Court ruling clears way for energy storage on the grid(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Court ruling clears way for energy storage on the grid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2020/08/02/court-ruling-clears-way-for-energy-storage-on-the-grid-who-benefits/
89 comments
> The cheapest grid "battery" is minute-by-minute pricing of electricity.
This works to the extent that it works. But one of the big applications for a sufficiently cheap grid battery would be to store generation from solar to be used at night.
A large fraction of the nighttime load is for heat and light, because night is when it's cold and dark. It can't really be shifted into the daytime.
And another obvious use for a grid battery is to take advantage of that same demand pricing by buying power when it's cheap and selling when it's not.
This works to the extent that it works. But one of the big applications for a sufficiently cheap grid battery would be to store generation from solar to be used at night.
A large fraction of the nighttime load is for heat and light, because night is when it's cold and dark. It can't really be shifted into the daytime.
And another obvious use for a grid battery is to take advantage of that same demand pricing by buying power when it's cheap and selling when it's not.
> It can't really be shifted into the daytime.
The heat can be. Heat can be stored in the thermal mass of the house itself, and thermal mass can be added in the form of rocks.
With the advent of LED lights, the lighting bill isn't that much anymore.
The heat can be. Heat can be stored in the thermal mass of the house itself, and thermal mass can be added in the form of rocks.
With the advent of LED lights, the lighting bill isn't that much anymore.
This concept was widely deployed in certain regions with "storage heaters": very heavy (~40 Kg) electric heaters that would accumulate heat during the night when electricity is cheap and release it throughout the day.
They felt out of fashion because apparently they were hard to use as you cannot control how the heat is released. Charge them too much and you will have to open windows the next day wasting energy, charge them too little and you will have to turn them on during the day when the electricity is expensive.
They felt out of fashion because apparently they were hard to use as you cannot control how the heat is released. Charge them too much and you will have to open windows the next day wasting energy, charge them too little and you will have to turn them on during the day when the electricity is expensive.
[deleted]
> And another obvious use for a grid battery is to take advantage of that same demand pricing by buying power when it's cheap and selling when it's not.
Far as I get the actual price of electricity varies a lot, so there potentially a lot of arbitrage to exploit. There's a dozen ways to store energy with varying amount of round trip efficiency, capital costs, and operating costs. Some set of technologies will win out in that space.
I suspect one reason these technologies aren't well developed is because historically the cheapest is baseload power produced by coal and nuke plants. Economically the price is actually subsidized. So utilities did not want knuckleheads buying their cheap power at night and selling it during the day.
Far as I get the actual price of electricity varies a lot, so there potentially a lot of arbitrage to exploit. There's a dozen ways to store energy with varying amount of round trip efficiency, capital costs, and operating costs. Some set of technologies will win out in that space.
I suspect one reason these technologies aren't well developed is because historically the cheapest is baseload power produced by coal and nuke plants. Economically the price is actually subsidized. So utilities did not want knuckleheads buying their cheap power at night and selling it during the day.
You heat up a big block of concrete during the day. Insulated of course.
Then at night you run water through it, and pipe that (now hot) water to radiator around your house.
Already being deployed in Germany.
What's the advantage of using the block of concrete instead of directly heating water? Water has a 4x higher specific heat capacity by mass, or 2x higher by volume.
I could be entirely wrong as to the substance(s) involved :-)
I'm quoting from a memory of an article I read about 6 months ago, sorry.
googling for "specific heat high energy storage material" seems to indicate that rock-type materials are used where air heat is required.
I'm quoting from a memory of an article I read about 6 months ago, sorry.
googling for "specific heat high energy storage material" seems to indicate that rock-type materials are used where air heat is required.
They definitely are used in some circumstances. For example, a sauna uses heated rocks. This allows you to control the humidity separately and not have the water evaporate. I guess it would work just as well with sealed metal tanks of water, but rocks are cheaper and more traditionally available. And they can't leak.
So I'm not doubting you, just wondering why an intermediary heat storage medium is preferred in practice. Maybe for some of the same reasons as the sauna.
So I'm not doubting you, just wondering why an intermediary heat storage medium is preferred in practice. Maybe for some of the same reasons as the sauna.
This is all nice and well, though I'd like to add the thought that this is much easier to do on industry scale.
Have one large industrial factory like an aluminium smelter or steel plant that is redesigned in a way that it can shift its electricity use a little bit? That's probably having an effect larger than a lot of personal users.
I guess there's a political issue here, as industry often pays very little for electricity to begin with. I know at lesat in Germany most large industries are excluded from a lot of fees that normal customers pay. Providing "cheap and reliable electricity" to industry is often almost a political mantra. I guess it would make sense to say at some point: "Dear industry, you can have cheap electricity, you can have reliable electricity, but you can't have both. If you want to have it cheap you have to support the grid by providing flexibility."
Have one large industrial factory like an aluminium smelter or steel plant that is redesigned in a way that it can shift its electricity use a little bit? That's probably having an effect larger than a lot of personal users.
