New Aussie "big batteries"

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

The 100MW/200MWh battery proposed for Middle Arm, on the outskirts of Darwin and close to its massive LNG export facilities is considered a “stand-alone” project, but will likely form part of the bigger solar and storage plans if the investment case is made.

The Middle Arm battery is one of at least two likely big batteries proposed for the Darwin-Katherine grid as it deals with a big increase in solar facilities, both behind the meter and large scale."

Is that like a couple big prawns? 😀

https://reneweconomy.com.au/sun-cable-plans-darwin-big-battery-precursor-to-worlds-biggest-solar-and-storage-project-64297/

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

“I mean, honestly, by all means have the world’s biggest battery, have the world’s biggest banana, have the world’s biggest prawn like we have on the roadside around the country, but that is not solving the problem,” Morrison mocked in July last year, just a few months after waving a lump of coal around parliament.

 https://reneweconomy.com.au/on-first-day-as-pm-morrison-learns-difference-between-big-battery-and-big-banana-84075/

[markslawson + 1,042]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The 100MW/200MWh battery proposed for Middle Arm, on the outskirts of Darwin and close to its massive LNG export facilities is considered a “stand-alone” project, but will likely form part of the bigger solar and storage plans if the investment case is made.

Note this key statement in the press release..

to help both absorb the excess power and variability from the rooftop solar resources, and to accelerate solar’s deployment, and also as a cheaper option to the massive amounts of spinning reserve.

They have to install the battery to help offset some of the additional emissions caused by their reliance on renewable energy, specifically rooftop solar. For those who don't know spinning reserve is conventional plants kept operating (and so generating emissions) but offline ready to hook up at a moment's notice when the renewables drop out. A certain amount is required in a conventional grid but the requirement increases substantially when there is a lot of renewables, greatly reducing any actual gain in carbon reduction although we are never told this.. Note the release says "massive amounts" of spinning reserve. Batteries make a lot of sense in this role although, of course, it is yet more money that has to be spent to get cheap green power.

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

Note this key statement in the press release..

to help both absorb the excess power and variability from the rooftop solar resources, and to accelerate solar’s deployment, and also as a cheaper option to the massive amounts of spinning reserve.

They have to install the battery to help offset some of the additional emissions caused by their reliance on renewable energy, specifically rooftop solar. For those who don't know spinning reserve is conventional plants kept operating (and so generating emissions) but offline ready to hook up at a moment's notice when the renewables drop out. A certain amount is required in a conventional grid but the requirement increases substantially when there is a lot of renewables, greatly reducing any actual gain in carbon reduction although we are never told this.. Note the release says "massive amounts" of spinning reserve. Batteries make a lot of sense in this role although, of course, it is yet more money that has to be spent to get cheap green power.

Except spinning reserve isn't needed in any great quantity to back up renewables. Spinning reserve is there to meet sudden drop outs in the system. Systems are usually designed around having enough spinning reserve to back up the sudden drop out of at least the two largest generators which are gas, coal, nuclear, large hydro, pumped storage, large wind farms. this can be caused by the unit itself going off line or a transmission issue. 

Some spinning reserve is needed to handle variations in renewable output but it is a small percentage of the actual predicted output. For example with wind this is within 3% of predicted output in the UK. So if the <1 hour forecast for wind is 10GW then 300MW of SR is normally required. Batteries will rapidly fill this requirement.

The other side of this is demand management. Increasingly utility grids use demand management for frequency response. Without any effect on business large refrigeration plant, large air con systems, electric smelters can be switched off for short periods 

To back up renewables on a region / country wide scale you need (which also backs up conventional plant) :

supplemental reserve (responds in less than 10 minutes):

 batteries

pumped storage

 Hydro

OCGT

Stationery ICE 

Back up supply (responds in about an hour) 

usually cold CCGT units ready to fire up 

Coal can also provide back up but needs several hours to come from cold up to full power.

