Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CSIRO and Australia grid industry association roadmap to 100% clean energy by 2050

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
    You are assuming the cost of pv is only 3.5 cents/kWh.
    jflorey was using 2.9 cents/kWh, I think. I was trying to be more realistic.

    the cost to generate power from a battery is still pretty high and if you average in the number of days the pv system does not produce anything or very little, then the cost to generate power from the battery goes up because you may use more than 80% DOD and shorten the lifespan..
    Kauai has sun only about 60% of the time, according to currentresults.com/Weather/Hawaii/annual-days-of-sunshine.php
    But the contract already figures that in.

    We don't know yet what actual DOD that 100MWh figure assumed, but
    the other Kauai storage system, the 13 MW/52 MWh SolarCity/Tesla system coming on line this quarter,
    appears to be spec'd at 100% DOD at the output (so there's probably hidden margin inside, and the price includes cell replacements); see
    cooperative.com/public/bts/renewables/Documents/technologyl_advisory_dispatchable_solar_final_10_7 _2015.pdf
    If the new system is similarly spec'd at 100% of DOD, then that storage cost is getting pretty low indeed.

    Comment


    • #32
      I found that article that Dan mentioned.

      Heck the plant won't even be on line until 2018. And that cost of 11 cents / kWh is what Kaua'i's has agreed to purchase the power from it for. That doesn't necessarily mean that is the cost to generate or if the purchase will make that plant profitable. It will get them headlines and possibly more projects since the battery system manufacturer AES is supplying that part of the project.

      Dan please stop looking for articles that are pie in the sky. I would rather see proven technology that is already working. Other RE plants have boasted about what they will generate but have not hit their targets. This one may also fall into that category.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
        Dan please stop looking for articles that are pie in the sky. I would rather see proven technology that is already working.
        I wasn't looking for it -- it hit me on the head

        Since you want stuff that's already online, I'll post an update next time Kawai brings one of these big storage systems online.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
          Hrm. You said "So that means the actual cost of storage (since it represents about 11% of the power generated) is around 92 cents/kwhr. ..."
          but I'm not sure that 11% figure is accurate. How do you get that 25 cents / kWh for storage, exactly?
          28MW solar (about 168MWh a day) at 2.9 cents/kwh (best actual price) and 100MWh a day from batteries give you a price of 11 cents overall. Making the (oversimplifed) assumption that the power comes from both and adds up to 11 cents/kwh, that gives you 25 cents/kwh for the battery's contribution to the price.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
            By the way how is your PV system doing with all that rain CA is getting?......
            streets and houses are full of mud. (my place, so far, doing good) Arrays producing very little power, less than 1Kwh for several days,
            that's what diesel fuel is for

            Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
            || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
            || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

            solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
            gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mike90250 View Post
              streets and houses are full of mud. (my place, so far, doing good) Arrays producing very little power, less than 1Kwh for several days,
              that's what diesel fuel is for
              You might want to think about adding a wind turbine to the mix if that is even possible for your location.

              I hate to see someone that has built a nice off grid solar pv system but is held hostage to the weather.

              Comment


              • #37
                Not a lot of steady wind here, even storms, just do gusts. The genset is easier 355 days a year.
                Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
                || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
                || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

                solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
                gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                  Since you want stuff that's already online, I'll post an update next time Kawai brings one of these big storage systems online.
                  The same company that's doing one of the Kauai storage systems, and three others, brought storage systems online in Southern California this past week:

                  AES, Escondido - 30MW, 120MWh
                  Tesla, Ontario - 20MW, 80MWh
                  Greensmith, AltaGas - 20MW, 80MWh
                  Powin, Millikan Ave - 2MW, 8MWh

                  Nothing like an emergency to light a fire under utilities. It helped that they were already working on plans to deploy storage; when Aliso Canyon went offline, those plans were put on overdrive, and about six months later, the storage systems were online. I think that's faster than a gas peaker could be brought online, isn't it?

                  Anyway, this seems to show there's a range of vendors that can bring storage systems like the Kauai one online.
                  Let's see how well the four systems do. Will there be battery fires? How close to always-available will they be? Time will tell.

                  (Man, I had trouble keeping Kauai's name straight!)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                    The same company that's doing one of the Kauai storage systems, and three others, brought storage systems online in Southern California this past week:

                    AES, Escondido - 30MW, 120MWh
                    Tesla, Ontario - 20MW, 80MWh
                    Greensmith, AltaGas - 20MW, 80MWh
                    Powin, Millikan Ave - 2MW, 8MWh

                    Nothing like an emergency to light a fire under utilities. It helped that they were already working on plans to deploy storage; when Aliso Canyon went offline, those plans were put on overdrive, and about six months later, the storage systems were online. I think that's faster than a gas peaker could be brought online, isn't it?

