Energy Storage Replace Gas Plants

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey

I will watch that floating offshore wind piece in a bit as that arena (marine construction/development) is of keen interest to me.

I laughed when I first heard of the concept of floating turbines,  and -  lo and behold - along comes Hywind.

The advances being made in this field are truly astonishing, but for the USA, at least, I believe it is a gross misappropriation of resources with the over abundance of cheap natgas available.

You may find it of some interest that some components for Virginia's 2-turbine offshore pilot program were just delivered to Halifax the other day.

The  Vole au Vent installation vessel should arrive within a few weeks, lift the equipment, and then mosey on down to Virginia (27 miles off Norfolk) for the installation.

Again, my hats are off to all the engineers and operators involved, but it just seems so ... 18th Century  ... as a means of generating electricity.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

26 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey

Again, my hats are off to all the engineers and operators involved, but it just seems so ... 18th Century  ... as a means of generating electricity.

Energy is a national security issue.  For Europe without gas etc it makes 100% sense; they have nothing else.  If I were them I would be tripling down on wind and pumped hydro storage.  For USA?  No.  Wind/Solar outside of a few rural situations, those who have the money to get off the grid or stunning wind locations for near constant wind, such as West Texas, or possibly solar in the desert is stupid.  Wait, let Europe dump billions into it and then pick up the low density energy 100 years from now if/when required when you can buy used production equipment for pennies.  For USA/France, Further breeder reactor Nuclear research is far more pressing as this would open up the 99.999% of nuclear fuel which currently cannot be used.   

EDIT: PS dump a couple billion into nanoscale thermopile R&D and if we can get its efficiency up to around 30-->50% this alone would SAVE more ENERGY for just the USA than all the wind installed in the entire world.  Would work on ALL production activiities as well.  Would drop the cost of plastics, textiles, aluminum, steel etc as it tackles the BIGGEST problem, waste low grade heat.  This application alone would drop energy bills/usage around the world by 30%, far more than any wind/solar can easily be built.

Edited May 6, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[pisstol + 48]

Mr. McKinsey:

I don't have enough time to read and I might have missed something. But I don't know if you have considered the worsening trade relations between the US and China. An American utility not might be able to buy solar panels from China at some point -- maybe in a few months. If a panel failed, I assume that a replacement made in Maylasia or somewhere else could be bought. And if a battery failed, a replacement could be bought from somewhere else. But at what cost? Don't most of the panels come from China? Batteries don't last long. Will the replacement batteries at electric utilities cost twice as much if they don't come from China?

[nsdp + 449]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I see the real issue, you're a hydrogen fanboi! 🙄 I can tell that economics are uncharted waters for you. You cherry picked one cost metric of storage and ignored the rest of the value chain. Batteries are around 90% efficient, are already scaling and are optimal for daily load shifting. This means they will be generating revenue every day. Green hydrogen production is expensive (70% efficiency and high capital costs) and turning it back into electricity is expensive (40% efficient and high capital costs). Round trip efficiency of about 30%! 100% hydrogen turbines aren't even on the market yet. It's only advantage is for long term storage. So what will that market look like? They will spend spring, summer and fall making hydrogen that will be used in winter to make up for the seasonal shortfall in solar and wind, which won't be nearly as much as you think it will be. It's a niche market! Even this guy who is building his future on hydrogen admits it: Asked how the technology will compete against advancements in battery storage, Browning said, “We think lithium-ion batteries will probably be the right choice if you want to store electricity for shorter periods of time.” The economics of hydrogen “are going to work no matter how long you store it,” he noted. https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

I have a JD, googling the criminal code is easy, its the case law that is a problem. I don't buy your NERC deflection one bit, any reliability issues are being resolved in a reasonable manner. Just a little research and you will find that California is adding synchronous condensers across the grid for the purpose of solving this system reliability issue. That makes this a non-issue.

The problem for your concept is much of what you call value is of no value  without additional  major expenditures to make it work.  You ignore engineering requirements to enable the grid to function. A hydrogen gas turbine operates just like a natural gas combined cycle unit except hydrogen has 3X the energy value per mole that methane has.   You also do not waste fuel or horsepower compressing the 80% of combustion air that is inert N2 by substituting pure O2.  You can take 8 out of ten rows of blades out of the gas turbine compressor.  Major manufacturing cost savings right there.  