Interconnectors if available also offer some alternate supply in the event of a sudden drop out. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by NickW

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 hours ago, markslawson said:

Note this key statement in the press release..

to help both absorb the excess power and variability from the rooftop solar resources, and to accelerate solar’s deployment, and also as a cheaper option to the massive amounts of spinning reserve.

They have to install the battery to help offset some of the additional emissions caused by their reliance on renewable energy, specifically rooftop solar. For those who don't know spinning reserve is conventional plants kept operating (and so generating emissions) but offline ready to hook up at a moment's notice when the renewables drop out. A certain amount is required in a conventional grid but the requirement increases substantially when there is a lot of renewables, greatly reducing any actual gain in carbon reduction although we are never told this.. Note the release says "massive amounts" of spinning reserve. Batteries make a lot of sense in this role although, of course, it is yet more money that has to be spent to get cheap green power.

The things you come up with are hilarious! 

The batteries are substitutes for gas. As in turn on the battery and turn off the gas. They turn intermittent renewables into high quality dispatchable power generators.

"The Northern Territory government has announced plans to spend $30 million on a big battery for the Darwin-Katherine grid, a move it says will pay for itself within five years because of reduced gas costs and help expand solar power and meet the 50 per cent renewables by 2030.

That was finally endorsed by chief minister Michael Gunter and renewables and energy minister Dale Wakefield on Saturday, who said a big battery would likely generate savings of around $6.4 million because it would mean less gas is burned as it would remove the need for much of the territory’s “spinning reserve.”

That would deliver a pay-back of less than five years, around the same pay-back time that Alinta has achieved with its big battery at Mt Newman, which has also delivered significant savings from the reduction of spinning reserve (gas generators that run in the case that other gas generators may trip), and increased reliability."https://reneweconomy.com.au/nt-plans-big-battery-in-darwin-to-cut-gas-costs-and-accelerate-solar-94926/

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The things you come up with are hilarious! 

The batteries are substitutes for gas. As in turn on the battery and turn off the gas. They turn intermittent renewables into high quality dispatchable power generators.

"The Northern Territory government has announced plans to spend $30 million on a big battery for the Darwin-Katherine grid, a move it says will pay for itself within five years because of reduced gas costs and help expand solar power and meet the 50 per cent renewables by 2030.

That was finally endorsed by chief minister Michael Gunter and renewables and energy minister Dale Wakefield on Saturday, who said a big battery would likely generate savings of around $6.4 million because it would mean less gas is burned as it would remove the need for much of the territory’s “spinning reserve.”

That would deliver a pay-back of less than five years, around the same pay-back time that Alinta has achieved with its big battery at Mt Newman, which has also delivered significant savings from the reduction of spinning reserve (gas generators that run in the case that other gas generators may trip), and increased reliability."https://reneweconomy.com.au/nt-plans-big-battery-in-darwin-to-cut-gas-costs-and-accelerate-solar-94926/

That is a very good idea. Much better than the renewables themselves, and has been adopted already in some areas by gas (and coal) plants to allow them to drop the spinning while still remaining a reserve, as they need only use the battery power to get their equipment started - within minutes, instead of operating on idle all the time. It makes CCGT  far cheaper to run as a reserve for part time operation as surge and in fill capacity. It also makes excess renewables capacity that much less attractive so long as gas can be cheap, as by definition, the excess capacity has no immediate economic value except to charge up storage.

. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

20 hours ago, markslawson said:

For those who don't know spinning reserve is conventional plants kept operating (and so generating emissions) but offline ready to hook up at a moment's notice when the renewables drop out. 

I'm one of those who did not know. Thanks for explaining the terminology. I read GE CCGTs could cold start within 30 minutes to 60% efficiency. So is spinning reserve primarily an issue related to coal plants?  

https://www.ge.com/power/about/insights/articles/2016/04/power-plant-efficiency-record

Edited May 26, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

21 hours ago, markslawson said:

Note this key statement in the press release..

to help both absorb the excess power and variability from the rooftop solar resources, and to accelerate solar’s deployment, and also as a cheaper option to the massive amounts of spinning reserve.