                    Anyway, this seems to show there's a range of vendors that can bring storage systems like the Kauai one online.
                    Let's see how well the four systems do. Will there be battery fires? How close to always-available will they be? Time will tell.

                    (Man, I had trouble keeping Kauai's name straight!)
                    If battery storage works for the POCO then that is ok by me. Just as long as they don't pass on that high expense to their customers which IMO will happen.

                    I have read a lot lately concerning new energy storage being installed and while I think that is pretty cool I still worry how the expense of those systems trickle down to me or the customer.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                      If battery storage works for the POCO then that is ok by me. Just as long as they don't pass on that high expense to their customers which IMO will happen.
                      It's about keeping the lights on. They needed these systems to avoid running out of local natural gas supplies. We've had fairly frequent requests from utilities to set our heating thermostats lower because of the Aliso Canyon outage.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                        It's about keeping the lights on. They needed these systems to avoid running out of local natural gas supplies. We've had fairly frequent requests from utilities to set our heating thermostats lower because of the Aliso Canyon outage.
                        I understand about POCO requests to reduce power. I have a couple of interfaces on loads in my home (pool pump & AC unit) that the POCO can turn off if there is a need to shed load.

                        I also applaud a POCO that feels reliability of providing power to their customers is at the top of the list of things to do.

                        What my fear is that people will get so dependent on that 100% reliability that they will allow major increases in their tariff rates which would be used by the POCO to justify to the PUC that they should get more money even though having batteries may be the wrong or uneconomical way of getting to that 100% reliability.

                        There are less costly ways to improve both generation and distribution of power then going with stored energy. But if the customers don't care about spending more (funny how higher costs is a major motivator to install solar) then enjoy your batteries.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          So... have you been following the Aliso Canyon story? The utilities were in a real bind because the gas pipelines delivering natural gas into the LA area are kind of slow, and the system relied on local gas storage in old wells in Aliso Canyon. When one of the wells blew out, and couldn't be plugged for months, they shut deposits to the field down for inspection and repair. Inspections and repairs are done, but it'll be months before it's allowed to accept more gas, and it'll be a lot lower capacity when it does.
                          There was a very real possibility of local peaker plants not being able to get enough gas.
                          Using batteries means peakers won't need to draw on Aliso Canyon as much, avoiding outages.

                          If you think you're smarter than the utilities, well, speak up. Let them know they screwed up, and should have... uh, what, exactly?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                            If you think you're smarter than the utilities, well, speak up. Let them know they screwed up, and should have... uh, what, exactly?
                            Spent more money/time on Aliso maintenance.

                            Gas storage is much, much cheaper than battery storage, even if you just build big steel tanks. There is certainly a role that batteries can play; mainly in frequency and voltage stabilization. By relegating those functions to BESS that allows conventional generation to operate closer to their margins; this increases plant utilization, increases efficiency and lowers overall power costs. But I don't see them replacing large percentages of either baseline or peaker generation.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                              So... have you been following the Aliso Canyon story? The utilities were in a real bind because the gas pipelines delivering natural gas into the LA area are kind of slow, and the system relied on local gas storage in old wells in Aliso Canyon. When one of the wells blew out, and couldn't be plugged for months, they shut deposits to the field down for inspection and repair. Inspections and repairs are done, but it'll be months before it's allowed to accept more gas, and it'll be a lot lower capacity when it does.
                              There was a very real possibility of local peaker plants not being able to get enough gas.
                              Using batteries means peakers won't need to draw on Aliso Canyon as much, avoiding outages.

                              If you think you're smarter than the utilities, well, speak up. Let them know they screwed up, and should have... uh, what, exactly?
                              Whatever the reason for the Aliso Canyon disaster IMO going with battery storage was the expensive route. They should have built in better safe guards to insure the gas would not be released and its supply would have redundancy.

                              It doesn't really matter what the POCO's did or didn't do. In the end the people of LA will have to pay for their mistakes.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                                Spent more money/time on Aliso maintenance.
                                Sure, but that's hindsight.

                                Once Aliso was offline, what would you have done?
                                it could hold 86 billion cubic feet. Not sure how much a steel tank would cost; might need to liquify the gas to get enough into a practical tank. I suspect an LNG tank costs $200 million per billion cubic feet of gas. Batteries may well be cheaper... At 33 cubic ft per kWh, 300 MWh = 10 billion cubic feet. Check my math, but it seems a tank would have been more expensive.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X