A CCGT(NG or hydrogen) is a synchonous generator so there is no need for additional expense for a synchronous condensor.  A synchronous Generator also  has rotating mass so you do not need to install a flywheel to  provide inertial mass to support the battereis on the Grid.  It also already generates AC power so it incurs no cost for a  sine wave inverter. Voltage control is by means of a rheostat that increases/decreases the magnetic field density on the stator/rotor.

The synchronous condensers are an extra expense that is not included in estimates of battery installations since condenser costs are regulated by the FERC not the CPUC https://www.caiso.com/Documents/Dec12_2016_InformationalFiling_AESHuntingtonBeach_LLC_HoursofOperation_ER13-351.pdf 

The SC costs appear in cost accounts regulated by the FERC not the CPUC.

As to efficiency hydrogen with oxygen , You source would never stand a fraud audit. Power capture is 73% efficient from the input pushing on the electrolyzer to the substation buss connection to the grid.  NETL achieved this 25 yearsago.  Thee are sources in DOE HQ that instist that 44% is max for hydrogen despite NETL's work. A battery installation is at best 80% efficient and drops to 60% in 48 hours of hold time.

As to economics I have a double major BA in Math Science and Economics with a minor in Space Physics.   I can walk adn chew gum at the same time.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

36 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Energy is a national security issue.  For Europe without gas etc it makes 100% sense; they have nothing else.  If I were them I would be tripling down on wind and pumped hydro storage.  For USA?  No.  Wind/Solar outside of a few rural situations, those who have the money to get off the grid or stunning wind locations for near constant wind, such as West Texas, or possibly solar in the desert is stupid.  Wait, let Europe dump billions into it and then pick up the low density energy 100 years from now if/when required when you can buy used production equipment for pennies.  For USA/France, Further breeder reactor Nuclear research is far more pressing as this would open up the 99.999% of nuclear fuel which currently cannot be used.   

Let's consider 5 of the 6 most populous states:

California: Lots of solar and we are building a transmission line from Wyoming for wind. (starts construction this year)

Texas: Lots of wind and solar in the western part of the state. Conveniently they have already built a new grid connection from the west to the east for the purpose of accessing those renewable resources.

New York: Is proximate to what is perhaps the greatest off shore wind potential in the entire world!

Flordia: aka the Sunshine state, good solar and descent  off shore wind (floating turbines can be easily stationed far off shore and out of sight)

Illinois: Fantastic on shore wind. 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey 

Although it is somewhat outdated information, the 2015 article "London Array Turns Two" provides outstanding insight into 'Real World' conditions regarding offshore wind.

Careful reading reveals numerous aspects that are not so widely touted in promotional efforts.

Going from memory ... ~350 Megawatts average output (tiny, tiny amount), fleet of 5 boats, over 90 full time technicians, construction cost over the  2 billion bucks (that amount could buy ya 2,000 Megawatts from CCGPs ... almost 6 times the amount from the London Array), inherent intermittentcy with night time production most plentiful (coinciding with lowest demand).

 

If you wish to "take the plunge" into one of Gail Tverberg's typical "War and Peace" like presentations (good Gaia, that woman offers  a thousand words when ten would suffice), you might find her August 31, 2016 piece pinpointing the practical problems of renewable/intermittent energy sources highly informative. All the moreso as her analysis has already been proven in South Australia and - seemingly - on the cusp of being validated in Germany.

Her bottom line thesis (as touched upon above in nsdp's comments referencing LACE/LCOE), is when sun/wind inputs exceed 10 to 15 per cent of a grid's design, huge imbalances start to arise as the marginally incresed production becomes astronomically expensive as well as potentially disruptive.

Also buys one hell of a gas import bill. 

Again and again I hear this argument which completely overlooks the fact the UK is now a major importer of gas - approx. half its requirement. 

[nsdp + 449]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I see the real issue, you're a hydrogen fanboi! 🙄 I can tell that economics are uncharted waters for you. You cherry picked one cost metric of storage and ignored the rest of the value chain. Batteries are around 90% efficient, are already scaling and are optimal for daily load shifting. This means they will be generating revenue every day. Green hydrogen production is expensive (70% efficiency and high capital costs) and turning it back into electricity is expensive (40% efficient and high capital costs). Round trip efficiency of about 30%! 100% hydrogen turbines aren't even on the market yet. It's only advantage is for long term storage. So what will that market look like? They will spend spring, summer and fall making hydrogen that will be used in winter to make up for the seasonal shortfall in solar and wind, which won't be nearly as much as you think it will be. It's a niche market! Even this guy who is building his future on hydrogen admits it: Asked how the technology will compete against advancements in battery storage, Browning said, “We think lithium-ion batteries will probably be the right choice if you want to store electricity for shorter periods of time.” The economics of hydrogen “are going to work no matter how long you store it,” he noted. https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

I have a JD, googling the criminal code is easy, its the case law that is a problem. I don't buy your NERC deflection one bit, any reliability issues are being resolved in a reasonable manner. Just a little research and you will find that California is adding synchronous condensers across the grid for the purpose of solving this system reliability issue. That makes this a non-issue.