They have to install the battery to help offset some of the additional emissions caused by their reliance on renewable energy, specifically rooftop solar. For those who don't know spinning reserve is conventional plants kept operating (and so generating emissions) but offline ready to hook up at a moment's notice when the renewables drop out. A certain amount is required in a conventional grid but the requirement increases substantially when there is a lot of renewables, greatly reducing any actual gain in carbon reduction although we are never told this.. Note the release says "massive amounts" of spinning reserve. Batteries make a lot of sense in this role although, of course, it is yet more money that has to be spent to get cheap green power.

Batteries are the biggest impediment. At this point increases in solar panel efficiency is less meaningful than bigger/cheaper/better performing batteries. This could be a dramatic move in that direction

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a31047440/corn-starch-lithium-ion/

"Could a simple materials change make electric car batteries able to four times more energy? Scientists in South Korea think so. In a new paper in the American Chemical Society’s Nano Letters, a research team details using silicon and repurposed corn starch to make better anodes for lithium ion batteries. 

This team is based primarily in the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), where they’ve experimented with microemulsifying silicon, carbon, and corn starch into a new microstructured composite material for use as a battery anode. This is done by mixing silicon nanoparticles and corn starch with propylene gas and heating it all to combine. 

Using biowaste corn starch is already pretty popular, with products like biodegradeable “corn plastic” cutlery, packaging, and the infamous nontoxic packing peanut. The same qualities that make corn starch attractive in these applications apply to the silicon anode project. Existing lithium-ion batteries use carbon anodes, and scientists know silicon would work better in many ways but have struggled to stabilize the silicon enough for this use to be practical. “To enhance the stability of silicon, Dr. Jung and his team focused on using materials that are common in our everyday lives, such as water, oil, and starch,” KIST wrote in a statement about the paper.

The heating was just as inspired by everyday life: “A simple thermal process used for frying food was employed to firmly fix the carbon and silicon, preventing the silicon anode materials from expanding during charge and discharge cycles,” the statement says. The starch and heat work together to make a new kind of anode that is both temperature and structurally stable.

Inside, the material uses the strongest attributes of all three of its component parts, the scientists say: “silicon nanoparticles embedded in micron-sized amorphous carbon balls derived from corn starch that is capsuled by thin graphitic carbon layer.” In other words, the silicon bits are the peanuts, coated in corn starch chocolate and a carbon candy shell. The “dual carbon matrix” cushioning the silicon makes it both conductive and stable.

The researchers say the simple approach and accessible materials mean their new anode is more ready for a mass market than some other research might be. And their results are astonishing: their statement says the silicon-carbon anode showed four times more capacity than existing graphite anodes and held up well over 500 charge cycles.

In this paper, the research team describes their corn starch as biowaste, which is an umbrella term that refers to anything from byproducts of manufacturing to humanbiological waste products like sewage. Intentionally manufactured corn starch is a huge industry around the world because of corn starch’s many uses in powder form. 

Biowaste corn starch is likely an agricultural byproduct that would otherwise be discarded, so turning them back into batteries would be a huge boon for the environment."

Edited May 26, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

NickW

"Without any effect on business ... electric smelters can be turned off for short periods".

Holy. Smokes, Nick.

That preposterous statement - especially if it is offered up in all sincerity, which I would assume it is - highlights just how untethered, how literally dangerous so much of the idealistic, grotesquely mis informed 'Renewable Energy' (sic) advocacy can be.

Nick, have you no familiarity with the desperate status of Aussie aluminum smelters?. 

A mere 10 minutes googling 'australian smelter shutdown power outages' shows as recently as a few months ago the stress that the Portland plant endured when the power goes out and the aluminum starts to solidify in the potlines. (This plant suffered a lengthy shutdown, requiring a ~$150 million government bailout to repair the damages from an earlier power-deprived event).

Better yet, look at the 3rd from last paragraph (one sentence) from the Reuters Dec. 4, 2019 article describing potential plans to permanently shutter ALL Oz aluminum plants due to expensive, unreliable electricity.

These are THOUSANDS of high paying jobs that will go elsewhere despite the abundance of nearby bauxite.

