Energy Storage Replace Gas Plants

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

It sounds kind of gross but pumping partially treated sewage into the Hoover basin may make sense.

 

The upper Mississippi & Missouri rivers are not gross like the water coming out in NOL all the way down stream.  Many many years I watch flooding along those river basins & and meanwhile droughts are happening on the other side of the Great Divide all the damns along the Colorado river are running at half capacity, and what was once a great Marshland and river delta where the Colorado river empties into the Baja Bay is now a dry wasteland because we are taking all the water.   What I am dreaming of is a pipeline across Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wyoming which draws water from the Mississippi, Missouri and Platte Rivers during snow melt, then drops it at the headwaters of the Colorado,  which would keep all those hydroelectric Damns running and provide water for the far west of America.  

   

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Yes, if anywhere in the world can make wind power work, it is N. Europe.  Shallow seas, Awesome wind quality, consistency.  Everyone else has other problems with either wind consistency, quality of the wind, ice, or all 3.  N. Europe only has to worry about ice, but with all those shallow seas... not really.  Sight with problems: Patagonia comes to mind.  Best wind in the world on paper, but often it is low or blowing Hurricane force with either rugged land features, deep seas, and the enjoyment of icing problems.  The other places like the plains of Asia or N. America have much larger seasonal variations than N. Europe.  I never studied Aussie or Africa so could be wrong about their wind, but I would be shocked if they did not also have great seasonal variability.  N. Europe is blessed with both the standard westerly winds due to earths rotation, but also has the gulf current creating extra wind out of the Caribbean over nice shallow seas for zero rugged terrain. 

I have often wondered about the Great Lakes, but the wind consistency from my brief look was just not there and rich NIMBY's own waterfront property...

*** Common man, you know 200m is BS.  Biggest baddest brand new turbine under development is 150m. 

Regarding the Great Lakes, why not just build them beyond the horizon. This issue has come up before. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Southern California Edison Contracts Mammoth 770MW Energy Storage Portfolio to Replace California Gas Plants

One of the world’s largest single battery storage procurements will race to meet an August 2021 deadline.

JEFF ST. JOHN MAY 01, 2020

NextEra will add two 115-megawatt battery systems to its Blythe Solar Center as part of SCE's massive storage procurement. (Credit: NextEraEnergy Resources)

Southern California Edison has signed seven contracts for a combined 770 megawatts of battery energy storage projects, one of the biggest single procurements of its kind. The utility also wants to turn them on by August 2021, which would be a record-fast turnaround for projects of that magnitude.  

The seven projects, which still need approval from the California Public Utilities Commission, will help meet a fall CPUC order for 3.3 gigawatts of carbon-free resources to help meet the state’s grid reliability needs. Half of that solicitation is due online by August 2021, and SCE must deliver the largest share among the state’s utilities and community choice aggregators (CCAs). 

Most of the winning projects will be co-located with existing solar farms that will charge the batteries, making them useful for integrating and smoothing the intermittency of the state’s growing share of renewable generation, as well as providing resource adequacy (RA) for times of peak demand in the late afternoons and evenings. That’s needed to replace grid capacity provided by four natural gas-fired power plants on the Southern California coast that use seawater for cooling, and have been ordered to close as soon as possible to reduce their environmental impact. 

SCE's single 770-megawatt procurement "tops the entire 2019 US storage market by more than 200 megawatts," said Daniel Finn-Foley, head of energy storage for Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables. The consultancy expects the U.S. storage market to grow by more than 7 times from 2019 to 2021.

"The storage market is approaching a deployment acceleration over the next two years that will be unprecedented in recent U.S. electricity history," Finn-Foley said. 

NextEra Energy Resources will build three of the SCE projects, which are also the largest of the seven selected by the utility. Those include a 230 megawatt/920 megawatt-hours project connected to NextEra’s 250-megawatt McCoy solar farm, and two projects of 115 megawatts/460 megawatt-hours apiece adjacent to NextEra’s two Blythe Solar Energy Center solar farms. All are located in Riverside County.  

