Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will batteries ever be ditched if solar panels compromise the grid?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
    And yet it seems that energy storage continues to increase in size across the world. While not a cost effective way to store energy some places it is gaining ground.
    Check out the attach news release on energy storage.
    Yep. Grid-scale storage is a booming industry. At a recent conference in San Diego, at least half a dozen companies made presentations about their ongoing installations; one company was installing hundreds of megawatt-hours of storage a month in Asia. It's useful to note that grid scale storage doesn't just benefit renewable energy - it allows baseload generators to operate at a more constant output, allows smaller power margins for surge response and frequency stabilization and reduces peaker operation even without renewables present.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post

      Yep. Grid-scale storage is a booming industry. At a recent conference in San Diego, at least half a dozen companies made presentations about their ongoing installations; one company was installing hundreds of megawatt-hours of storage a month in Asia. It's useful to note that grid scale storage doesn't just benefit renewable energy - it allows baseload generators to operate at a more constant output, allows smaller power margins for surge response and frequency stabilization and reduces peaker operation even without renewables present.
      Except if you really do the math a peaker unit is still more economical to run vs a battery. Although with the increase of RE along with the volitality of the RE quickly stop producing you need something very fast to overcome the voltage dips. This is where a battery is faster then a peaker but is still expensive to run and requires replacement only after a few years where the peaker lasts for many years with the proper maintenance.

      The main reason Utilities are installing energy storage in CA is due to the legal mandate forced on them by the state government. Given a choice a POCO would not choose batteries as their first line of defense for grid stability.

      Comment


      • #18

        Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
        Yep. Grid-scale storage is a booming industry. At a recent conference in San Diego, at least half a dozen companies made presentations about their ongoing installations; one company was installing hundreds of megawatt-hours of storage a month in Asia. It's useful to note that grid scale storage doesn't just benefit renewable energy - it allows baseload generators to operate at a more constant output, allows smaller power margins for surge response and frequency stabilization and reduces peaker operation even without renewables present.
        Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
        The main reason Utilities are installing energy storage in CA is due to the legal mandate forced on them by the state government. Given a choice a POCO would not choose batteries as their first line of defense for grid stability.
        Ok, maybe, but surely installations in Asia are driven by factors beyond the CA state government. What each utility chooses to do is going to be a function of its history and regulatory environment, but it seems to me that energy storage is getting closer to a tipping point in which it will stand on its own merits, perhaps for reasons like what jflorey2 has described.
        CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by sensij View Post




          Ok, maybe, but surely installations in Asia are driven by factors beyond the CA state government. What each utility chooses to do is going to be a function of its history and regulatory environment, but it seems to me that energy storage is getting closer to a tipping point in which it will stand on its own merits, perhaps for reasons like what jflorey2 has described.
          I agree. Utilizing energy storage in places where the grid is minimal or non existent is the right action to take because the cost of building a stable grid is more expensive the having self sustaining micro grids.

          It still comes down to money and what is the best way to spend it to build a stable power grid.

          Comment


          • #20
            In a capitalist system, when/if alternate ways evolve to provide electrical energy via, say, solar or distributed generation including some form(s) of energy storage at a lower price with as good or better reliability than the current methods, they will happen. For such societies, money talks, B.S. walks. It's that simple.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
              Except if you really do the math a peaker unit is still more economical to run vs a battery.
              Depends on where you are, what you need and what the cost of the BESS is. If your goal is frequency stabilization, and you can get a BESS in a standardized shipping container for the right price, that's going be a lot more economical than a peaker. If your goal is voltage stabilization, then often a BESS will be cheaper.

              However, if you already have a fair amount of hydro in your supply, and you are just trying to compensate for wind variability (i.e. an hour-to-hour load-balancing application) then often a peaker will be cheaper.

              As more BESS are built out, then the price will fall, and the breakeven point will change. Which is why a lot of people are making a lot of money building BESS with LiFePO4 batteries.
              The main reason Utilities are installing energy storage in CA is due to the legal mandate forced on them by the state government. Given a choice a POCO would not choose batteries as their first line of defense for grid stability.
              Given the number of POCO's outside the US that are installing BESS - I tend to doubt that.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DanS26 View Post
                Awhile back Scientfic American magazine article described a future hydrogen based future..
                Now that is some funny chit, I do not care who you are.

                Hydrogen is DOA. At best it has a 5% efficiency from cradle to grave. For each energy unit in Hydrogen, it takes 20 units of the source fuel to make it. Hydrogen like a battery is not an energy source, it is a carrier of energy, and as a carrier it will always be a multiple of the source fuel. That means for $1 worth of source fuel today will cost $20 in hydrogen.

                The flaw in the article has been ignored. They are talking about Super Conductors. Non exist for commercial use, only in labs. To be a Super Conductor requires cryogenic refrigeration. Hydrogen is one of the two gasses that can get cold enough, nitrogen is the other gas. It take a tremendous amount of power to run cryogenic refrigeration to get the gas cold enough and to keep it cold. There is nothing that can contain hydrogen for any length of time. So what they are saying is laughable. It would take more energy to make the hydrogen, refrigerate the hydrogen, and replace the hydrogen than you could ship from point A to point B.

                Now with that said if you could make room temperature Super Conductors, you would own the world and be King of the World. You would control everything.
                MSEE, PE

                Comment


                • #23
                  Tesla and Edison fought this battle years ago. Edison lost. AC is more efficient for power transmission.

                  Here's the link

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                    Depends on where you are, what you need and what the cost of the BESS is. If your goal is frequency stabilization, and you can get a BESS in a standardized shipping container for the right price, that's going be a lot more economical than a peaker. If your goal is voltage stabilization, then often a BESS will be cheaper.