(For context, tiny Iceland  WAY out in Nowheresville, North Atlantic IMPORTS 100% of its bauxite and yet it is STILL one of the world's largest aluminium producers due to cheap, reliable power.)

Jamaica, possessing significant bauxite but expensive electricity, is now re-opening their mining/smelting operations thanks to FSRU-supplied LNG to fuel their new power plants.

That. Is. How. This stuff works in the Real World.

 

Further validation of the tragic kneecapping of Austraian industry is the opening up/expansion by Blue Scope Steel - Australia's largest steel producer - in Ohio due to this very issue.

 

Really, Nick, I have perused "Renewable" (sic) sites for years and I continue to be astonished (and dismayed) at the effectiveness of purposeful misinformation that 'highlights/extolls'  the supposed 'virtues' of 'Renewables' (sic) while the blatantly obvious damaging (destructive?)  consequences continue to unfold right before our very eyes.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Coffeeguyzz

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

NickW

"Without any effect on business ... electric smelters can be turned off for short periods".

Holy. Smokes, Nick.

That preposterous statement - especially if it is offered up in all sincerity, which I would assume it is - highlights just how untethered, how literally dangerous so much of the idealistic, grotesquely mis informed 'Renewable Energy' (sic) advocacy can be.

Nick, have you no familiarity with the desperate status of Aussie aluminum smelters?. 

A mere 10 minutes googling 'australian smelter shutdown power outages' shows as recently as a few months ago the stress that the Portland plant endured when the power goes out and the aluminum starts to solidify in the potlines. (This plant suffered a lengthy shutdown, requiring a ~$150 million government bailout to repair the damages from an earlier power-deprived event).

Better yet, look at the 3rd from last paragraph (one sentence) from the Reuters Dec. 4, 2019 article describing potential plans to permanently shutter ALL Oz aluminum plants due to expensive, unreliable electricity.

These are THOUSANDS of high paying jobs that will go elsewhere despite the abundance of nearby bauxite.

(For context, tiny Iceland  WAY out in Nowheresville, North Atlantic IMPORTS 100% of its bauxite and yet it is STILL one of the world's largest aluminium producers due to cheap, reliable power.)

Jamaica, possessing significant bauxite but expensive electricity, is now re-opening their mining/smelting operations thanks to FSRU-supplied LNG to fuel their new power plants.

That. Is. How. This stuff works in the Real World.

 

Further validation of the tragic kneecapping of Austraian industry is the opening up/expansion by Blue Scope Steel - Australia's largest steel producer - in Ohio due to this very issue.

 

Really, Nick, I have perused "Renewable" (sic) sites for years and I continue to be astonished (and dismayed) at the effectiveness of purposeful misinformation that 'highlights/extolls'  the supposed 'virtues' of 'Renewables' (sic) while the blatantly obvious damaging (destructive?)  consequences continue to unfold right before our very eyes.

To help bring you into the 21st Century this may help. Its a commercial example of demand side management. 

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/industry-information/balancing-services/demand-side-response-dsr

I set the caveat - without any effect on the business. The business can chose to opt in or out depending on its own requirements. 

In Europe - refrigeration plant commonly works like this. Aircon likewise. Longer term witht he role out of smart meters this could be applied at a domestic level with refrigeration. Desalination plant can work like this and I understand certain smelters can temporarily reduce electricity demand 

Here we go - a German Smelter doing exactly what I said. The advantage for the smelter is it gets cheaper rates for electricity by providing this service - perhaps allowing it to outcompete Aussie smelters????

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/german-firm-turns-aluminum-smelter-into-huge-battery

As a major industrial power user, Trimet already participates in German demand response programs, taking its aluminum smelters offline for short periods when required to stabilize the grid in the face of load surges.

And a glass smelter

http://powerresponsive.com/encirc-blazes-demand-side-trail-flexible-approach/

And an iron Foundry

http://powerresponsive.com/cast-iron-case-for-firm-frequency-response/

Edited May 26, 2020 by NickW

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

Interconnectors if available also offer some alternate supply in the event of a sudden drop out.