Good how many years have you  done work on the Federal Public Defenders A Panel? 26 years This guy walked because someone did not know how to search the criminal code and got the wrong authentication for a use of a deposition in  a criminal case.   He used civil case authentication.   It was hearsay and Ollie never got on the witness stand.  AUSA was like Officer Obie in Alice's Restaurant.   Jury never got to hear the wonderful deposition he had.   You go back this far?https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/568/1265/2374598/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/461085/city-of-farmington-v-amoco-gas-company/ or as far as the attachnent

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by nsdp

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

41 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Let's consider 5 of the 6 most populous states:

Don't give a damn about a couple tiny regions of the world who are blessed by geography. 

Lets consider ECONOMICS.  Is Gas/Coal/Oil/Nuclear cheaper for operating a stable grid?  Yes.  Vastly cheaper... Check.  Ok. 

End of Story

Cheaper energy = more $$$ to dump into R&D

Creating even BETTER production techniques/products etc using LESS energy, less footprint on the world etc which is where the advancement needs to come.  More money to dump into infrastructure saving energy, peoples time.  No surplus $$$, no advancement. 

WHy is it that no greenie numbnut, cannot see the bolded statement above.... gah.  Need to ship 100% of them to the developing world to open their damned eyes to reality.  Economics(how average Jack/Jill can live their life) drives everything which is based on cost of ENERGY. 

Same reason for why the electric vehicle will ~eventually win, lower cost due to less maintenance and longevity. 

Or Technically this is  true.  TESLA is trying to prove otherwise as they are becoming authoritarian assholes where they up and arbitrarily decide that car you purchased is obsolete and now does not have access to their super charging stations making said car effectively useless.  I can guarantee someone is about to class action lawsuit sue TESLA back to the stoneage for this practice of destroying peoples property retroactively.  Why historically no one has allowed Car manufacturers to own car dealerships nor own fuel stations.  Same reason traditionally no one has allowed media companies to own multiple outlets, or allowed Aircraft manufacturers to own airlines or truck manufacturers to own trucking distributors or food producers to own supermarket chains or.....  TESLA will be brought down, and if not... the whole reason for electric vehicles will die with them other than in regions who have no nat gas/oil like Europe. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

40 minutes ago, nsdp said:

The problem for your concept is much of what you call value is of no value  without additional  major expenditures to make it work.  You ignore engineering requirements to enable the grid to function. A hydrogen gas turbine operates just like a natural gas combined cycle unit except hydrogen has 3X the energy value per mole that methane has.   You also do not waste fuel or horsepower compressing the 80% of combustion air that is inert N2 by substituting pure O2.  You can take 8 out of ten rows of blades out of the gas turbine compressor.  Major manufacturing cost savings right there.  

A CCGT(NG or hydrogen) is a synchonous generator so there is no need for additional expense for a synchronous condensor.  A synchronous Generator also  has rotating mass so you do not need to install a flywheel to  provide inertial mass to support the battereis on the Grid.  It also already generates AC power so it incurs no cost for a  sine wave inverter. Voltage control is by means of a rheostat that increases/decreases the magnetic field density on the stator/rotor.

The synchronous condensers are an extra expense that is not included in estimates of battery installations since condenser costs are regulated by the FERC not the CPUC https://www.caiso.com/Documents/Dec12_2016_InformationalFiling_AESHuntingtonBeach_LLC_HoursofOperation_ER13-351.pdf 

The SC costs appear in cost accounts regulated by the FERC not the CPUC.

As to efficiency hydrogen with oxygen , You source would never stand a fraud audit. Power capture is 73% efficient from the input pushing on the electrolyzer to the substation buss connection to the grid.  NETL achieved this 25 yearsago.  Thee are sources in DOE HQ that instist that 44% is max for hydrogen despite NETL's work. A battery installation is at best 80% efficient and drops to 60% in 48 hours of hold time.

As to economics I have a double major BA in Math Science and Economics with a minor in Space Physics.   I can walk adn chew gum at the same time.