I guess there's a political issue here, as industry often pays very little for electricity to begin with. I know at lesat in Germany most large industries are excluded from a lot of fees that normal customers pay. Providing "cheap and reliable electricity" to industry is often almost a political mantra. I guess it would make sense to say at some point: "Dear industry, you can have cheap electricity, you can have reliable electricity, but you can't have both. If you want to have it cheap you have to support the grid by providing flexibility."
Providing cheap and reliable electricity to industry is basically a prerequisite to having industry in the first place, which is why it's so politically important in countries which still care about that. Aluminium smelters, being particularly sensitive to electricity cost, are somewhat willing to choose their location and reduce their power usage briefly if it gives them really, really cheap power, but I think even those still need to be running most of the time.
From what I heard there are reasons for both. Industrial electrical users are required to engage in their own impedience matching, demand regularion and other such contractual issues in addition to the ammount of other expenses for say 100MW to N consumer homes being greater than one connection to a widget factory.
It isn't some mustache twirling plot to make the consumer pay more while some abstract industrial fat cat pays more or anything - real economics are at play.
The prevailing obvious alternative to competitive pricing that tries to roll in other expenses would be direct generation by industrial scales running their own fossil fuel turbines or direct thermal alternatives. Which result in worse performance at scale from everyone mid-sized and up rolling their own separate systems and worse pollution control as instead of having four great smokestacks to put scrubbers on and regulate there are now four thousand small ones. Economies of scale have been here for centuries.
Aluminum smelters and steel plants while they may use a lot of power also cannot be just neglected and cut off mid-cycle without wasting a very large batch slag in a way that is very expensive to clean up.
It isn't some mustache twirling plot to make the consumer pay more while some abstract industrial fat cat pays more or anything - real economics are at play.
The prevailing obvious alternative to competitive pricing that tries to roll in other expenses would be direct generation by industrial scales running their own fossil fuel turbines or direct thermal alternatives. Which result in worse performance at scale from everyone mid-sized and up rolling their own separate systems and worse pollution control as instead of having four great smokestacks to put scrubbers on and regulate there are now four thousand small ones. Economies of scale have been here for centuries.
Aluminum smelters and steel plants while they may use a lot of power also cannot be just neglected and cut off mid-cycle without wasting a very large batch slag in a way that is very expensive to clean up.
This exists already.
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/business-energy/virtual-power-p...
I'm not here for micromanaging my water heater or refrigerator.
Both need to hold their temperature as long as possible and get up(or down) to temperate at some balance point between speed and efficiency. I want my provider to even it out and set a reasonable price between the variable extremes so I don't have to think about it.
Both need to hold their temperature as long as possible and get up(or down) to temperate at some balance point between speed and efficiency. I want my provider to even it out and set a reasonable price between the variable extremes so I don't have to think about it.
The majority of electric water heaters in France and Swiss households are controlled by the utility company (Enedis in France, SIG, RECOM, etc. in Switzerland). The signal comes as a simple PLC and thus turns on the relay which turns the heater on.
The advantages are a lower rate and a guaranteed 8 hours straight on-time per day.
The advantages are a lower rate and a guaranteed 8 hours straight on-time per day.
You don't have to think about it. Just get an IoT refrigerator.
Sounds like a lot of hellish outcomes to me: Planned obsolescence, selling my data, privacy invasion. Did I miss any?
In theory it's possible to do it without any of that. All you need is a standard protocol for the power company to announce the current generation rate (and a prediction for what the rate will be over the next 24 hours), which your device then uses to determine when to use power, with no data ever going back in the other direction.
Of course, the actual implementations can (and in many cases have) been a lot worse than that.
Of course, the actual implementations can (and in many cases have) been a lot worse than that.
The only data transmitted to the power company is the query "what is the current price of electricity".
Yeah, but you can bet the manufacturer will avail themselves of every opportunity to make extra money and bundle ads while also selling your data. We've seen it with smart tvs compared to dumb tvs, smart phones compared to dumb phones, smart speakers compared to dumb speakers, etc, etc.
You're not thinking capitalistically enough.
You're not thinking capitalistically enough.
What data? My water heater sends a query every 10 minutes about the electricity price? And where's it going to display the ad?
Smart phones to dumb phones? Seriously? Until someone can post a guide to posting on using a rotary phone that is just an asinine comparison.
The fact that IoT is still a running joke and just a tolerated parasite to lower the sticker price at best is proof that the data is garbage because none of them are making much money off of it. Until they have an actual monetiziation plan for the data it is plain magical thinking.
"People mostly increase demand on their hot water heater in the early morning, evening, and night for showers dishwashers, and laundry on a semi-weekly, weekly, or bi-weekly basis."
"Well I could have told you that without spending six to seven figures on unnecessary expenses on a product line!"
The fact that IoT is still a running joke and just a tolerated parasite to lower the sticker price at best is proof that the data is garbage because none of them are making much money off of it. Until they have an actual monetiziation plan for the data it is plain magical thinking.
"People mostly increase demand on their hot water heater in the early morning, evening, and night for showers dishwashers, and laundry on a semi-weekly, weekly, or bi-weekly basis."
