Federal push to develop batteries for power grid runs into state opposition

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle by  James Osborne June 20, 2019

The power sector has long viewed batteries as the answer to the challenges of the modern electric grid — from intermittent wind and solar resources to power surges to demand spikes — but efforts by the federal government to speed their development have run into fierce opposition from states and utilities reluctant to cede control over the emerging technology.

The stakes are high, not just for the future of batteries and other energy storage, but also for the power grid itself. The outcome could slow the development of smaller-scale batteries for homes and businesses, potentially hindering a budding industry and creating a series of technological dead zones around the county.

“It will change the math to where you see distributed storage being developed,” said Jason Burwen, vice president of policy at the Energy Storage Association, a trade group. “For the battery industry, [FERC’s rule] is providing a path to market and a revenue stream.”

At issue is a decision last year by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to require grid operators to adjust their power market rules to encourage individual customers to invest in energy storage, much as favorable rules helped accelerate the spread of wind and solar energy.

States, however, balked at the requirement, questioning FERC’s authority over the distribution-level power grid and asking to the exempted the federal rule. FERC denied the request last month, but now, a coalition of state power regulators, municipal utilities and rural power cooperatives are plotting their next legal move, setting up a possible challenge in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Federal-push-to-develop-batteries-for-power-grid-14024276.php

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Batteries, like electric cars, are mostly a waste of money and any requirements like FERC just came up with are designed by and large not to assist the energy sector but to prop up uneconomic enterprises called renewables and electric cars.

We already have an outstanding way to store and transport energy and use it when needed.

It is called hydrocarbons, naturally supplied by the Almighty.

[thackney]

Batteries, like electric cars, are mostly a waste of money and any requirements like FERC just came up with are designed by and large not to assist the energy sector but to prop up uneconomic enterprises called renewables and electric cars.

We already have an outstanding way to store and transport energy and use it when needed.

It is called hydrocarbons, naturally supplied by the Almighty.

Working on the power side, I disagree.

This has been the brass ring the power industry has been trying to grab for decades.

The ability to flatten out the demand cycle, reducing the peak and raising the bottom would be a massive cost savings for the industry.  Rather than installing generators that only run for a few hours of the day, base load generator would produce extra power during the low demand and the batteries release that during the high demand.

Combine that with distributing the batteries closer to the load centers and you also get transmission savings.

It is not wanted for environmental reasons, it could be a massive cost savings.


Peak shaving with batteries
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/225774
Published in: 12th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, 1993. CIRED

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Working on the power side, I disagree.

This has been the brass ring the power industry has been trying to grab for decades.

The ability to flatten out the demand cycle, reducing the peak and raising the bottom would be a massive cost savings for the industry.  Rather than installing generators that only run for a few hours of the day, base load generator would produce extra power during the low demand and the batteries release that during the high demand.

Combine that with distributing the batteries closer to the load centers and you also get transmission savings.

It is not wanted for environmental reasons, it could be a massive cost savings.


Peak shaving with batteries
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/225774
Published in: 12th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, 1993. CIRED

You disagree it is a waste of money to prop up renewables?  We all know that is the main reason grid batteries are being targeted vigorously. 

In fact, the very first sentence says it The power sector has long viewed batteries as the answer to the challenges of the modern electric grid — from intermittent wind and solar resources to power surges to demand spikes —

Renewables fail when long transmissions make their installation less commercial, which I assume is the definition of what they call a 'modern grid'.  Are there so called 'modern grids' being constructed to accommodate nuclear, coal or gas powered transmission lines?

Peak shaving can also be made by water impoundments, gas-fired generators, etc. rather than batteries, can't they?

[thackney]

You disagree it is a waste of money to prop up renewables?  We all know that is the main reason grid batteries are being targeted vigorously.

Grid batteries have been pursued by electric utilities for decades, completely separate from renewables.  The main goal of flattening out the demand curve is independent of the supply.

As the economics approached a usable figure, other uses such as non-dispatchable power supply, ie renewables and also industrial co-gens, have found reasons to use them.  The renewables have gotten the recent press, but that is not all the industry is after.

In fact, the very first sentence says it The power sector has long viewed batteries as the answer to the challenges of the modern electric grid — from intermittent wind and solar resources to power surges to demand spikes —

Are you really surprised a current article includes discussion of current issues?

Renewables fail when long transmissions make their installation less commercial,

All power sources have this issue.  Nobody ever wanted the Nuclear Power Plant located inside the big city limits.

which I assume is the definition of what they call a 'modern grid'.  Are there so called 'modern grids' being constructed to accommodate nuclear, coal or gas powered transmission lines?

Modern gird is a heck of a lot more than just long transmission lines.  They operate on tighter margins and controls, far more electronic noise, faster changing load profiles, etc.

Peak shaving can also be made by water impoundments, gas-fired generators, etc. rather than batteries, can't they?

Sure they can work but the economics are swinging to the batteries.  And if you can find then permit thousands of acres with sufficient height differential the water works typically at 75% compared to 90% of the battery.  Gas fired peakers are expensive, you build the whole infrastructure to operate a few hours where the battery system can be tied into existing substations as they essentially flatten out the load profile adding demand when demand is low and releasing power when demand is high.

The other massive advantage is how fast the battery systems can react, milliseconds.  Upset conditions such as power plants or refineries tripping off-line can be balanced as fast as they happen.  The modern battery systems become a significant improvement to stability in the grid rather tripping units or shedding customers.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If they are so good; and desitlrable, why are the feds mandating them?