 

I am not ignoring engineering requirements to make the grid work. The grid requires a certain amount of inertial mass, yes that comes at an additional cost. That cost just needs to be added to the list. Unless you have costing information to the contrary it looks like that cost is a fairly minor part of the overall renewable grid cost. Especially considering that synchronous generators in retiring gas plants can be converted to condensers. Since you are an expert on this why don't you actually dig up the costs at FERC?

I'm all for using hydrogen if the cost can be brought down to less than batteries. But right now battery production is scaling up and costs are dropping rapidly. Meanwhile pure H turbines are still in the lab. So apparently they don't work just like NG turbines. Although I guess some H could be converted to CH4 and run as a mixture in current turbines.

Wouldn't pass the fraud audit? You even admit that DOE HQ claims the max conversion for H is 44%! I said 40%. The highest conversion efficiency I can find for H to electricity is 60% but that is using a fuel cell which has no inertia. Can you provide a link to the NETL data?

There is some disagreement on Round Trip Efficiency for batteries. I like the PNNL numbers below because they are from actual testing of grid batteries: 90% DC-DC and 85% AC-AC. Your claim that battery efficiency drops by 25% in 48 hours of hold time is silly. You are going to have to provide links if you want me to believe that one. If you turn your phone off for 48 hours how much power does it loose?

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f65/Storage Cost and Performance Characterization Report_Final.pdf

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

53 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is some disagreement on Round Trip Efficiency for batteries. I like the PNNL numbers below because they are from actual testing of grid batteries: 90% DC-DC and 85% AC-AC. Your claim that battery efficiency drops by 25% in 48 hours of hold time is silly. You are going to have to provide links if you want me to believe that one. If you turn your phone off for 48 hours how much power does it loose?

Those numbers do not disagree.  Basic engineering.  AC-AC goes AC->DC->AC which is why it is lower.  DC-DC goes DC to DC.  1 less step.  Now Running everything on DC power is dumb, but in VERY limited scenarios it is more efficient.  Energy storage?  Not true.  Have to deal with AC conversions for power distribution.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, pisstol said:

Mr. McKinsey:

I don't have enough time to read and I might have missed something. But I don't know if you have considered the worsening trade relations between the US and China. An American utility not might be able to buy solar panels from China at some point -- maybe in a few months. If a panel failed, I assume that a replacement made in Maylasia or somewhere else could be bought. And if a battery failed, a replacement could be bought from somewhere else. But at what cost? Don't most of the panels come from China? Batteries don't last long. Will the replacement batteries at electric utilities cost twice as much if they don't come from China?

Most panels are imported from Malaysia and Vietnam https://www.statista.com/statistics/232941/us-imports-of-solar-equipment-by-source-contry/

Batteries and inverters are of some concern but grid batteries last 10-20 years. Newer chemistries tend toward the 20 years. Look for battery production to increase outside of China. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

11 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Those numbers do not disagree.  Basic engineering.  AC-AC goes AC->DC->AC which is why it is lower.  DC-DC goes DC to DC.  1 less step.  Now Running everything on DC power is dumb, but in VERY limited scenarios it is more efficient.  Energy storage?  Not true.  Have to deal with AC conversions for power distribution.

The disagreement is between all the reports. The numbers range from 77% in the Aquino report to 98% in the Ease paper. DC-DC is appropriate for co located storage at the solar or wind site. AC-AC for storage out on the grid.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[markslawson + 1,042]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

BNEF is very conservative on their projections. They never assume the rate is going to continue as steeply as in the past. In their most recent update they say the benchmark LCOE for battery storage has tumbled to $150/MWh, about half of what it was two years ago:

Wow! Jay, mate, does your balloon ever land? If you want people like me to take you seriously then I urge you to take a closer look at the figures and announcements you cite. First off the release you cited does not say "replacing" gas plants.. it says the announcement would "partially address" security concerns for the grid because two gas plants are about to retire. There would still be enough conventional capacity (gas, coal) to service the grid but when capacity is reduced there would be a question of just how much would be on line at once. Batteries have their uses in keeping up supply for the time conventional capacity needs to fire up. It's not a question of batteries "replacing" gas plants.

As for BNEF it is basically an activist organisation set up to sell renewable energy projects. To describe its forecasts as conservative is absurd. They are not, although they do serve as a useful check which is why I cited the original figures. Now go an look at the graph you cite. This is a different figure. It is for LCOE on a battery.. say, what? Last time I looked batteries stored energy they didn't generate it. From other BNEF releases I think what they mean is the cost of storing and then releasing the energy at peak times, for batteries associated with major projects. I have no idea how that compares with the first set of figures - does peak hour pricing figure in this - but for a true measure of cost per megawatt hour then the figures I cited would be a far better guide. As noted, it is unlikely the trends in those figures will continue. There is a lot more that I could say, but I suspect you're just not going to listen to me, so I'll leave it there.. but Jay, remember, batteries are a fad an a niche market and never will be anything else.    