"Well I could have told you that without spending six to seven figures on unnecessary expenses on a product line!"
Why blame capitalism?
Call it what it is: exploitation.
Call it what it is: exploitation.
Because it is. People can choose to pay more for a device that doesn't do that, but they don't (for various reasons). It's capitalism meets human psychology.
Capital controlled by private owners rather than the state doesn’t necessarily include greed and fraud.
Greet and fraud are encouraged, if not idealised.
That’s not capitalism fault though.
Every other form of economic policy has the same problem, so it can’t be those systems in and of themselves that are the sole issue.
Greet and fraud are encouraged, if not idealised.
That’s not capitalism fault though.
Every other form of economic policy has the same problem, so it can’t be those systems in and of themselves that are the sole issue.
Sorry, I'm also a picky consumer when it comes to appliances. I want my fridge to be just a simple heat pump controlled by a thermostat.
You'll pay more for electricity, then. Your choice.
Will?
Might.
And probably trivially more, especially when you factor in a software update bricking your fridge and the manufacturer has conveniently disappeared / gone bankrupt / changed hands so many times no one knows who supports it.
You’re assuming an ideal world, which can’t possibly happen.
Might.
And probably trivially more, especially when you factor in a software update bricking your fridge and the manufacturer has conveniently disappeared / gone bankrupt / changed hands so many times no one knows who supports it.
You’re assuming an ideal world, which can’t possibly happen.
Working with some power companies in Australasia, I found out there are actually water heaters which receive a signal over the power lines to turn off and on. You would make an agreement with the power company for a lower rate, and a total amount of hours on per day (plus more details). The power company would then schedule your water heater in off peak times.
This was more of a method of managing peak load, however, still seems applicable.
This was more of a method of managing peak load, however, still seems applicable.
Any you would recommend? All the sales I’ve seen are based around gimmicky touchscreen and phone app controls that are likely to leave service long before the rest of the fridge does.
When you shower are you aware whether the water was heated an hour ago or a day ago?
Yea...hot water heaters aren't perfect insulators.
Actually they are pretty good. I did a test where I switched off a completely heated 150L standard home water heater for 36h and after that it only needed to heat for 0,6hWh to become back to the starting temperature.
Also you should always store hot water at a very hot temperature (Nasty bacteria thrive in warm water so you mustn't store it) but you should always mix it (with fresh cold water) to a lower temperature for bathing and washing.
So whether it's a tank of 80°C water or a tank of 65°C water make no difference to the 38°C water coming out of the thermostatic mixer in your shower.
So whether it's a tank of 80°C water or a tank of 65°C water make no difference to the 38°C water coming out of the thermostatic mixer in your shower.
You don't need to keep the water at a high temperature all the time.
I don't have the regulations to hand but it's enough to bring it to a high temperature once every few days for some period of time (to kill the bacteria that cause legionnaires disease).
I don't have the regulations to hand but it's enough to bring it to a high temperature once every few days for some period of time (to kill the bacteria that cause legionnaires disease).
0.6kWh sorry for the typo.
If the temperature is beginning to dip below it's acceptable threshold and it's waiting for a certain price before it kicks back on, yes.
I would also add that heat insulation is grossly underrated. With modern heat insulation solutions like wood or hemp concrete, mineral wool one can decrease the heating / cooling need by 60-80%. This can be combined with solar panels. In practice, this means we have ~10 USD heating / cooling cost per month for a medium size house in Central Europe. Initial cost is not trivial though. Same goes for other usage of electricity, for example lighting. Using LED lights reduce the energy need by a large percentage. The best energy optimisation is to reduce the amount of energy needed to be produced. Once you have that it becomes easier even with current technology to have a battery that can buffer your electricity,
Is this a real problem/solution? Wouldn't the current usage pattern of a city block be normalized across all residents such that there's no gain to be made here? Is the current minute to minute power usage fluctuating that much?
Don't things like water heaters and fridge compressors run many times a day. Is shifting all that to night hours even feasible simply because the appliance is smart?
Don't things like water heaters and fridge compressors run many times a day. Is shifting all that to night hours even feasible simply because the appliance is smart?
It is. Most people’s air con will switch on at similar times. People mostly shower first time in the morning, or in the evening, cook around the same time. Amusingly and semi-notoriously, the Uk national grid monitors for ‘tv pickups’ like halftime in the football or the cliffhanger in the latest Eastenders - they can spike hundreds to thousands of megawatts. There are special power stations to handle to peak while others spin up, otherwise the frequency drop would cause grid failures.
But that all seems like human behavior/usage that would have to change, not automated processes.
Even still, wouldn't randomly fuzzed automation times be easier to implement than an fully connected system?
Even still, wouldn't randomly fuzzed automation times be easier to implement than an fully connected system?
The concept is at best to try to use them as a local "lossy capicator" when the baseload power is unused to minimize dispatched power.
I suspect in this area they would get more flies with honey by letting them use power cheaper when they want to get rid of it. A "free/cheap power" signal essentially that tells any device which wants it to disregard efficiency - any utility is better than nothing.