The McCoy storage project is among the largest being developed by NextEra, just behind its 250-megawatt/1 gigawatt-hour system connected to its 250-megawatt Sonoran Energy Center in Arizona.  It’s also the second-largest being built in California, behind the 300-megawatt/1.2 gigawatt-hour Moss Landing project to be built by Vistra Energy for Pacific Gas & Electric. NextEra, North America’s leading wind and solar generator, has been seeking opportunities to add storage to its existing renewables fleet to take advantage of the falling battery costs. 

Southern Power, a subsidiary of U.S. utility Southern Company, will develop two projects in California’s Central Valley connected to solar farms owned by Canadian Solar subsidiary Recurrent Energy: the 88-megawat/352 megawatt-hour Garland project connected to a 200-megawatt solar farm in Kern County, and the 72 megawatt/288 megawatt-hour Tranquility project connected to a 200-megawatt solar farm in Fresno County. 

The final project is TerraGen Power’s 50-megawatt/200 megawatt-hour Sanborn project in the Mojave Desert. That project will be interconnected with a solar project now in development by Sanborn Solar, meant to provide 300 megawatts of solar generation and up to 3 gigawatt-hours of storage capacity. 

The sole project that won’t be interconnected with existing solar is LS Power’s 100-megawatt/400 megawatt-hour Gateway 1-2 battery system in San Diego County. LS Power has also developed the 40-megawatt Vista battery project in Southern California, and is developing plans for up to 250 megawatts of energy storage at the Gateway site.

The unprecedented projects are facing a tight deadline to line up financing, order batteries and other specialized equipment, complete construction and start providing capacity to the grid by SCE’s stated completion date of August 1, 2021. The California Energy Storage Association (CESA) and storage companies are asking the CPUC for permission to expedite the process for reviewing and approving the projects, warning they might fail to secure financing without it.

Massive battery farms are expected to become an increasingly central asset for California’s grid as the state pushes toward its goal of getting 100 percent of its energy from carbon-free resources by 2045. SCE’s “Pathway 2045” roadmap for hitting that goal envisions about $170 billion of investment in clean energy generation and energy storage by 2045, and up to $75 billion more for grid upgrades to accommodate the shift to electrifying power transportation, heating and other sectors now reliant on fossil fuels. 

Other large-scale projects announced in California in the past year include the 100-megawatt/400 megawatt-hour system being built by sPower for Clean Power Alliance, a community choice aggregator serving the greater Los Angeles area, and up to 300 megawatts/1.2 gigawatt-hours of storage being built alongside 400 megawatts of solar power being built by 8Minute Energy for municipal utility Los Angeles Department of Water & Power. 

Finn-Foley noted that these projects represent "a perfect lesson in the flexibility of energy storage’s value. PG&E’s Moss Landing procurement plans to use stand-alone storage to target a transmission-constrained area," while LADWP and SCE are both seeking storage to allow for the possibilty of closing the coastal natural gas plants, he said. 

Still, "the SCE procurement is unique so far in California — both massive in scale and scattered throughout four counties across SCE’s sprawling territory to target local system needs." 

I have a strong feeling that Californians will be paying a lot more for their electricity due to their green fixation. IMHO they should be using natural gas rather than looking at windmills and solar plants. 

https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

[markslawson + 1,042]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Yes, if anywhere in the world can make wind power work, it is N. Europe.  Shallow seas, Awesome wind quality, consistency.  Everyone else has other problems with either wind consistency, quality of the wind, ice, or all 3.  N. Europe only has to worry about ice, but with all those shallow seas... not really.  Sight with problems: Patagonia comes to mind.  Best wind in the world on paper, but often it is low or blowing Hurricane force with either rugged land features, deep seas, and the enjoyment of icing problems.  The other places like the plains of Asia or N. America have much larger seasonal variations than N. Europe.  I never studied Aussie or Africa so could be wrong about their wind, but I would be shocked if they did not also have great seasonal variability. 

I can take the debate on this a little further. Leaving aside mere variations in the wind, one problem with Europe's wind power efforts is that there are long periods when there is no wind at all. A high pressure system arrives and basically stays for days, even weeks, meaning little wind over a wide area. It is not possible to build enough storage to tide grids over such periods. In Australia, wind varies but does not die for days at a time - at least to judge from the sites that track wind energy in South Eastern Australia. The longest period of low activity I saw was maybe two days. Wind power still does not make much sense in Australia but maybe it makes more sense than in Europe, for what that is worth. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, ricardo2000 said:

It says a lot for renewables and storage that this project due online in less than 2 years, considering it is a massive increase in capacity. The permitting process for a fossil fuel plant would be longer than this time frame.

