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

[Mike90250]

SunEagle, now that LA has 200 MWh or so of battery storage on its grid, how close is grid-scale battery storage to "proven technology that is already working" from your point of view? What are the criteria?

It's going to be nice to see how that is going to hold up in 10 years from now. Yes, right now, it's new, shiny, and working, But in 5 or 10 years, will it still be at it's predicted performance levels, with the normal, recommended maintenance ?

[J.P.M.]

How are Lazard's figures inaccurate?

Karrak quoted their unsubsidized figures, so it's not that they're hiding costs that way.

Maybe it's that they're quoting prices for new generation, but there's already sufficient fossil generation in place?

Or maybe you mean Lazard doesn't include the cost of conditioning the power for retail use?
For that you'd also need to add storage, peaker plants, and/or demand management... which aren't cheap.

It's fair to say that renewable is not competitive for "baseload" power except in special circumstances yet.

But now that utility scale storage is proving itself, and as costs keep falling, it's going to be a practical option in more circumstances as time goes on.

(Data from LBL confirms the low daytime solar prices listed by Lazard.
blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows
says "The latest data show that the 2015 solar PPA price fell below $50 per megawatt-hour (or 5 cents per kilowatt-hour) in 4 of the 5 regions analyzed"
It also confirms their wind price figures;
emp.lbl.gov/publications/2015-wind-technologies-market-report says "the average [subsidized] levelized long-term price from wind power sales agreements has dropped to around 2 cents per kWh.
I think the PTC is about 2.3 cents per kWh, so that puts both wind and solar around 4 to 5 cents per kWh in regions where they are plentiful.
Wholesale electricity is 3 to 4 cents per kWh, so costs need to fall by a cent or so, or about 25%, to really bite into old fossil's market share.
Removing the existing subsidies for fossil fuel would also help.

Another interesting site that just popped up: energy.utexas.edu/the-full-cost-of-electricity-fce/ has a report on cost of energy, and a map of the cost of various kinds of energy that lets you fiddle with things like co2 pricing to see at what carbon price does wind or solar become competitive.)

Hey Dan: Did you notice the rest of the story on the prices from the Lazard power point presentation ? For starters, they're about 2 yrs old - from 2015. Things change quickly these days in R.E. Also, if you didn't notice - they're LCOE prices for production with the same assumptions about things like discount rates, etc. from all sources, even though not all assumptions may not be and probably aren't the same for all production sources. Also, and to repeat , they are costs, not retail selling prices. They have some value for comparison of technology values, but not a lot more without some digging into the assumptions and the effects those assumptions have on each technology, making them less than useful for most discussions about what to use for peak loading.

Utility storage via batteries has a way to go to prove itself. It ain't a done deal yet. Until the price of battery storage to/from the grid becomes less than gas peaker power to the grid, with the same reliability, battery storage will not be widespread, or only more common where that inequality holds.

[J.P.M.]

SunEagle, now that LA has 200 MWh or so of battery storage on its grid, how close is grid-scale battery storage to "proven technology that is already working" from your point of view? What are the criteria?

Apparently LADWP has something like 7,200 MW of generating capacity. That works out to be a theoretical capability of something like 5.7 EE7 MWh using a 90% capacity factor.

(7,200 MW)*( 8,760 hr./yr.)* (.90 capacity factor) = 5.68 mWh/yr.

So, 200/(5.7 EE 7) ~ = 3.5 EE -6 or .0004 % or so, or 1/285,714 of potential total system output.

A better question to you might be: Do you think that a new technology that can supplant ~ 1/285,714 of a system's annual generating capabilities, or 44 min. out of an entire year's capacity qualifies as proven and working, or mainstream? That's about like spit in the ocean for a lot of us, and may knock battery storage out of the "qualifies as mainstream" box for now.

I'm not sure how many affirmative answers you'd get if you put the question that way. Potential for the future ? Probably. Proven ? ? ? Keep working on it and playing the devil's advocate seems a wiser course to me rather than the Pollyanna, rose colored glasses outlook you usually have.

[DanKegel]

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.

Fresh day, fresh coffee, time for a math and fact check. eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=8 says it's 10 cubic ft per kWh, not 33. And 300,000 kWh * 10 = 3 million cubic feet, not 10 billion. Sheesh. (Check that math again!)