Power banking batteries are the trivially obvious way to exploit and monetize it while fortunately stabilizing the grid as a side effect but well the infastructure costs are expensive.
Fuzzing would be easier to implement assuming the fuzz period is meaningful on a time scale without causing other problems like "power cycle it if it doesn't come on in twenty five seconds" because the end user/technician rightfully thinks it isn't working and when it rolls 5 second delay next time it gets a faster end boot.
I suspect in this area they would get more flies with honey by letting them use power cheaper when they want to get rid of it. A "free/cheap power" signal essentially that tells any device which wants it to disregard efficiency - any utility is better than nothing.
Power banking batteries are the trivially obvious way to exploit and monetize it while fortunately stabilizing the grid as a side effect but well the infastructure costs are expensive.
Fuzzing would be easier to implement assuming the fuzz period is meaningful on a time scale without causing other problems like "power cycle it if it doesn't come on in twenty five seconds" because the end user/technician rightfully thinks it isn't working and when it rolls 5 second delay next time it gets a faster end boot.
Regarding the water heater. Actually the more you heat something the more it also cools down. Unless you have beyond excellent insulation the coasting method will not do good for long.
The heater will release more heat the more it possesses and so it would be best to instead increase thermal mass than temparature.
Somebody correct me if im wrong
Somebody correct me if im wrong
> The same goes for the refrigerator
What do you mean? Fridges generally run at the highest reasonable temperature. Are you proposing adding more thermal mass to them?
What do you mean? Fridges generally run at the highest reasonable temperature. Are you proposing adding more thermal mass to them?
There's a range of suitable temperatures for your refrigerator. When electricity is cheap, it cools to the low bound, when expensive, it only cools it to the upper bound. Of course, increasing the thermal mass of the refrigerator will improve this.
Your freezer can do that, but your fridge can not. The safe range is 40-35 (4.4-1.6), however your food will spoil faster. It's better to keep it 37-35 (2.7-1.6).
That's a very narrow range. You might be able to pre-cool the freezer, and use some of its cold to keep the fridge where it needs to be.
But I suspect you would pay for that in lower efficiency, because the colder you need to go the less efficient the cooling is.
Electricity prices would have to be dramatically lower to make it worth taking your freezer extremely low to store cold.
I suppose you could make a freezer with a special water storage compartment (filled at home to reduce weight), then use that to store cold. But with the extra complexity, and lower efficiency.... just how much lower electrical prices are we talking?
That's a very narrow range. You might be able to pre-cool the freezer, and use some of its cold to keep the fridge where it needs to be.
But I suspect you would pay for that in lower efficiency, because the colder you need to go the less efficient the cooling is.
Electricity prices would have to be dramatically lower to make it worth taking your freezer extremely low to store cold.
I suppose you could make a freezer with a special water storage compartment (filled at home to reduce weight), then use that to store cold. But with the extra complexity, and lower efficiency.... just how much lower electrical prices are we talking?
Electricity prices go negative at times.
Only wholesale. Retail prices never go negative.
Never say never.
“Receive SMS alerts whenever prices drop below zero, or use our API to program your smart devices.”
https://octopus.energy/agile/
“Receive SMS alerts whenever prices drop below zero, or use our API to program your smart devices.”
https://octopus.energy/agile/
Thats not a narrow range at all for a very well insulated fridge.
Don't forget that people open the fridge, it's not realistic to make a fridge that you are not allowed to open at certain times.
Not necesary to make that requirement.
The way stuff like this works, is that with a fairly simple set of end-point power controland some pretty simple monitoring, and then some central smart software, you can effect pretty dramatic improvements.
For example, the smart controller allows the fridge temperature to drift (just a little), similarly with central heating, and geyser, and the net effect is that power draw is temporarily reduced during peak times.
Multiply this over your whole year and you have some cost savings.
Multiply it over a whole neighbourhood, and the utility can dramatically reduce their cost of maintenace, and their cost of deployed capital.
(Because of reduced power/thermal swings in their equipment, and reduced peak carrying capacity of the network)
The way stuff like this works, is that with a fairly simple set of end-point power controland some pretty simple monitoring, and then some central smart software, you can effect pretty dramatic improvements.
For example, the smart controller allows the fridge temperature to drift (just a little), similarly with central heating, and geyser, and the net effect is that power draw is temporarily reduced during peak times.
Multiply this over your whole year and you have some cost savings.
Multiply it over a whole neighbourhood, and the utility can dramatically reduce their cost of maintenace, and their cost of deployed capital.
(Because of reduced power/thermal swings in their equipment, and reduced peak carrying capacity of the network)
One important aspect of this is battery capacity can be safely placed at the grid edge. Power infringement is built to handle the capacity of the peek days but statically these peeks only occur once in a blue-moon. By adding battery capacity at the edge of the grid significantly less long distance transmission infrastructure is is needed and the grid can be balanced in a much more targeted way.
Who benefits? Pretty much everybody except fossil fuel power plant owners.
They create much more reliable power grids and eliminate the need for many natural gas power plants that are expensive to maintain and only run during peak power demand.