Maybe, but consider the fact that much of it is government intervention. You say a fossil fuel plant would take longer because of permits, but that's just Cali for you. 

2 hours ago, ricardo2000 said:

Gas combined cycle plants will be next.

 

2 hours ago, ricardo2000 said:

Solar cells look set to break through 40% efficiency in the next 5 years after which all other energy sources will go bankrupt.

Slow down. Two things: Combined cycle plants will improve too, and 40% is pretty god damned high for 5 years of R&D. Are costs still giong to decrease if efficiency increases? Probably not for a while. Here's the real kicker. If you reach 40%, you'll be equal to combined cycle plants in their current state, not ahead; and probably not ahead of the future designs especially. This is good enough for me, but not good enough for your claims and your agenda (indicated by comments you make later). 

I'm not strictly anti solar, but people are getting way ahead of themselves when touting the death of oil. It will come.. in 150 years maybe. Its replacement probably won't be what you'd expect either. If we quit strangling nuclear power, that will become the dominant and most profitable energy solution. 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey

As of this posting (17:20 PDT), the CA ISO site shows solar providing 34% of the state's juice. The 'curve' (supply from 'Renewables') has peaked for the day, with ~20:00 projected to be peak electricity demand ... 3 hours from now.

If I am able, I will check back in and see what is providing the Caleefawnyuns their light-enabling juice and post it here.

These activities - checking the local regions' Transmission Operators sites - can be very educational.

The major vulnerability facing future Californian power situation (amongst many) is being able to rely upon the 'kahndness of strangers', a la Blanche Dubois.

Specifically, reliably tapping into the massive nuke plant across the border in Arizona and - down the road - the huge wind potential out of the Wyoming wind plants.

As a self-contained RTO (like Texas and New York), California offers a unique perspective  of what may (or may not) be possible in these matters and at what cost.

Will check back in at about 21 hundred hours.

[markslawson + 1,042]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Southern California Edison has signed seven contracts for a combined 770 megawatts of battery energy storage projects, one of the biggest single procurements of its kind. The utility also wants to turn them on by August 2021, which would be a record-fast turnaround for projects of that magnitude.  

I side with the other posters on this. The reports talk of MW rather than MWh so they don't really mean anything. You want both max output and total storage. Other points always missing in these stories is how does the capacity (when correctly stated) compare with the overall max/min grid load, and what do the owners intend to do with the battery? Peak load management, frequency control management or output replacement? Or whatever earns money I guess. As matters stand the journalist seems to have cut and pasted the press release without asking basic questions. I was a journalist for 38 years, and I am sad for my profession.   

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, markslawson said:

I can take the debate on this a little further. Leaving aside mere variations in the wind, one problem with Europe's wind power efforts is that there are long periods when there is no wind at all. A high pressure system arrives and basically stays for days, even weeks, meaning little wind over a wide area. It is not possible to build enough storage to tide grids over such periods. In Australia, wind varies but does not die for days at a time - at least to judge from the sites that track wind energy in South Eastern Australia. The longest period of low activity I saw was maybe two days. Wind power still does not make much sense in Australia but maybe it makes more sense than in Europe, for what that is worth. 

High pressure means it is probably quite sunny. So that is when you rely on solar. Solar and wind are compliments that work together.

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

33 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Regarding the Great Lakes, why not just build them beyond the horizon.

A buddy of mine once said the only thing separating Montana from Oklahoma is some barb wire fencing.

I have spent many a days sailing across Lake Michigan, the wind on Lake Michigan comes from the Great Plains, which is very different than ocean wind meeting land and hills for the first time.   Which means it's cheaper to build windmills in Nebraska or Indiana farmland and ship the energy to Chicago, than to build them in the middle of Lake Michigan.

       

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey

As of this posting (17:20 PDT), the CA ISO site shows solar providing 34% of the state's juice. The 'curve' (supply from 'Renewables') has peaked for the day, with ~20:00 projected to be peak electricity demand ... 3 hours from now.

If I am able, I will check back in and see what is providing the Caleefawnyuns their light-enabling juice and post it here.

These activities - checking the local regions' Transmission Operators sites - can be very educational.