I wonder if the reason they went for batteries rather than storage tanks was time-to-completion, rather than cost.

[SunEagle]

SunEagle, now that LA has 200 MWh or so of battery storage on its grid, how close is grid-scale battery storage to "proven technology that is already working" from your point of view? What are the criteria?

What is the cost?

It isn't the technology. That has been around a long time. It comes down to how much does it cost to generate a kWh from a high density battery system and is that cost being paid by the consumers?

What I hear from a lot of forum members is that the cost of electricity from their POCO is high which is why they want to install solar so they can pay less.

Well what if the cost goes up 25% to cover those grid tie battery systems? I expect more of the members will complain and say the POCO is stealing from them. But the truth is that going with more RE with battery storage and less fossil fuel is causing the cost of electricity to go up. It happened in Germany and it is happening in CA.

Why don't you admit to that fact or are you so wrapped up with what you want you chose not to be honest about it?

[SunEagle]

Noting the dangers that cherry picking one slide out of a power point presentation can present, I'd still note the LCOE rooftop solar vs. coal generated power.

Karrak

If I look long enough I bet I can find all kings of "data" that will prove my point but go ahead and believe what you want. Just remember that most other countries still use fossil fuel because they can't afford RE.

I am not against using RE to generate power. I just know that it can't provide what the earth consumers 24/7/365 so you better have something else that works all the time.

[DanKegel]

Dan please stop looking for articles that are pie in the sky. I would rather see proven technology that is already working.
...
It isn't the technology. That has been around a long time.

Well, is it the technology, or isn't it? Make up your mind

As for cost: battery storage is going to save ratepayers in Kauai money, I think. That imported fossil fuel ain't cheap.

And as the costs of solar, wind, and storage continue to fall, the percent of penetration of renewable that is economically viable without subsidies will increase.

Anything dishonest about any of that?

[J.P.M.]

Fresh day, fresh coffee, time for a math and fact check. eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=8 says it's 10 cubic ft per kWh, not 33. And 300,000 kWh * 10 = 3 million cubic feet, not 10 billion. Sheesh. (Check that math again!)

I wonder if the reason they went for batteries rather than storage tanks was time-to-completion, rather than cost.

Dan: You're losing it. Gas storage in large but not that large (86 *10^9 SCF) quantity is stored and transported as liquid nat. gas if pipeline transport is not possible. See Google for details and learn something of the basics you've convinced me your clueless about.

I seriously doubt above ground storage of that quantity (mass) of LNG would be attempted for lots of reasons. Even with a 600 to one volume reduction, gas to liquid, the containment for LNG would still require 86*10^9/600 = ~ 1.43 *10^8 ft.^3. of what would probably be vacuum jacketed tankage. If each tank were 10 ft. in diameter and 40 ft. long, it'd require about 6,500 - 6600 such tanks. Or, if a single tank w/ height = diameter = ~ 325 ft. ! Not happening any time soon.

And BTW, where did you get that number of 33 ft.^3/kWh ? W.T.F. is that ? 1ft.^ of nat. gas has a heating value of ~ 950 -1050 BTU depending on where it comes from with 1,000 BTU/ft.^3 usually used for easy calcing.

33 * 1,000 = 33,000 BTU. 1kWh == 3,412 BTU. 33,000/3412 = 9.67kWh.

Even at 10 ft.^3 /kWh, as you've so graciously corrected, it's still way off without some details and qualifiers you are absolutely clueless about, and without which, makes the number 10ft.^3/*kWh quite and utterly senseless.

I usually suggest, but I'll tell you straight: Get your own numbers right and take some responsibility to get your stuff correct before you puke this kind of crap out without having enough common courtesy and respect for others to not check your sources or your own math. And while you're at it, get better sources, and maybe think about looking at more than one side of an issue as well.

Better yet, just stop doing it altogether. This is a typical example of your inconsiderate, irresponsible, childish behavior. Who do you think you are ? Someone who gets to clamor, throw feces all over the place, draw attention to yourself, and then leave the mess for others to correct and clean up ? And then get to do it all over again ? B.S.

I'm about the biggest R.E. fan I know of, but your behavior makes it tough to be taken seriously. You're not helping. You're hurting by giving the naysayers a poster child and a focal point for everything they see wrong with R.E., and that, sure as hell, is not leading by example. Your behavior is an embarrassment.