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

52 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The disagreement is between all the reports. The numbers range from 77% in the Aquino report to 98% in the Ease paper. DC-DC is appropriate for co located storage at the solar or wind site. AC-AC for storage out on the grid.

The numbers are also correct for battery efficiency.  Lithium Ion is a WIDE range of different battery chemistries. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Don't give a damn about a couple tiny regions of the world who are blessed by geography. 

Lets consider ECONOMICS.  Is Gas/Coal/Oil/Nuclear cheaper for operating a stable grid?  Yes.  Vastly cheaper... Check.  Ok. 

End of Story

 

It's hard to do true cost analysis with all the externalities.

Air pollution literally kills people and the majority of that comes from fossil fuels.  Add the "value" of a few seniors and some kids with bad asthma.

With nuclear (also non-renewable) you have to mine the stuff and those mines are not very clean (many diesel trucks, chemicals, tailing ponds...), then of course the waste. I still support nuclear but BIG plants in remote / useless areas then feed that into the grid with a ultra high efficiency lines. 

Toss in a few oil-control related wars....

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

6 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Air pollution literally kills people and the majority of that comes from fossil fuels.  Add the "value" of a few seniors and some kids with bad asthma.

With nuclear (also non-renewable)

In the 1950's you had a point.  Not true today

Nuclear may as well be renewable.  We already have breeder reactors we just need a little bit of work on them to iron the kinks out and we have a supply for everyone on the planet using as much energy as the USA does per capita for the next few million years.  Whining about the mines is beyond absurd.  Do you Bitch about sand dunes, deserts?  Ploughed fields?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

21 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

In the 1950's you had a point.  Not true today

PM2.5 is still a thing.

I agree nuclear is incredibly energy dense and could essentially be considered limitless for many generations.

Unfortunately - or fortunately - most reactors are specifically designed to not use all the energy (to prevent meltdowns and not make bomb ingredients).

Edited May 7, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

Wow! Jay, mate, does your balloon ever land? If you want people like me to take you seriously then I urge you to take a closer look at the figures and announcements you cite. First off the release you cited does not say "replacing" gas plants.. it says the announcement would "partially address" security concerns for the grid because two gas plants are about to retire. There would still be enough conventional capacity (gas, coal) to service the grid but when capacity is reduced there would be a question of just how much would be on line at once. Batteries have their uses in keeping up supply for the time conventional capacity needs to fire up. It's not a question of batteries "replacing" gas plants.

As for BNEF it is basically an activist organisation set up to sell renewable energy projects. To describe its forecasts as conservative is absurd. They are not, although they do serve as a useful check which is why I cited the original figures. Now go an look at the graph you cite. This is a different figure. It is for LCOE on a battery.. say, what? Last time I looked batteries stored energy they didn't generate it. From other BNEF releases I think what they mean is the cost of storing and then releasing the energy at peak times, for batteries associated with major projects. I have no idea how that compares with the first set of figures - does peak hour pricing figure in this - but for a true measure of cost per megawatt hour then the figures I cited would be a far better guide. As noted, it is unlikely the trends in those figures will continue. There is a lot more that I could say, but I suspect you're just not going to listen to me, so I'll leave it there.. but Jay, remember, batteries are a fad an a niche market and never will be anything else.    

Technically they should call it LCOS but there isn't a lot of difference. The better version of LCOS is generated by Lazard. https://www.lazard.com/media/451087/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-50-vf.pdf 

Being an exponential economist I'm used to not being taken seriously by people outside of Silicon Valley. People think in a very local and linear fashion. I cut my teeth on these economics as the Moore's Law expert at the Semiconductor Industry Association back in the nineties. One of my major projects was to count all the transistors ever produced to prove that Moore's Law was an experience curve. The thing I've learned is that technology based experience curves are extremely resilient! They do have occasional burps and bumps both up and down but over time they hold for a very long time. The only potential bump on the horizon for battery cost is the trade war with China, but the curve will recover.