NIT: AC interconnectors if available offer alternative supply.  HVDC--> not really.  One of their drawbacks.  Superior efficiency over long range, but hysteresis in power spikes(usually downwards), much worse.  So much worse, HVDC can go to zero when you need them the most unlike AC.  Now this HELPS when starting things back up after a black out, but this is like saying it is easier to clean the stall out after the horse has already bolted out of the barn... 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

I'm one of those who did not know. Thanks for explaining the terminology. I read GE CCGTs could cold start within 30 minutes to 60% efficiency. So is spinning reserve primarily an issue related to coal plants?  

https://www.ge.com/power/about/insights/articles/2016/04/power-plant-efficiency-record

Well of course - because what mark is telling you is hokum. 

Spinning reserve is there to address a % of the network unexpectedly dropping out. Usually the two biggest generators. The diffuse nature of intermittent renewables over a region or country mean this doesn't happen that dramatically. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

Except spinning reserve isn't needed in any great quantity to back up renewables.

supplemental reserve (responds in less than 10 minutes):

 batteries

pumped storage

Wind has spinning reserve, but batteries are superior.  Pumped Hydro is also good, but still requires some time to start up.  Spinning reserve is actually giant flywheels which may or may not have to be installed depending on how much POWER capacity is available in angular momentum of the turbines with a bit of spare power capacity. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

NIT: AC interconnectors if available offer alternative supply.  HVDC--> not really.  One of their drawbacks.  Superior efficiency over long range, but hysteresis in power spikes(usually downwards), much worse.  So much worse, HVDC can go to zero when you need them the most unlike AC.  Now this HELPS when starting things back up after a black out, but this is like saying it is easier to clean the stall out after the horse has already bolted out of the barn... 

I didn't suggest interconnectors are a means of frequency response. However they do offer supplemental and backup reserve. 

Taking the UK as an example. 

Lets say Sizewell B trips resulting in a 1200MW loss to the grid thats immediately managed using collective frequency response:

• Draw on spinning reserve of CCGT plant in operation
• Interruptible supply is cut immediately
• Batteries kick in
• Emergency gen sets on NG call up fire up immediately
• Pump storage goes to 100%
• Hydro goes to 100%
• OCGT fire up

lets say the interconnectors are working at 50% capacity. The price signal the trip creates makes it worthwhile to bring online generating plant in Europe and increase the flow of electricity into the UK. Works the other way. When a French PWR trips the UK usually provides back up supply as it has a particularly large fleet of CCGT - the price signal triggers this. 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Wind has spinning reserve, but batteries are superior.  Pumped Hydro is also good, but still requires some time to start up.  Spinning reserve is actually giant flywheels which may or may not have to be installed depending on how much POWER capacity is available in angular momentum of the turbines with a bit of spare power capacity. 

Yes increasingly so with offshore generators exceeding 10MW. 

Dinorwic in North Wales can go from 0 to 1860MW in under two minutes so falls into the fast response portion of the network. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

12 hours ago, NickW said:

Except spinning reserve isn't needed in any great quantity to back up renewables. Spinning reserve is there to meet sudden drop outs in the system. Systems are usually designed around having enough spinning reserve to back up the sudden drop out of at least the two largest generators which are gas, coal, nuclear, large hydro, pumped storage, large wind farms. this can be caused by the unit itself going off line or a transmission issue. 

Some spinning reserve is needed to handle variations in renewable output but it is a small percentage of the actual predicted output. For example with wind this is within 3% of predicted output in the UK. So if the <1 hour forecast for wind is 10GW then 300MW of SR is normally required. Batteries will rapidly fill this requirement.

