16
votes
Vermont's largest energy source is now a virtual power plant
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Michelle Lewis, Fred Lambert, Peter Johnson, Reinette LeJeune
- Published
- Jul 28 2026
- Word count
- 640 words
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
Thanks for highlighting the power wall portion, I already participate in their program allowing them to turn off my EV charger in exchange for cheaper rates while charging, which they do semi-regularly, more often than I expected, but not enough to be a problem. I’m surprised how cheap the power wall rental is, I’ll have to look into it, but I suspect that does not include the installation costs. What was the process like for getting it installed?
I don't know; that's a quote from the author of the article.
Ah, sorry. Read that quickly on mobile and thought that part about former resident was outside of the quote.
I don't know if this will answer your question, but this may be possibly helpful: https://www.cesa.org/projects/energy-storage-policy-for-states/virtual-power-plant-programs-summary-table/
Thank you, yes it was. It seems that I don’t qualify for that amazing price for multiple reasons.
As a resident of New England and someone who works in power generation, this is the first real good step I see towards renewables. I'm still not seeing batteries (or home solar power) as being the feasible method moving forward*, but this is a wonderful start.
* I feel batteries are not financially or ethically sustainable yet and still have a small but epic chance of catastrophe, similar [imo] to nuclear power.
Lithium iron phosphate batteries are supposed to be cheaper and safer, but heavier. It seems like home use might be a good application for them?
Oh definitely, and I'm thrilled they don't require rarer metals. But the chance is still there.
My workplace had propositioned the town to install a ~8MWh battery farm (local nimbys shot it down), but one of our biggest concerns was actually the fire containment/suppression systems. There was relatively little "harm" that would be done if a failure/fire did occur (the banks were well-sectioned and the majority of the setup could remain functional), but the result of the chemicals and runoff would have been such a huge pita, both physically and in relation to regulations/reporting.
In the meantime, we maintain oil and gas refineries with worse continuing air pollution and chemical runoff concern. Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and mixed xylenes, and n-hexane cause cancer and birth defects, not to mention the natural disasters from global warming.
I get the local concern, especially the dread of paperwork, but this seems like a cognitive bias.
One awaits the proliferation of an inexpensive solid-state battery which has minimal propensity for fire. But one can wait indefinitely for the perfect chemistry. I have to wonder what the psychological threshold really is. Can any battery be good enough?
Aquious Metal Cells look really promising. As far as I can tell they're basically self contained fuel cells. I've heard a presentation from this company, Enervenue, and one of the most interesting take aways to me was essentially "we couldn't figure out how to get these to combust." The cells produce hydrogen inside as part of the charging process, so theoretically there could be a failure mode that could cause a fire, but the company hasn't found a way to make it happen. Not sure if another company will be able to compete with them (can't remember if it's a trade secret or patent), but would love to see more stuff like this.