't need word "excess" as obvious from "charge" going on off? Maybe don't need "current demand"? Could the box under the sun be more obviously solar panels? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Generator" means electric generator. It is generic—the opposite of "too detailed".
• Bottom left arrow must lead from Renewable source to Power grid. That is the direction power flows.
• "Excess" is needed because "Current demand" draws power to the Power grid; it's the excess that can charge the battery, fill the reservoir, etc. "Excess" and "Current demand" are complimentary.
• "Current demand" refers to the instantaneous amount of power demanded by the power grid. Anything more that the Renewable source provides is "excess".
• Renewable source should not be limited to solar panels. It is meant to be generic. (I chose solar in the upper left, because wind is invisible.)

—RCraig09 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant bottom right arrow but yes for water a generator would be needed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 Is there a tool to translate gifs like the svg one do you know? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt there is any tool to translate GIF text. My GIF is made from 60 successive PNG frames, which are raster graphics that don't recognize what "text" is. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Grid schematic

2009 diagram: Grid energy storage

My comments below are not a criticism of the original author @Wikichesterdit but perhaps they agree the subject has moved on since 2009.

I wonder whether the schematic should show some different positions for the storage. For example I understand one idea for preventing a recurrance of the 2015 Turkey blackout is to increase storage at one (or both I am not sure) end of the main east-west transmission line.

Whereas Ukraine might have storage in the west (kind of like the existing diagram) to be safer from attack or maybe distributed I don't know.

And your country might have the storage somewhere else. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded 6 Dec 2024. Intended caption: "Energy from conventional power plants and renewable sources is stored for use by customers."

The various arrows are inconsistent, and some are wrong. I don't think this graphic should be used, unless substantial changes are made. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it should be removed but some of the ideas incorporated into your animation? For example I like the idea of having house and factory icons to show consumption. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think some of the labelling (such as Pload) is related to the png I removed. For now would it be easy for you to just delete any wrong or confusing bits rather than removing the whole graphic? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The animation concerns storage, not use by houses and factories. The 2009 graphic requires substantial revision to be correct and consistent. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I plan to start a completely different diagram. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new diagram, shown at right. It simplifies the basic concepts of grid energy storage, and avoids the contradictory and unnecessary arrows in the 2009 diagram. It omits unnecessary elements and clutter. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice, that looks much neater! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the things that's probably too difficult to put in a diagram: there are three places in the system you typically find batteries. Collated with renewables/nuclear, somewhere in the network, and at the end-user location. Might make the diagram more informative. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, adding local batteries would add many symbols to a chart that already has nine boxes or icons. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe 3 separate diagrams for different storage locations? Also instead of a box for “power plant” and another for “renewable sources” maybe just one box labelled “power source” or something? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Daily generation and demand graph

Example energy production showing periods of oversupply and battery charging and periods of battery discharging

This should definitely be added in my opinion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Previous comments were:

My attempt .... is to show more how it works in the current transition (with solar and wind), rather than in the 1980s with nuclear/coal, which is what figure C implicitly shows. That said, it's much much cleaner than my version, and cleaner than A too.

I can simplify my figure in a few ways:

• make it more symmetrical around noon (same evening and morning peak)
• Remove nuclear from it algother
• Move storage to underneat the graph?

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Femke, the general idea of your chart is excellent. I agree with your suggestion for symmetry (though around ~13:00) and removing nuclear. However, adding "storage" would complicate things and appear to duplicate what "Batteries" already accomplishes. The asymmetry makes chart B appear ~authoritative (quantitative) when it's only a simplified example. Specific suggestions:

1. Remove "peak demand", but label the black line "Demand" or "Customer demand".
2. Change "Generation" (on vertical axis) ---> "Power" (because axis also applies to demand).
3. Change "Charging" ---> "Charge batteries", and change "Batteries" ---> "Discharge batteries". (The shapes would have to be enlarged to fit this text.)
4. The area for wind should be more even or constant (chart currently suggests stronger winds at night, which I think is generally not true).
5. The areas of "Charge batteries" and "Discharge batteries" should preferably be equal (so system will work day after day).
6. Generalize "Gas and hydropower" ---> "Other power sources" (there is also coal, geothermal, etc.).
7. Change "Daily generation and demand" ---> "Power generation throughout the day" (or similar).

—RCraig09 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: Would you object if I revised your file to form a Version 2 and overwrite your original? I would make changes like those I describe at 18:23 above. I understand you are suffering from long covid and I can save you time and effort. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09 If @Femke agrees and if it is not too much extra work while making the changes could you possibly also make it easier for future translators who use

https://svgtranslate.toolforge.org/File:Daily_energy_generation,_battery_discharge_and_demand_sketch.svg

by putting each label in just one box to translate. For example at the moment “wind” and “power” are in 2 boxes whereas there should just be one box as “wind power”. This is because in some languages “power” might come before “wind”. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

A: Daily energy generation, battery discharge and demand sketch.svg (24 Nov).

B: 20241208 Energy demand and generation - daily flow.svg (8 Dec)

Actually in this example it can be simplified to one word “wind”. Below is a better example. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

SVG coding requires different lines to be separated, either in separate text declarations (as I do here) or using tspan declarations (which cause rendering problems on Wikimedia). Either way, the different lines of text are separate. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to change! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've created a separate graphic so that the two can be compared (at right). I centered solar around 12:00. Winds generally increase after the sun heats the Earth, so I made wind's contribution larger after 12:00, and smallest at night. I also tried to make the battery charging and discharging areas (orange and purple) ~equal. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d be happy with either of those being put in now and further improved later.

For example a tweak in B could be to put the “Battery charging” text in the middle and get rid of the single headed arrow. Re wind I am not an expert but I think it differs in different places. You could consider using the word “storage” instead of “battery” and “filling storage” instead of “Battery charging”. That generalizes it to all types of energy storage.

Anyway that is detail - my main point is that they are both good and you should put one in now. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Grid storage energy flow graphic

Diagram showing flow of energy between energy storage facilities and power grids, as a function of time over a 24 hour period

@RCraig09

Don’t bother if it is tricky but if easy, as above please could it be made easier for translators - for example “Energy flow to and from storage” should be a single item to translate. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

SVG coding requires different lines to be separated, either in separate text declarations (as I do here) or using tspan declarations (which cause rendering problems on Wikimedia). Either way, the different lines of text are separate. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I did not know that. I just had a read and apparently this problem will be solved in svg version 2.

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/svg-text-layout/9781491933817/ch04.html

says “SVG 2 will support text that wraps to a new line without explicit intervention by the SVG author.“ Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I don't think that feature is implemented yet, but I have started a conversation at Wikipedia:SVG_help#Recognition_of_inline-size_attribute_in_text_declarations to see if others know its status. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks - there is not much text so I think translators will be able to work around the limitations of current svg Chidgk1 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Have pics rather than graphics in lead?

I would prefer the graphics in the lead be moved down into the body and the lead to have one or 2 pics of the most common storage, that is water and battery. Or possibly a quartet of pics like some other articles. I feel that would attract people to read more whereas the “grid energy storage flow” graphic in particular might be putting off very young or very casual scrollers. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)