                    However, if you already have a fair amount of hydro in your supply, and you are just trying to compensate for wind variability (i.e. an hour-to-hour load-balancing application) then often a peaker will be cheaper.

                    As more BESS are built out, then the price will fall, and the breakeven point will change. Which is why a lot of people are making a lot of money building BESS with LiFePO4 batteries.

                    Given the number of POCO's outside the US that are installing BESS - I tend to doubt that.
                    Just because the news reports a lot of non US POCO's building a BESS does not mean they really want to or are the ones that are funding it. You need to check a little deeper into why a POCO would spend the money for a BESS as compared to a different way to quickly generate power. More than likely the funding is coming from a state government or someone with deep pockets looking to get some GREEN press. A break even point for a battery is a long way off regardless of how many are being built. The high cost is due the material used and not due to low production numbers. And hydro is pretty much tapped out in the US.

                    What is sad is the major push back by people living in coastal states that do not want wind turbines in their back yard.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                      Just because the news reports a lot of non US POCO's building a BESS does not mean they really want to or are the ones that are funding it. You need to check a little deeper into why a POCO would spend the money for a BESS as compared to a different way to quickly generate power.
                      One POCO in northern Chile (SING) used it for frequency and voltage stabilization. That allowed them to run their conventional fossil fueled plants much closer to their power limits; they no longer needed to keep 5% power margin to provide primary frequency control. One plant within the POCO was able to increase average power output from 127 megawatts to 136 megawatts - and that was additional power they could bill for all year long without needing to build new generation.

                      A second POCO used it for end-of-line stabilization near a large industrial town that saw significant surges and sags during normal operation. They had done all the 'conventional' tricks they could, including increasing nominal voltage so that sags did not take voltages dangerously low and mandating better motor drives for the industrial operation. They were at the point where they were looking at either spending tens of millions for new distribution lines or a few million for a 20 megawatt BSS. They chose the cheaper option.

                      A presentation on the first example is attached.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                        One POCO in northern Chile (SING) used it for frequency and voltage stabilization. That allowed them to run their conventional fossil fueled plants much closer to their power limits; they no longer needed to keep 5% power margin to provide primary frequency control. One plant within the POCO was able to increase average power output from 127 megawatts to 136 megawatts - and that was additional power they could bill for all year long without needing to build new generation.

                        A second POCO used it for end-of-line stabilization near a large industrial town that saw significant surges and sags during normal operation. They had done all the 'conventional' tricks they could, including increasing nominal voltage so that sags did not take voltages dangerously low and mandating better motor drives for the industrial operation. They were at the point where they were looking at either spending tens of millions for new distribution lines or a few million for a 20 megawatt BSS. They chose the cheaper option.

                        A presentation on the first example is attached.
                        I agree each POCO has a number of options to chose from and that works for them. As you pointed out for Chile, using a BSS is less expensive.

                        Looking at the big picture across the world any country with a superior distribution power grid does not have the same power quality issues as a POCO with a less than desirable distribution gird similar to what is in Chile. I would hazard a guess that you couldn't make the same claim that a BSS was cheaper for most POCO's in the US, Europe or other higher industrialized Nations.

                        I would also not believe that a company (like NEC) that builds BSS systems would be totally unbiased with the reasons why POCO's would use one.
                        Last edited by SunEagle; 12-24-2015, 09:54 AM. Reason: added last statement

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                          Looking at the big picture across the world any country with a superior distribution power grid does not have the same power quality issues as a POCO with a less than desirable distribution gird similar to what is in Chile. I would hazard a guess that you couldn't make the same claim that a BSS was cheaper for most POCO's in the US, Europe or other higher industrialized Nations.
                          Definitely. Every POCO is going to have different needs. However, it would also be a mistake to assume that the US and Europe have "high quality" grids that have plenty of generation, transmission, frequency and voltage margin available. In many cases in the US, transmission and distribution systems are still relying on decades-old technology and are running very close (and in some cases over) their design limits. And in many markets, generation is going off-line and is not being replaced quickly, All this leads to an environment where BESS's are becoming more common - not because they are supplementing these high quality grids, but because using them is cheaper than fixing the underlying problems with the distribution system. One company (BYD) installed 140 megawatts of BESS generation in the US in 2013 alone.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                            Definitely. Every POCO is going to have different needs. However, it would also be a mistake to assume that the US and Europe have "high quality" grids that have plenty of generation, transmission, frequency and voltage margin available. In many cases in the US, transmission and distribution systems are still relying on decades-old technology and are running very close (and in some cases over) their design limits. And in many markets, generation is going off-line and is not being replaced quickly, All this leads to an environment where BESS's are becoming more common - not because they are supplementing these high quality grids, but because using them is cheaper than fixing the underlying problems with the distribution system. One company (BYD) installed 140 megawatts of BESS generation in the US in 2013 alone.
                            BYD is a battery and electric vehicle manufacturer. They are not a POCO. They sell their products to POCO's who for whatever reason decide to install BESS.

                            While some of those POCO's have a good reason for a BSEE most in the US do not because a BSEE is not economical enough.

                            In Florida there is more "spare" generation capacity now then years ago. That is due to lower usage. With spare capacity it is not economical to build more generation. Instead our POCOs keep shutting them down.

                            Look I want to see more battery research and design because without "storage" RE wastes a lot of what it generates making it costly and not efficient. Some day a BSEE will becomes cheaper and used by more POCO's, but to say

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X