@adapalmer I think that's interesting. Variable energy sources such as solar need storage (or »backup«) for about ⅔ of their output.
The article seems to mention that the doubling of capacity took two years. I guess the initial build then also took 2 years, plus maybe one for the site setup (?). So that makes it 5 years, for 125 MW * 8 h of storage.
Which is apparently not too slow.
Contrast a nuclear power reactor built in 7 years, for 1400 MW of 24/7 generation.
This expansion was first of a kind.
In California the construction phase for batteries is generally 12-18 mnths.
In the USA current _target_ build times for nukes is 7-8 yrs & in practice is 12+ yrs (do you really think California will build them faster than everyone else?).
Duration extension projects do not require interconnection changes so expect more 12-18 mnths 8hr expansions coming soon.
Financially its a good approach too.
The site generated first cash flows in 2.5 years which reduces the cost of capital considerably, as does the overall loan lengths for a reasonable predictable short construction phase.
In the USA (and Europe) nukes have no supply chain, no pipeline of skilled workers and high risk financing. They really need a long term government framework of training, supplier subsidies and project loan guarantees to become viable.