They create much more reliable power grids and eliminate the need for many natural gas power plants that are expensive to maintain and only run during peak power demand.
In growing communities I don't know that this is necessarily a problem for the incumbents.
What stops them from installing batteries in front of a base power plant instead of building more peaking plants? Wouldn't that be a cheaper way for them to keep up with growing demand?
You can also use energy storage for peak shaving on long distance lines (which might be to our detriment, as they may avoid building needed infrastructure, resulting in brownouts)
What stops them from installing batteries in front of a base power plant instead of building more peaking plants? Wouldn't that be a cheaper way for them to keep up with growing demand?
You can also use energy storage for peak shaving on long distance lines (which might be to our detriment, as they may avoid building needed infrastructure, resulting in brownouts)
Right, I like the "battery in front of a coal plant" option too. However, renewables (especially solar and wind) have the nice quirk that they require no fuel and thus no fuel cost. So solar for example is charging a battery in the middle of the day when the sun is high and solar dominates the grid anyway (solar being over capacity at noon, rates are cheap at that hour because solar is just pouring power onto the grid at zero marginal cost). Coal at that time would be just burning fuel to charge a battery, only slightly better than keeping the plant running below-cost for the sake of keeping it on through the rate dip to keep the lights on for the 5pm load shift to the suburbs (you know, back in pre-COVID days when we had a commute)
Curtailing a coal plant (turning it off due to overcapacity) isn't fast, as the boiling water only slowly cools down (vs a natural gas turbine is typically faster to turn off as it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine).
Curtailing a coal plant (turning it off due to overcapacity) isn't fast, as the boiling water only slowly cools down (vs a natural gas turbine is typically faster to turn off as it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine).
it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine
Recent gas plants are called CCGT, and use both combusted gas and hot steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
As Wiki explains it: combined cycle has a large gas turbine (operating by the Brayton cycle). The turbine's hot exhaust powers a steam power plant (operating by the Rankine cycle). This is a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant. These achieve a best-of-class real (see below) thermal efficiency of around 64% in base-load operation.
Modern natural gas plants are very efficient. (But probably not as efficient as PV solar storing energy in grid scale batteries).
Recent gas plants are called CCGT, and use both combusted gas and hot steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
As Wiki explains it: combined cycle has a large gas turbine (operating by the Brayton cycle). The turbine's hot exhaust powers a steam power plant (operating by the Rankine cycle). This is a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant. These achieve a best-of-class real (see below) thermal efficiency of around 64% in base-load operation.
Modern natural gas plants are very efficient. (But probably not as efficient as PV solar storing energy in grid scale batteries).
Those are competing with a combined cycle steam to steam turbines. Which take much longer to heat up than a turbine to steam system.
With combined cycle gas turbines you get some ramp up time, but about 1/2 of power outpost is available instantly. Also, as a general rule all energy required to heat up an engine to working temperatures is wasted when you turn them off.
With combined cycle gas turbines you get some ramp up time, but about 1/2 of power outpost is available instantly. Also, as a general rule all energy required to heat up an engine to working temperatures is wasted when you turn them off.
CCGT plants aren't generally used for handling peaks and unpredictable loads. They handle load change better than coal plants, however the grid usually has to depend on OCGT or batteries for stabilising the impact of unpredictable renewables (or unpredictable demand). Both these solutions are expensive and add significantly to the overall cost of pushing more energy generation to renewables.
OCGT is used for short-term peaks, but at least here in the UK the bulk of the work of smoothing out the gaps left by renewables and demand variation over longer time periods (hours or more) is done by more efficient CCGT plants. This is usually pretty visible on gridwatch.co.uk - you can see the level of CCGT generation varying from day to day as wind generation rises and falls.
There is this bad penny idea that solar at scale won't work without massive batteries. My belief is you can use CCGT plants to backstop solar and wind just fine.
Solar (and wind) is getting so cheap that the first option is to overbuild and throw some excess electricity away. Batteries are then well placed to shift a few gours worth of solar from day to night.
Gas still has a place for seasonal demand far from the equator but even there you can dilute the gas with hydrogen to lower its carbon footprint.
Gas still has a place for seasonal demand far from the equator but even there you can dilute the gas with hydrogen to lower its carbon footprint.
You don’t need batteries in front of base generation (which there isn’t much left of as coal and nuclear phase out), and batteries allow renewables to generate more revenue per MWh as that power is now considered dispatchable (Callable on demand) by the grid operator.
Batteries are direct competitors against large amounts of legacy investments (coal, natural gas, and nuclear). They can charge from any (localish) grid power source when power is cheap, discharge when power is more expensive (arbitrage), and are stupid fast (hundreds of milliseconds) at providing frequency response services thermal generators have previously provided (single digit minutes, competitively, to get spinning metal up to a higher speed).
Peak shaving is definitely a use case (Tesla uses it to shave demand charges at some Superchargers for example), but that’s a consumer (not utility or investor owned generator) benefit.
TLDR Old grid->new grid is happening rapidly and incumbents are going to get left behind.