The major vulnerability facing future Californian power situation (amongst many) is being able to rely upon the 'kahndness of strangers', a la Blanche Dubois.

Specifically, reliably tapping into the massive nuke plant across the border in Arizona and - down the road - the huge wind potential out of the Wyoming wind plants.

As a self-contained RTO (like Texas and New York), California offers a unique perspective  of what may (or may not) be possible in these matters and at what cost.

Will check back in at about 21 hundred hours.

We are very aware of our duck curve. Hence the batteries that we are installing to time shift from day to evening.

 

Kindness of others? It is a real time market called the Western Energy Imbalance Market. https://www.powermag.com/how-does-the-western-energy-imbalance-market-work/

The Wyoming wind is a major part of our energy plan. The new Transwest Express transmission line from Wyoming has been supported by CA. http://www.transwestexpress.net/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 minutes ago, Gregory Purcell said:

A buddy of mine once said the only thing separating Montana from Oklahoma is some barb wire fencing.

I have spent many a days sailing across Lake Michigan, the wind on Lake Michigan comes from the Great Plains, which is very different than ocean wind meeting land and hills for the first time.   Which means it's cheaper to build windmills in Nebraska or Indiana farmland and ship the energy to Chicago, than to build them in the middle of Lake Michigan.

       

Indeed. Besides, Michigan gets 80% of their power from nuclear.. they don't need all this noise. Accounting for 2.9% of emissions even with the large industrial activity. 

I suppose you could send it to Wisconsin. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. KeyboardWarrior

The newest  iterations of Combined Cycle are in the 62/64% range regarding energy efficiency (measured in heat potential in versus power out, also measured in heat potential).

The ongoing innovations with these H Frame units are extremely impressive, as is also - in all fairness - the engineering improvements in the Renewable field.

However, it cannot be sufficiently emphasized, that the quick ramp up/load off characteristics of the CCGPs just blow the doors off alternative producers that are currently on the market.

 

Massive 1,500 Megawatt plants going up all over the USA (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan to mention just a few) have ~30 fulltime employees, do not burn fuel in low revenue time frames throughout the 24 hour cycle, and can be turned online with the flick of a switch.

The "Bible" of this comparative Cost of Electricity stuff is the brief (19 page?) pdf easily downloadable from Lazard.

Looking at the data on pages #11 and #18 (18 containing the ... skewed ... parameters), one should quickly recognize the overwhelming advantages of CCGPs.

This, in fact, is why they are rapidly being built out in Bangladesh, Brazil, Vietnam, Mexico ... all over the globe with LNG-supplying FSRUs being the final piece of the puzzle.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

26 minutes ago, markslawson said:

I side with the other posters on this. The reports talk of MW rather than MWh so they don't really mean anything. You want both max output and total storage. Other points always missing in these stories is how does the capacity (when correctly stated) compare with the overall max/min grid load, and what do the owners intend to do with the battery? Peak load management, frequency control management or output replacement? Or whatever earns money I guess. As matters stand the journalist seems to have cut and pasted the press release without asking basic questions. I was a journalist for 38 years, and I am sad for my profession.   

The MWh were in the article and I posted them earlier in the thread. 770MW / 3080MWh

The intent of these batteries is mostly to provide for time of day shifting from day to evening to shave that duck curve. They will also provide peak demand services. We are retiring a number of gas plants and replacing them with batteries.

Southern Power, a subsidiary of U.S. utility Southern Company, was awarded two projects, both coupled with PV plants owned by Canadian Solar’s Recurrent Energy.

• 88 MW/352 MWh Garland Project
• 72 MW/288 MWh Tranquility Project

NextEra was awarded:

• 115 MW/460 MWh Blythe 2
• 115 MW/460 MWh Blythe 3
• 230 MW/920 MWh  McCoy project connected to NextEra’s 250 MW McCoy solar farm

TerraGen was awarded the 50 MW/200 MWh Sanborn project and LS Power won a stand-alone 100 MW/400 MWh storage project.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. KeyboardWarrior

The newest  iterations of Combined Cycle are in the 62/64% range regarding energy efficiency (measured in heat potential in versus power out, also measured in heat potential).

The ongoing innovations with these H Frame units are extremely impressive, as is also - in all fairness - the engineering improvements in the Renewable field.