Grow up and knock off the B.S. - Seriously. If you were working for me, I'd have separated you and your shenanigans from my organization before it got to this level.

IMO, you actions are now long past being a distraction and have turned into a disruption. As someone who's trying to be a professional and convey useful, hopefully helpful, technically correct, experientially based, and, above all, safe information pertinent to things that have changed my life and Believe I know a bit about, I find your unprofessional, juvenile attitude and behavior sad beyond discouraging to the point of being disgusting and personally offensive.

J.P.M.

[jflorey2]

That's wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The utility tried to bring it back online; it was too expensive.

It wasn't too expensive; Mitsubishi would have paid most of the cost to replace their defective heat exchanger, since it was their fault that the problem surfaced to begin with. Indeed, now SCE has to pay the cost of decommissioning WITHOUT getting the benefit of the ~250 terawatt-hours the plant could have produced; it will surely cost California billions to shut the plant down prematurely.

It was a political decision, not a financial one.

Also, it hasn't been maintained for several years.

You don't know what the f*** you are talking about.

[DanKegel]

Gas storage in large but not that large (86 *10^9 SCFM) quantity is stored and transported as liquid nat. gas .... Even with a 600 to one volume reduction, gas to liquid, the containment for LNG would still require 86*10^9/600 = ~ 1.43 *10^8 ft.^3.

They're not replacing the whole field with tanks or batteries.
There's a big, careful plan for mitigating the loss of the field, and one small part
of it is those 72MW , 300 MWh batteries.

To estimate how much gas that battery would replace, and how big a tank that would take, the figure of 10 cubic feet / kWh given in http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667 is close enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations like this. (Might be off by some small factor, but that's fine.)
So: battery capacity of 300,000 kWh * 10 cu ft / kWh = 3 million cubic feet.
If it were stored as LNG, with your reduction figure of 600, that'd be 3 million / 600 = 5000 cubic feet of LNG. Using your 10 foot diameter, 40 foot long tanks, it'd take ... 2 tanks.
Which makes liquifying seem like overkill for this application, CNG might do... if it has a reduction ratio of 100, then you'd need what, 10 of those tanks. Which seems practical.
(Also, SCFM = cubic feet per minute? If you want to talk rates, the batteries have a total power of 72MW = 1200 kWh/min, which would replace about 12,000 SCFM of gas.)
Unless I made another boneheaded mistake, which isn't unlikely.

So... why'd they choose batteries over tanks?
There was already a plan to install batteries for other reasons, it's possible that fast-tracking that let them get it all online faster than a CNG storage facility could be designed / permitted / built (anyone know?).
The contracts were started in August ( greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-utilities-are-fast-tracking-battery-projects-to-manage-aliso-can ), and the batteries are already online, what, six months later.

[DanKegel]

Also, it hasn't been maintained for several years.

You don't know what the f*** you are talking about.

I'm going by sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sanonofre-return-group-2016jul21-story.html which said

Tom Palmisano, the plant's chief nuclear officer... said,
"I've not been maintaining equipment because it's retired...
There's no salvage value. It's all going to be removed and disposed
of as part of decommissioning."
...
A former president of the American Nuclear Society, who has called the
shutting down of San Onofre "a tragedy for California," said earlier
this year that bringing the plant back online at this point is almost
impossible.

I would have thought those were good sources, but if you think they don't know what they're talking about, maybe you could provide more accurate sources.

[karrak]

If I look long enough I bet I can find all kings of "data" that will prove my point but go ahead and believe what you want.

I am not saying that the costings that I posted proved the point, it is just one of many pieces of evidence that dispute your claim.

Just remember that most other countries still use fossil fuel because they can't afford RE

You are looking backwards not forwards. The cost of RE, especially storage is coming down very rapidly. Most of the poor countries don't have the capital for the large power grids which large efficient fossil fuel powered power stations need. Small decentralised power systems based around RE reduce the capital cost of putting in large centralised grids.

I am not against using RE to generate power. I just know that it can't provide what the earth consumers 24/7/365 so you better have something else that works all the time.

I totally agree with you that at the moment it is uneconomic and impractical to have RE generate all the power. It does make sense to use RE where it can replace or supplement fossil fuel power generation and be cost competitive. Externalities like pollution and other environmental costs need to be factored into the costs when calculating the cost competitiveness.