Batteries are direct competitors against large amounts of legacy investments (coal, natural gas, and nuclear). They can charge from any (localish) grid power source when power is cheap, discharge when power is more expensive (arbitrage), and are stupid fast (hundreds of milliseconds) at providing frequency response services thermal generators have previously provided (single digit minutes, competitively, to get spinning metal up to a higher speed).
Peak shaving is definitely a use case (Tesla uses it to shave demand charges at some Superchargers for example), but that’s a consumer (not utility or investor owned generator) benefit.
TLDR Old grid->new grid is happening rapidly and incumbents are going to get left behind.
At the risk of repeating myself:
High Tension power lines are not free. Some run at capacity, so batteries would help.
Battery power in front of base power means fewer peaking plants, which lowers the relative value of renewables to the entrenched (while only slightly improving emissions).
Many will be more comfortable with batteries than windmills. I'm not saying this because I think they should win, I'm trying to prepare you for the sort of pushback you should anticipate from policy makers.
High Tension power lines are not free. Some run at capacity, so batteries would help.
Battery power in front of base power means fewer peaking plants, which lowers the relative value of renewables to the entrenched (while only slightly improving emissions).
Many will be more comfortable with batteries than windmills. I'm not saying this because I think they should win, I'm trying to prepare you for the sort of pushback you should anticipate from policy makers.
[deleted]
Enough storage capacity (like the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant) can store power from nuclear plants overnight, leveling the load on the nuclear plants.
True, but the geographies to support such pumped storage capacities are rare. When available, fully support their use to buffer base load with the demand curve (and its easier on nuclear generators than having them perform load following, which causes accelerated wear on the valves and related components; let nukes run flat out).
Tesla installed batteries in South Australia and they've already proven themselves a few times.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-south-australia-...
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumb...
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-south-australia-...
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumb...
In Europe, and I can only assume that it’s similar to the US, the energy market is actually running a surprisingly complicated auction system. For example, since power generation and consumption have to be balanced at all times, power generation capability that can ramp up and down quickly is more valuable than one with the same nominal power that can only be controlled slowly. As far as I understand, all of this is priced in, with separate auctions for different timescales.
What batteries allow you to do is to perform time arbitrage in this market. As with many other forms of arbitrage, this should lower average prices, though some specific current uses could suffer. For example, if this is deployed at scale, electricity might no longer be all that much cheaper at night.
What batteries allow you to do is to perform time arbitrage in this market. As with many other forms of arbitrage, this should lower average prices, though some specific current uses could suffer. For example, if this is deployed at scale, electricity might no longer be all that much cheaper at night.
Yes, this is sort-of the case in the US, with the quirk that we have 3 major grids: the Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and Texas.
Within that are individual utility companies: some are traditional top-down utilities that own both generation and poles-and-wires, vs some utilities are competitively bidding generation (and sometimes bidding consumption). Layer on top of that many interconnected "power market areas".
https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/us-electricity-grid-markets
Within that are individual utility companies: some are traditional top-down utilities that own both generation and poles-and-wires, vs some utilities are competitively bidding generation (and sometimes bidding consumption). Layer on top of that many interconnected "power market areas".
https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/us-electricity-grid-markets
Let me add some detail to your coverage of the interconnects in relation to the more granular power markets.
For example, ERCOT (Texas) has a 1:1 relationship with its market, but the rest are different. The Eastern Interconnect has many power markets made up of many many utilities. PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, SPP, & MISO are the energy markets (called ISOs or RTOs) in the Eastern Interconnect. There is also the government owned TVA and Southern Company which is kinda like a large vertically integrated utility.
These markets perform some of the most complex MIP models on the planet in their optimization. FERC Order #841 addresses the incorporation of storage into these markets.
For example, ERCOT (Texas) has a 1:1 relationship with its market, but the rest are different. The Eastern Interconnect has many power markets made up of many many utilities. PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, SPP, & MISO are the energy markets (called ISOs or RTOs) in the Eastern Interconnect. There is also the government owned TVA and Southern Company which is kinda like a large vertically integrated utility.
These markets perform some of the most complex MIP models on the planet in their optimization. FERC Order #841 addresses the incorporation of storage into these markets.
> ...the fight generators and transmission companies have waged to prevent wholesale market access for batteries.
just in case somebody still thinks that climate change is a technical problem.
just in case somebody still thinks that climate change is a technical problem.
Lovely. Just got my own 6.6kW ground mount grid-tied array installed. During the summer here in NM, this produces roughly 4x more electricity than we need. Currently, it's just dumping into the (local) grid, and probably powering a few neighbor's homes, which is excellent.
But this just highlights the bigger more general problem: it makes little sense for us to have our own battery system, and bigger systems need to power storage if solar is to be able to provide overnight supplies.
I keep wringing my hands over whether I should have aimed for full off-grid status rather than grid-tied, but if/as the grid gains viably scaled storage, grid-tied becomes more and more clear as the right choice.
But this just highlights the bigger more general problem: it makes little sense for us to have our own battery system, and bigger systems need to power storage if solar is to be able to provide overnight supplies.