However, it cannot be sufficiently emphasized, that the quick ramp up/load off characteristics of the CCGPs just blow the doors off alternative producers that are currently on the market.

 

Massive 1,500 Megawatt plants going up all over the USA (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan to mention just a few) have ~30 fulltime employees, do not burn fuel in low revenue time frames throughout the 24 hour cycle, and can be turned online with the flick of a switch.

The "Bible" of this comparative Cost of Electricity stuff is the brief (19 page?) pdf easily downloadable from Lazard.

Looking at the data on pages #11 and #18 (18 containing the ... skewed ... parameters), one should quickly recognize the overwhelming advantages of CCGPs.

This, in fact, is why they are rapidly being built out in Bangladesh, Brazil, Vietnam, Mexico ... all over the globe with LNG-supplying FSRUs being the final piece of the puzzle.

It's the cheapest solution on the market. One thing I haven't looked much into is the extended capital cost. Since these plants basically spend half of prior amounts on fuel, their payoff time would stay the same if their capital cost doubled. This means that if CCGP capital cost is less than double that of a traditional plant, its time till breakeven will be less than traditional plants. 

[EDIT] Hang on this is wrong. Cutting fuel cost in half doesn't double the profits. My mistake. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Gregory Purcell + 94]

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Indeed. Besides, Michigan gets 80% of their power from nuclear.. they don't need all this noise. Accounting for 2.9% of emissions even with the large industrial activity. 

The electricity generated from windmills in Nebraska Iowa and Indiana goes to Chicago Illinois.  From Chicago crossing Lake Michigan in a small boat,  is an eight hour sailing trip, of which  about five hours you can't see land in any direction.

 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey

Now you got me looking at your CAISO.com/TodaysOutlook site like I watch the New England folks ISO site when they are enduring a brutal cold spell.

Fascinating stuff.

You all just had a 3 hour ramp of over 11,300 megawatts.

That is like 11/12 massive 1,000 Megawatt plants firing up toot sweet.

Even Ol' Elon might find his Energizer Bunnies panting tryin' to pull that off.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Coffeeguyzz
Spelling

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey

Now you got me looking at your CAISO.com/TodaysOutlook site like I watch the New England folks ISO site when they are enduring a brutal cold spell.

Fascinating stuff.

You all just had a 3 hour ramp of over 11,300 megawatts.

That is like 11/12 massive 1,000 Megawatt plants firing up toot sweet.

Even Ol' Elon might find his Energizer Bunnies panting tryin' to pull that off.

The plan is to have 11GW / 44GWh of battery storage online by 2030. Shouldn't be a problem. A critical aspect that most have a hard time wrapping their head around is that the cost of Lithium batteries for both grid and EV's are decreasing in cost by 50% every 3 years. Batteries are going to become incredibly cheap over the next decade. That is why EV's and renewables will ultimately supplant fossil fuels. 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. KW

Rough, common estimated cost of a 1,000 Mw CCGP is $1 billion.

Some of the smaller (550/800) proportionally higher, the few 1,500+ behemoths proportionally cheaper.

The below rock bottom natgas pricing is an irresistible lure for this type of electricity generation.

 

Mr. McKinsey

Today's peak is in for California and the switch to natgas and Blanche Dubois supplies was pretty significant.

Gotta tell ya, Mr. M, while I've not closely tracked  Calee fo' awhile, gonna start.

A staggeringly high 3 hour ramp of 11,748 Megawatts is an incredibly daunting aspect of this situation.

Addendum to you and others (specific to your reference to the Cowboy State's wind, but applicable ALL across the fragmented board that is the USA) ...

City of Oakland outlawed unloading/shipping of Wyoming coal.

Think the prairie-crossing overheads are gonna be happily built for Oaktown?

Think again.

 

The good folks of Maine are looking to vote down a transmission line from the Frenchies to the Massholes.

Big problems if they succeed.

Transmission lines being shot down all over the country.

Local whirley projects facing ... stiff headwinds.

 

All in all, Mr. M, it's lookin' mighty challenging for the Ra/Zephyr fans.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

16 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. KW

Rough, common estimated cost of a 1,000 Mw CCGP is $1 billion.

Some of the smaller (550/800) proportionally higher, the few 1,500+ behemoths proportionally cheaper.