 

 

Nick - the first sentence is perhaps one quarter right, three quarters wrong, and the second sentence is right. As I pointed out originally some spinning reserve is required in an ordinary grid (I think its the largest not the two largest but never mind). Now go back and look at what it says on the release Jay cites. You are also essentially comparing two different grids with quite different levels and types of renewables. The major problem with Darwin is the huge amount of roof top solar on the grid which comes and goes as it pleases (clouds, remember?). This would be a substantial fraction of the grid output and the grid authorities have no control over it. Lots of spinning reserve would be essential. End of story. As for the wind in the UK the UK grid is many, many times larger than the top end grid and the spinning reserve requirement would depend on the level of penetration at any one time. Your 10GW of wind is about one fifth of peak demand. See this live site   https://energynumbers.info/gbgrid 

Remember you will be looking at it at a different time to me. Look at the dial at the bottom and at the way the UK grid can import power from other large grids. France has a lot of nuclear power, if you will recall.  Now at 10GW of wind there is no way the spinning reserve is just 3 per cent. I dunno where you got the one hour ahead figure but as far I know they don't use such forecasts. When I looked at the UK site, wind was generating about 7 per cent of demand (this figure would vary during the day and the season) and at that level the spinning reserve requirement would be much less in proportion.. All that said, they can draw on the reserves of other countries.. also in Darwin a battery may make an appreciable difference on the smaller grid.. 

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The things you come up with are hilarious! 

The batteries are substitutes for gas. As in turn on the battery and turn off the gas. They turn intermittent renewables into high quality dispatchable power generators.

Jay - go and look at the release you cited originally. See that it says "cheaper option" than "massive amounts" of spinning reserve. The cheapest option would have been not to have the renewables, and the spinning reserve they require, in the first place. In other words the batteries have to be put in place to offset the costs caused by the first decision to put enormous amounts of renewables on the system. All the supposed "savings" should be seen in that light.  And are you going to see power prices come down? I very much doubt it. If you are laughing over my answer it is because you don't understand the question. Leave it with you.

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Batteries are the biggest impediment. At this point increases in solar panel efficiency is less meaningful than bigger/cheaper/better performing batteries. This could be a dramatic move in that direction

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a31047440/corn-starch-lithium-ion/

"Could a simple materials change make electric car batteries able to four times more energy? Scientists in South Korea think so. In a new paper in the American Chemical Society’s Nano Letters, a research team details using silicon and repurposed corn starch to make better anodes for lithium ion batteries. 

Interesting possibility but like all of these announcements I'll react when it reaches the market.. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

54 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Interesting possibility but like all of these announcements I'll react when it reaches the market.. 

Very true, this one I point out as a special case due to the ease of implementation. Another article I read about this process quoted the Korean researchers as saying they would be surprised if it wasn't incorporated in existing battery lines. They claim it's basically plug and play, but we'll see.

The other article also said it can be charged in ~10 minutes

Edited May 27, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 5/25/2020 at 5:51 PM, markslawson said:

Note this key statement in the press release..

to help both absorb the excess power and variability from the rooftop solar resources, and to accelerate solar’s deployment, and also as a cheaper option to the massive amounts of spinning reserve.

They have to install the battery to help offset some of the additional emissions caused by their reliance on renewable energy, specifically rooftop solar. For those who don't know spinning reserve is conventional plants kept operating (and so generating emissions) but offline ready to hook up at a moment's notice when the renewables drop out. A certain amount is required in a conventional grid but the requirement increases substantially when there is a lot of renewables, greatly reducing any actual gain in carbon reduction although we are never told this.. Note the release says "massive amounts" of spinning reserve. Batteries make a lot of sense in this role although, of course, it is yet more money that has to be spent to get cheap green power.

Any system with variable demand needs a way to vary its supply. Peakers are often used for this. If a system is designed to handle sudden unexpected loss of supply it can use "spinning reserve". As I understand it, spinning reserve is a peaker that keeps its turbines spinning using a small amount of NG, but under no electrical load. It can ramp up very quickly when demand for electricity goes up by increasing the NG input as the electrical demand increases. As demand increases, the generator's torque increases, and the turbine responds by using more NG to maintain constant RPM.  So, it provides two separate but interrelated services, support for peak demand and support for sudden supply loss.