I keep wringing my hands over whether I should have aimed for full off-grid status rather than grid-tied, but if/as the grid gains viably scaled storage, grid-tied becomes more and more clear as the right choice.
[deleted]
battery prices are far too high to be competitive with grid, even at crazy CA prices. I put in a 1.2kw carport array over my leaf ev so I can trickle charge it (720w is the minimum charge rate, needs a special charger to go that low). That also gives me enough juice to easily power my fridge and a large DIY air filter in the house when fires and outages come around again.
The panels are so cheap, even if I get only 2 charges per week it will pay itself off in a couple of years.
The panels are so cheap, even if I get only 2 charges per week it will pay itself off in a couple of years.
For me it's not about "competitive with grid". I'm already (I hope) at net zero for annual electrical consumption vs. generation.
The question is whether it's best to shunt the excess generation into my own storage (batteries) or the grid. Although practically speaking it likely makes no difference (my excess just flows into my neighbors' homes), conceptually flowing into a grid with and without its storage seems quite different.
The question is whether it's best to shunt the excess generation into my own storage (batteries) or the grid. Although practically speaking it likely makes no difference (my excess just flows into my neighbors' homes), conceptually flowing into a grid with and without its storage seems quite different.
I'm working towards solar+battery mostly because I feel that my electric energy costs are unreasonably high and I scored a residential battery for free. Had I not gotten it for free, I would probably have bought one anyway just to give PG&E the finger.
Depending on the size of your array, the problem with battery storage is that to actually capture the full output of a moderately sized array would require an enormous battery bank. So large that almost nobody would have one large enough. You'll just be throwing away generated power.
By contrast, being grid-tied gives the peak power output somewhere to go/something to do.
Now, if you live somewhere where your year round electrical needs are roughly constant, this is less of an issue: just size the array (and the bank) appropriately for your needs, there won't be much excess power.
However, here in New Mexico, my wife and I use very little electricity for 6 months a year, a bit more for 3 months and quite a lot for the remaining 3 months because we have heat pumps for heating during the (cold) winter. Consequently, there's a compromise involved in sizing the array, and in my case, I picked a size that ought to a little too small in the winter and a lot too big in the summer, with the goal of net-zero for the year overall. That means that in the summer, I've got oodles of excess electrical power. Batteries on site would be impractical to store it.
By contrast, being grid-tied gives the peak power output somewhere to go/something to do.
Now, if you live somewhere where your year round electrical needs are roughly constant, this is less of an issue: just size the array (and the bank) appropriately for your needs, there won't be much excess power.
However, here in New Mexico, my wife and I use very little electricity for 6 months a year, a bit more for 3 months and quite a lot for the remaining 3 months because we have heat pumps for heating during the (cold) winter. Consequently, there's a compromise involved in sizing the array, and in my case, I picked a size that ought to a little too small in the winter and a lot too big in the summer, with the goal of net-zero for the year overall. That means that in the summer, I've got oodles of excess electrical power. Batteries on site would be impractical to store it.
I will almost certainly remain grid-tied for quite some years to come, so excess will go elsewhere. But I want to pull in fairly close to zero. Also, I'm in the Bay Area and my electricity needs will track sun pretty well. Heating is currently gas and cooling is electricity.
I plan to end up with Mitsubishi ductless units sooner or later, at which point there will be more opportunity to balance out energy consumption. And I'm probably 1-2 years from owning an EV, given how our commuter car is holding together.
I plan to end up with Mitsubishi ductless units sooner or later, at which point there will be more opportunity to balance out energy consumption. And I'm probably 1-2 years from owning an EV, given how our commuter car is holding together.
If batteries lasted forever I suspect they would be worth it. But they don't, they wear out fast enough it's going to cost too much.
Maybe if they started making Vanadium redox batteries at scale. I actually tried to price one out once, but they don't seem available to consumers.
Maybe if they started making Vanadium redox batteries at scale. I actually tried to price one out once, but they don't seem available to consumers.
In the US how do your solar energy subsidies work?
In the UK where green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy is implemented as Contracts for Difference. What this means is that the government ensures you get paid a specific fee for your electricity (the "strike price" decided by auction when the project subsidy was agreed) say £58 per MWh - regardless. If you actually sell electricity for £12 per MWh during a glut the government pays £46 to make up the difference, but if you sell electricity when prices are £95 per MWh during a shortage, the government gets £37 back from that.
These CfDs are auctioned, thus providing a signal about whether subsidy is needed. If bids approach the actual market price of electricity then there's no need to have any further rounds of subsidy for this class of power - apparently financial backers are happy to build such generators at the price the market will already pay.
This fits nicely with the fact that all the obvious green options are capital dominated. A traditional fossil fuel power plant consumes fuel to make power, which means below some particular price it will shut off to avoid spending more on fuel than it earns from selling electricity. But this is never true for a wind farm, or solar farm, and it's only barely in principle possible for nuclear (Nuclear fuel is expensive, but a little goes a long way). So in fact you will always sell all the power from these sources, and the only question is how much for?