Since its inception everyone constantly said Moore's Law would end in a few years but it chugged along for decades, same for solar and wind costs and they just keep falling. Battery costs will do the same. No it isn't a fad, it is an experience curve / virtuous cycle. As costs fall demand grows, as demand grows production grows, as production grows costs fall, loop. The cool thing about Li ION is that it is being driven by two different market demand curves, EV and grid. Should make it extremely resilient. And I stand by my prediction that the costs will continue to drop by at least 50% every three years. 

If you follow EV's you might have noticed that a lot of companies have been aiming at 2022-23 for going big with their EV line up. That is primarily due to the curve predicting that automobile batteries will reach $100KWh at that point. The price that puts EV's on purchase price parity with ICE. That is when EV demand will skyrocket! But I suppose you think EV's are a fad as well. Here in California the plan is to make them grid resources while they are hooked to the charger. The tech for that has been in testing for several years now. Yeah, I know, just us crazy Californians. Not like we built the fifth largest economy in the world with our nonsense. Oh wait, we did. 😄

Edited May 7, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 5/6/2020 at 12:33 AM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Should also have been obvious since combined cycle is 55% efficiency and I claimed that 40% was on par with this. Hmm.. must have been something missing there eh? Maybe read the first post I made where I laid out the 20 year return?

Combined cycle is 60-64% currently in base load operations as per GE specs (64%). 

[0R0 + 6,251]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

2015 isn't somewhat dated, it is positively neolithic 😀 the scalable future for off-shore wind is floating! Check out this webinar from NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/floating-offshore-wind-rises.html

I'll check out Gail's article and get back to you. 

No numbers.

Any of those?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/4/2020 at 1:47 PM, 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." 

Once those gas plants are mothballed, I bet they will be converted to run on green H2 by 2025!

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/5/2020 at 12:50 AM, NickW said:

That high altitude region of Tibet is going to be very good solar country. Less atmosphere, clean air and cool. Downside is going to be transporting it to the East. 

Wrong. China already has a hybrid grid. Half is AC, half is high-voltage DC (which is able to transmit 4X as far for same heat loss). V = IR, P = IV = I2R. That is, heat loss proportional to square of current. That is why we use step-up transformers for AC transmission. High voltage, lower current. AC = 500,000V but DC 1,000,000V.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/5/2020 at 2:50 AM, Gregory Purcell said:

The largest battery in the world has sat quietly in George Washington National Forest along the Virginia-West Virginia border for nearly 30 years. A five-hour drive from the nation’s capital, it sits in the middle of the Appalachians, tucked behind the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Very few people in the urban areas that benefit from its power know of its existence, let alone its purpose. Talk to people that live and work a few miles away in Warm Springs, Virginia, and some will have a vague awareness but will readily admit that they don’t spare a thought for how electricity gets to their outlets. Dan Gessler, who works for Dominion Power, the company that operates the facility, put it simply: “I think the vast majority of the public doesn’t even know it exists, it’s up here in the middle of nowhere out in the mountains.”

The Bath County Hydro Pumped Storage Facility is not really a battery in the common sense of the term, but it is the largest pumped storage facility in the world. It stores a lot of energy, which helps 60 million people in 13 states (and DC) served by the regional transmission organization, PJM Interconnection. Quite often when someone in that huge area comes home from work and turns on the lights or switches on the TV, some of those electrons flowing down the power lines are coming from two lakes on a mountain in rural Virginia.

When Sean Fridley, the facility’s Station Manager, looks at the Upper Reservoir perched a thousand feet above his office, he doesn’t see drops of water. He sees a thousands-of-megawatts-deep block of power, a huge amount of stored potential energy — with more output than the Hoover Dam — that he can turn on with a flick of a switch. .......

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-inside-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-battery-and-the-future-of-renewable-energy-8984e81283c/

Yes, but most of that water pumping still powered by coal-fired power plants. In Australia, we building Snowy Hydro 2.0 which will have similar capacity.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/5/2020 at 4:06 AM, Gregory Purcell said:

Using Solar & Wind to refill the Hoover Basin would strain all down stream water levels,  I have a crazy idea, global warming means the dry areas become dryer  and the wet areas get wetter, hence we see less water in the Colorado river  and more frequent flooding on the Mississippi... so why not run a pipeline in between  to refill the upper basins of the Colorado River.

 

That is called "strategic planning"! Don't you know that is banned in the West these days? Govt not allowed to "pick winners"?!?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/5/2020 at 10:04 AM, ronwagn said:

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/

Wrong. Once a few more of your LNG plants completed over next 24 months, Henry Hub natural gas price will jump to at least $4/mmbtu, and will be EVEN LESS COMPETITIVE with solar/battery.