A battery can also supply both of these services, just like a peaker. A battery can react much more quickly than a peaker. It all depends how much power the battery can supply. A peaker can also continue to operate for more than four hours at full power, but a battery cannot.  This means that a peaker can fulfill the role of a backup generator in addition to its roles as "spinning reserve" and peaking. A system with batteries will need some other form of backup generation, but that generation will have four hours to come online.

Please note that the above discussion is independent of renewables: you can use batteries to reduce or eliminate peakers in any system, and they can be cost-effective if battery efficiency exceeds the difference between baseload efficiency and peaker efficiency. Renewables add variable supply to the existing complexities of variable demand and sudden supply loss, so with renewables, you potentially have a larger need for battery power, or battery storage capacity, or some alternative storage and generation scheme. You don't have a larger need for "spinning reserve", which is sized to match the largest reasonable sudden supply loss.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please note that the above discussion is independent of renewables: you can use batteries to reduce or eliminate peakers in any system, and they can be cost-effective if battery efficiency exceeds the difference between baseload efficiency and peaker efficiency. Renewables add variable supply to the existing complexities of variable demand and sudden supply loss, so with renewables, you potentially have a larger need for battery power, or battery storage capacity, or some alternative storage and generation scheme. You don't have a larger need for "spinning reserve", which is sized to match the largest reasonable sudden supply loss.

Excellent. Now I have a better understanding of where batteries fit into a grid system. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, BradleyPNW said:

Excellent. Now I have a better understanding of where batteries fit into a grid system. 

Yes, we almost always see batteries discussed in conjunction with the "duck curve", which hides the underlying capabilities. It is absolutely true that batteries are an excellent match for the need for time-shifting solar, but that is not the only thing the are good for.

The first well-known big battery was the Hornsdale installation in Australia that made big news when Elon famously said he could install it in 100 days. It was mostly described in terms of solar and wind, but the urgency was a result of the need for defense against a sudden supply failure. That need was dramatically shown during an unprecedented weather event that took out a bunch of interconnects, and that in turn caused a political uproar, leading to the super-quick installation.

The four-hour thing is serendipitous.  Solar needs about four hours of peak shifting. Lithium batteries have a four-hour energy-to-power ratio all the way down to the cell level. You can build a system with more than four hours (e.g., an eight-hour system by doubling the number of cells) but that system is artificially constrained to half its intrinsic power.    For cost-effective longer-term storage you need a different technology.  For very long-term storage (store in summer, use in winter) You need something like pumped hydro, H2, or CH4. If you have 4-hour battery storage, and you have (say) CH4 long-term storage, it is not likely that a third intermediate type would be cost-effective.

WARNING-WARNING-WARNING! I am not an expert. I'm just regurgitating stuff I read on the Internet, much of it in these forums, and I may have gotten some details wrong.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

3 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Very true, this one I point out as a special case due to the ease of implementation. Another article I read about this process quoted the Korean researchers as saying they would be surprised if it wasn't incorporated in existing battery lines. They claim it's basically plug and play, but we'll see.

The other article also said it can be charged in ~10 minutes

Unless it gets rid of NEED for Cobalt/Nickel, this is like pissing into the wind.  Can already charge in 10 minutes.  Just not that last few %.  Have to have active heating/cooling of the cells in question, but it can be done.  TESLA and Penn state university found this out when applied to super high current charging, but need active cooling afterwards pronto.  Likewise, battery must be fairly warm to begin with.  We blathered about this topic about 6 months ago. 

[eNiro + 1]

Renewables plus grid scale batteries kill gas peaking plants whenever they are installed. The Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia only has 2% of the grid capacity (as a generator) but has over 50% of the peaking market. It is first in the queue for frequency stabilising services and rightly so. There are similar projects like this cropping up all over the world which will eat into gas use for generating electricity, an incredibly wasteful process.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, eNiro said:

Renewables plus grid scale batteries kill gas peaking plants whenever they are installed. The Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia only has 2% of the grid capacity (as a generator) but has over 50% of the peaking market. It is first in the queue for frequency stabilising services and rightly so. There are similar projects like this cropping up all over the world which will eat into gas use for generating electricity, an incredibly wasteful process.

You won't make many friends on here with comments like that!