The cost reductions of RE, especially energy storage have a long way to go. I think that as this cost reduction occurs, and as the grid control technology gets better we will see a greater and greater percentage of RE being able to compete with fossil fuel generated power, hopefully RE generated power will reach 100% in a reasonable time frame. In my opinion due to global warming it is imperative and will cost less in the longer term if this happens as soon as possible.

Simon

Off grid 24V system, 6x190W Solar Panels, 32x90ah Winston LiFeYPO4 batteries installed April 2013
BMS - Homemade Battery logger github.com/simat/BatteryMonitor
Latronics 4kW Inverter, homemade MPPT controller

[J.P.M.]

I'm going by sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sanonofre-return-group-2016jul21-story.html which said


I would have thought those were good sources, but if you think they don't know what they're talking about, maybe you could provide more accurate sources.

Dan: you seem to believe all the stuff you agree with comes from "good sources" without verification on your part and unassailable simply because someone or some organization put some factoid that fits your reality in writing. Why must others agree with your assessment of veracity with the burden of proof for disagreement on them when you haven't made an adequate case on your end ?

Nice out you have there.

As for verification, seems to me you usually assume your stuff is on the high ground and disproof by others is required, rather than making your case and taking your chances. Instead of doing that, when you have not proven your case other than a restatement or references of what others have written, and someone calls B.S. on your stuff, you backtrack and say "prove you're right", rather than making a case why your position is better or more correct in the first place. I think it ought to be the other way around. Make your case on your interpretation of the situation based on what you know, not solely on what you read someplace. That's where your admitted not knowing much shows and gets you in trouble. Doing it right is called contributing, or adding to the discussion. What you mostly do is little more than a me-to pass through of stuff by others (which you again, assume to be an accurate reflection of reality) that adds nothing to the body of knowledge and adds nothing to the discussion except more confusion. IMO, that's disrespectful and rude.

[J.P.M.]

They're not replacing the whole field with tanks or batteries.
There's a big, careful plan for mitigating the loss of the field, and one small part
of it is those 72MW , 300 MWh batteries.

To estimate how much gas that battery would replace, and how big a tank that would take, the figure of 10 cubic feet / kWh given in http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667 is close enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations like this. (Might be off by some small factor, but that's fine.)
So: battery capacity of 300,000 kWh * 10 cu ft / kWh = 3 million cubic feet.
If it were stored as LNG, with your reduction figure of 600, that'd be 3 million / 600 = 5000 cubic feet of LNG. Using your 10 foot diameter, 40 foot long tanks, it'd take ... 2 tanks.
Which makes liquifying seem like overkill for this application, CNG might do... if it has a reduction ratio of 100, then you'd need what, 10 of those tanks. Which seems practical.
(Also, SCFM = cubic feet per minute? If you want to talk rates, the batteries have a total power of 72MW = 1200 kWh/min, which would replace about 12,000 SCFM of gas.)
Unless I made another boneheaded mistake, which isn't unlikely.

So... why'd they choose batteries over tanks?
There was already a plan to install batteries for other reasons, it's possible that fast-tracking that let them get it all online faster than a CNG storage facility could be designed / permitted / built (anyone know?).
The contracts were started in August ( greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-utilities-are-fast-tracking-battery-projects-to-manage-aliso-can ), and the batteries are already online, what, six months later.

You're post is full of errors, mathematical, situational and logical. Find'em yourself, and keep embarrassing yourself by continuing to confirm your own statement that you don't know much.

[SunEagle]

Well, is it the technology, or isn't it? Make up your mind

As for cost: battery storage is going to save ratepayers in Kauai money, I think. That imported fossil fuel ain't cheap.

And as the costs of solar, wind, and storage continue to fall, the percent of penetration of renewable that is economically viable without subsidies will increase.

Anything dishonest about any of that?

I already stated that RE would work for places like Kauai that import their fuel but even if the prices of solar, wind, storage, etc continue to fall it will take years to be economical throughout the US and may take more than a couple of decades for countries that use fossil fuel to make the switch because RE COSTS MORE THAN FOSSIL FUEL in those countries.

If you believe that RE is cheaper then you are being dishonest with yourself. That is the truth.