The below rock bottom natgas pricing is an irresistible lure for this type of electricity generation.

 

Mr. McKinsey

Today's peak is in for California and the switch to natgas and Blanche Dubois supplies was pretty significant.

Gotta tell ya, Mr. M, while I've not closely tracked  Calee fo' awhile, gonna start.

A staggeringly high 3 hour ramp of 11,748 Megawatts is an incredibly daunting aspect of this situation.

Addendum to you and others (specific to your reference to the Cowboy State's wind, but applicable ALL across the fragmented board that is the USA) ...

City of Oakland outlawed unloading/shipping of Wyoming coal.

Think the prairie-crossing overheads are gonna be happily built for Oaktown?

Think again.

 

The good folks of Maine are looking to vote down a transmission line from the Frenchies to the Massholes.

Big problems if they succeed.

Transmission lines being shot down all over the country.

Local whirley projects facing ... stiff headwinds.

 

All in all, Mr. M, it's lookin' mighty challenging for the Ra/Zephyr fans.

I'll again point you  to TransWest Express. It has been fully permitted and is on track to begin construction this year. It is strongly supported by the Government of Wyoming who intensely lobbied CA to buy their wind!!! https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059976577

"The TransWest Express Transmission Project will provide the transmission infrastructure and transmission capacity necessary to reliably and cost-effectively deliver approximately 20,000 GWh/yr of clean and sustainable electric energy generated in Wyoming to the Desert Southwest region, which for the purposes of the project is Arizona, Nevada and southern California".

 http://www.transwestexpress.net/about/index.shtml

Edited May 5, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

11 hours ago, Gregory Purcell said:

 

 

The upper Mississippi & Missouri rivers are not gross like the water coming out in NOL all the way down stream.  Many many years I watch flooding along those river basins & and meanwhile droughts are happening on the other side of the Great Divide all the damns along the Colorado river are running at half capacity, and what was once a great Marshland and river delta where the Colorado river empties into the Baja Bay is now a dry wasteland because we are taking all the water.   What I am dreaming of is a pipeline across Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wyoming which draws water from the Mississippi, Missouri and Platte Rivers during snow melt, then drops it at the headwaters of the Colorado,  which would keep all those hydroelectric Damns running and provide water for the far west of America.  

   

If you are going to dream utopian thoughts, may as well just make the tunnel big enough to support full barge traffic and dump the water to the gulf as it already is done...  And NO, the MIssouri does not have extra water to throw around to the HIGHER Colorado river.  It is already too shallow quite often and at lower elevation.  CO river is already diverted UNDER the Rockies to Denver......

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

200m is where offshore turbine hub height is heading and remember 50% of the swept area is always above hub height.

great lakes in USA look good and close to many big population centres

Not how you want your turbine to work.  Last I checked swept area if hub height is 150m and 100m long blade drops to 50m territory.... half the time... 😉 I do believe they spin...

Height helps.  No one will ever say otherwise.   And offshore unlike on Land does not have surface roughness and can therefore put the hub height CLOSER to the bottom, in this case water surface.    Not the other way around.  Their models show this as well and why everyone wants ocean capable wind turbines.  Increased wind quality, quantity with a shorter tower. 

PS: Wind turbine ~300m high would have a viewing distance of ~60km, and 50km for 200m.  There is no place in the Great lakes that observers from land cannot see them other than Lake Superior/Huron which are VeRY deep.

[NickW + 2,714]

39 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not how you want your turbine to work.  Last I checked swept area if hub height is 150m and 100m long blade drops to 50m territory.... half the time... 😉 I do believe they spin...

Height helps.  No one will ever say otherwise.   And offshore unlike on Land does not have surface roughness and can therefore put the hub height CLOSER to the bottom, in this case water surface.    Not the other way around.  Their models show this as well and why everyone wants ocean capable wind turbines.  Increased wind quality, quantity with a shorter tower. 

PS: Wind turbine ~300m high would have a viewing distance of ~60km, and 50km for 200m.  There is no place in the Great lakes that observers from land cannot see them other than Lake Superior/Huron which are VeRY deep.

Could say the same about power station chimneys and cooling towers, high rise towers, TV masts. 