In the UK where green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy is implemented as Contracts for Difference. What this means is that the government ensures you get paid a specific fee for your electricity (the "strike price" decided by auction when the project subsidy was agreed) say £58 per MWh - regardless. If you actually sell electricity for £12 per MWh during a glut the government pays £46 to make up the difference, but if you sell electricity when prices are £95 per MWh during a shortage, the government gets £37 back from that.
These CfDs are auctioned, thus providing a signal about whether subsidy is needed. If bids approach the actual market price of electricity then there's no need to have any further rounds of subsidy for this class of power - apparently financial backers are happy to build such generators at the price the market will already pay.
This fits nicely with the fact that all the obvious green options are capital dominated. A traditional fossil fuel power plant consumes fuel to make power, which means below some particular price it will shut off to avoid spending more on fuel than it earns from selling electricity. But this is never true for a wind farm, or solar farm, and it's only barely in principle possible for nuclear (Nuclear fuel is expensive, but a little goes a long way). So in fact you will always sell all the power from these sources, and the only question is how much for?
I’m in a process of building 1MW in Poland, and - at least here - it’s not true that renewables are not commercially viable.
That is, if I finished building today and began trading on an open market, I would benefit more in the upcoming years (possibly overall), than through auctions.
The benefit of auctions is that since they guarantee the proce for the next 15 years, it’s way easier to get financing for them.
Our estimates show that we would have way higher returns on the open market, but the risks would be much higher as well.
That is, if I finished building today and began trading on an open market, I would benefit more in the upcoming years (possibly overall), than through auctions.
The benefit of auctions is that since they guarantee the proce for the next 15 years, it’s way easier to get financing for them.
Our estimates show that we would have way higher returns on the open market, but the risks would be much higher as well.
Which basically means the government is taking on that risk and (potential) profit.
> it’s not true that renewables are not commercially viable.
Ah, I think this is perhaps a language problem. Given you said in Poland I suppose that it's plausible English is not your first language. Here's what I wrote:
> In the UK where green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy is implemented as Contracts for Difference.
Now, what I intended here is that "where" is a conditional constraint on the subsequent explanation. I can see what you thought I meant, and it's a valid reading of the sentence but isn't what I intended. What I was going for is roughly equivalent in meaning to:
> In the UK, if some particular type of green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy for that type of green energy is implemented as Contracts for Difference.
Thus, CfDs are no longer available for some proven plant types, it makes commercial sense to build these anyway, so no need to subsidise them. But for others subsidy is still very much necessary. Tidal projects are an example, you can make power from tidal forces, on the coast and Britain has lots of coast because it's an island - but right now all projects have a huge up-front capital investment that can't be justified by low electricity prices so a large subsidy is necessary if they are to be developed other than as small research projects.
You're correct that risk reduction means it can make sense to offer (and bid for) CfDs even when the strike price will be below expected market prices. And it's anticipated that a future UK government "Pot 1" auction for onshore wind will work out that way, there's no way new onshore wind needs £40+ per MWh but that's what you'd get on the open market today, however the risk reduction is valuable at a lower price.
Ah, I think this is perhaps a language problem. Given you said in Poland I suppose that it's plausible English is not your first language. Here's what I wrote:
> In the UK where green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy is implemented as Contracts for Difference.
Now, what I intended here is that "where" is a conditional constraint on the subsequent explanation. I can see what you thought I meant, and it's a valid reading of the sentence but isn't what I intended. What I was going for is roughly equivalent in meaning to:
> In the UK, if some particular type of green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy for that type of green energy is implemented as Contracts for Difference.
Thus, CfDs are no longer available for some proven plant types, it makes commercial sense to build these anyway, so no need to subsidise them. But for others subsidy is still very much necessary. Tidal projects are an example, you can make power from tidal forces, on the coast and Britain has lots of coast because it's an island - but right now all projects have a huge up-front capital investment that can't be justified by low electricity prices so a large subsidy is necessary if they are to be developed other than as small research projects.
You're correct that risk reduction means it can make sense to offer (and bid for) CfDs even when the strike price will be below expected market prices. And it's anticipated that a future UK government "Pot 1" auction for onshore wind will work out that way, there's no way new onshore wind needs £40+ per MWh but that's what you'd get on the open market today, however the risk reduction is valuable at a lower price.
I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it? Especially Texas where free competition is the norm ;) Ok, that was sprinkled with a pinch of snark.
Honestly, if it helps consumers why would states be against it? What are we missing here?
Honestly, if it helps consumers why would states be against it? What are we missing here?
>I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it?
Corruption. Namely, Regulatory Capture.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Corruption. Namely, Regulatory Capture.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Your home is a "battery" as you can run the temperature of your hot water heater higher when electricity is cheaper, and let it "coast" when electricity is more expensive. You still have hot water on demand.
The same goes for the refrigerator, heating system and the cooling system. This can be made even more effective by increasing the thermal mass of the house, for example, with a pile of rocks. Pretty cheap for a battery, don't you think?
And, of course, there's charging your car when electricity is cheaper.
At last, we actually have a use for the Internet-of-things - an internet device on your hotwater heater to query the current price of electricity.
Pretty darned cheap for a grid battery.