[Marcin2 + 725]

@Jay McKinsey Lets do the math:

Industrial battery storage cost 200-800 US dollars per 1 KWh, so 200,000-800,000 per 1 MWh.

(consider https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/solar-plus-storage-101 )

As a rule of thumb you need back up  storage for at least 1-2 weeks of nameplate power capacity for intermittent sources.

(It could be battery storage or reserved back up capacity of natural gas/coal/nuclear/pump hydro generation)

Lets be optimistic and assume 1 week so 168 hours.

So for 1 MW of your renewables you need: 168h*1MW = 168 MWh of back up,

This costs you : 168*200,000 = 33.6 million dollars of initial investment. Battery projects are for 20 years. I do not know how much you need for maintenance.

Natural gas plant: About 3 million US dollars per 1 MW of nameplate capacity.

Availability factors of battery and natural gas we assume the same at 90% so simplify calculations.

So you need 33.6 million US dollars to built this storage per 1 MW of your renewables nameplate capacity.

The natural gas plants are available, no need of investment.

Cost of wind or solar per 1 MW is 3-6 million US dollars.

So cost of battery storage backup is even much larger than initial investment needed for renewables.

Renewables could never rely on battery storage cause they would be extremely expensive.

Again rule of thumb is battery storage is still 2 orders of magnitude too expensive to be economically feasible.

They are used at large power plants or in grid as short term stabilizers just like UPS at your PC.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

48 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

@Jay McKinsey Lets do the math:

Industrial battery storage cost 200-800 US dollars per 1 KWh, so 200,000-800,000 per 1 MWh.

(consider https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/solar-plus-storage-101 )

 

As a rule of thumb you need back up  storage for at least 1-2 weeks of nameplate power capacity for intermittent sources.

(It could be battery storage or reserved back up capacity of natural gas/coal/nuclear/pump hydro generation)

Lets be optimistic and assume 1 week so 168 hours.

So for 1 MW of your renewables you need: 168h*1MW = 168 MWh of back up,

This costs you : 168*200,000 = 33.6 million dollars of initial investment. Battery projects are for 20 years. I do not know how much you need for maintenance.

Natural gas plant: About 3 million US dollars per 1 MW of nameplate capacity.

Availability factors of battery and natural gas we assume the same at 90% so simplify calculations.

So you need 33.6 million US dollars to built this storage per 1 MW of your renewables nameplate capacity.

The natural gas plants are available, no need of investment.

Cost of wind or solar per 1 MW is 3-6 million US dollars.

So cost of battery storage backup is even much larger than initial investment needed for renewables.

Renewables could never rely on battery storage cause they would be extremely expensive.

Again rule of thumb is battery storage is still 2 orders of magnitude too expensive to be economically feasible.

They are used at large power plants or in grid as short term stabilizers just like UPS at your PC.

 

Damn!!! I think I agree with Marcin! Might be time for a good head shake...😂

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

@Jay McKinsey Lets do the math:

Industrial battery storage cost 200-800 US dollars per 1 KWh, so 200,000-800,000 per 1 MWh.

(consider https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/solar-plus-storage-101 )

 

As a rule of thumb you need back up  storage for at least 1-2 weeks of nameplate power capacity for intermittent sources.

(It could be battery storage or reserved back up capacity of natural gas/coal/nuclear/pump hydro generation)

Lets be optimistic and assume 1 week so 168 hours.

So for 1 MW of your renewables you need: 168h*1MW = 168 MWh of back up,

This costs you : 168*200,000 = 33.6 million dollars of initial investment. Battery projects are for 20 years. I do not know how much you need for maintenance.

Natural gas plant: About 3 million US dollars per 1 MW of nameplate capacity.

Availability factors of battery and natural gas we assume the same at 90% so simplify calculations.

So you need 33.6 million US dollars to built this storage per 1 MW of your renewables nameplate capacity.

The natural gas plants are available, no need of investment.

Cost of wind or solar per 1 MW is 3-6 million US dollars.

So cost of battery storage backup is even much larger than initial investment needed for renewables.

Renewables could never rely on battery storage cause they would be extremely expensive.

Again rule of thumb is battery storage is still 2 orders of magnitude too expensive to be economically feasible.

They are used at large power plants or in grid as short term stabilizers just like UPS at your PC.

 

The best way to argue. Numbers are cold and unforgiving for the idealist.