Wouldn't they occur naturally as a consequence of economics rather than another mandate?

Mandates tell this economist they cannot compete in the marketplace.

[Joe Wooten]

This mandate is for ONE reason and ONE reason only - to set up a hidden subsidy paid by the utility ratepayers for the battery manufacturers such as Tesla. I know research in batteries has been going on for decades. I knew a couple of PhD candidates at UT Austin back in the late 70's who were doing research sponsored by Texas Utilities and HL&P. The utilities, mostly through EPRI have been sponsoring this research for many years and the Feds have also been heavily involved too.

The biggest problem is twofold - capacity and durability. High capacity batteries have a low durability, and high durability batteries have a low capacity. So far all the materials research has not come up with a battery that has both high capacity and durability. They may never find one that is relativity cheap as compared to building a simple cycle gas turbine peaking plant, which can be run by remote control by the grid controllers.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This mandate is for ONE reason and ONE reason only - to set up a hidden subsidy paid by the utility ratepayers for the battery manufacturers such as Tesla. I know research in batteries has been going on for decades. I knew a couple of PhD candidates at UT Austin back in the late 70's who were doing research sponsored by Texas Utilities and HL&P. The utilities, mostly through EPRI have been sponsoring this research for many years and the Feds have also been heavily involved too.

The biggest problem is twofold - capacity and durability. High capacity batteries have a low durability, and high durability batteries have a low capacity. So far all the materials research has not come up with a battery that has both high capacity and durability. They may never find one that is relativity cheap as compared to building a simple cycle gas turbine peaking plant, which can be run by remote control by the grid controllers.

That mantra is repeated all the time 'Why do it if gas-fired already has the capability and is cheaper?'

There exists in this country such abundant supplies of natural gas, it will be next century before supplies will diminish.  We have the incredible capability NOW to greatly decrease energy rates with natural gas, so it is moronic to continue to prop up alternatives that cannot compete and perhaps can NEVER compete commercially.

Natural gas is fungible in so many ways including its capability via Fischer Tropsch to produce synthetic gasoline, diesel and about any other hydrocarbon we presently produce by crude.

It is the future, and we remain mired in wasting our energies and time with endeavors that make no economic sense and adventures to pacify certain vested interests that have the government's ear.

[thackney]

That mantra is repeated all the time 'Why do it if gas-fired already has the capability and is cheaper?'

Just looking at NatGas only for example.

You can have a 60% efficient Combined-Cycle Base Load NatGas running fully loaded at the average rate using a 90% efficient battery system to draw in power during low demand and release power during high demand.

Or you can have a 60% efficient Combined-Cycle Base Load NatGas running fully loaded at the bottom of the demand curve and pick up the swing with a 35% Simple-Cycle Peaker NatGas unit.

The economics are beginning to make sense as battery systems keep getting cheaper.  It is why even though FERC does NOT have jurisdiction over ERCOT, Texas is still building grid sized battery storage systems.

The federal mandates will speed up battery growth in other areas, but even in Texas, we are adding them as well.

https://www.energy.gov/fe/how-gas-turbine-power-plants-work

https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants

[Bigun]

Why in the hell do WE continue to allow the FedGov to pick winners and losers in our markets?

[Taxcontrol]

Batteries, like electric cars, are mostly a waste of money and any requirements like FERC just came up with are designed by and large not to assist the energy sector but to prop up uneconomic enterprises called renewables and electric cars.

We already have an outstanding way to store and transport energy and use it when needed.

It is called hydrocarbons, naturally supplied by the Almighty.

For stationary applications, flywheels make a great alternative to batteries - http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/flywheels

[Joe Wooten]

Just looking at NatGas only for example.

You can have a 60% efficient Combined-Cycle Base Load NatGas running fully loaded at the average rate using a 90% efficient battery system to draw in power during low demand and release power during high demand.

Or you can have a 60% efficient Combined-Cycle Base Load NatGas running fully loaded at the bottom of the demand curve and pick up the swing with a 35% Simple-Cycle Peaker NatGas unit.

The economics are beginning to make sense as battery systems keep getting cheaper.  It is why even though FERC does NOT have jurisdiction over ERCOT, Texas is still building grid sized battery storage systems.

The federal mandates will speed up battery growth in other areas, but even in Texas, we are adding them as well.

https://www.energy.gov/fe/how-gas-turbine-power-plants-work

https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants

If the economics WITHOUT subsidies are driving this, then that is fine. I have a major problem with the FEDS mandating batteries. A government mandate strongly implies they are not economic and the feds have to step in to force the issue. 20 years ago they tried the same thing with fuel cells. First there was major hype on how efficient and clean they were, a few small pilot projects were built in New York City, Tokyo, and I think Los Angeles. The greenies and FERC were touting the performance.Then they discovered that without massive subsidies, they were not economical, nor were they as durable as advertised.

Let each utility decide if batteries work for them, and the stockholders, or in the case of Municipals or government utilities, the local taxpayers, take the hit.

[Joe Wooten]

Why in the hell do WE continue to allow the FedGov to pick winners and losers in our markets?

Because we have a huge bureaucracy called the Dept of Energy that keeps on trying.

Both DOE's (Energy and Education) need to be dismantled, especially Education. The dept of Energy was formed during the Carter years with the goal of energy independence, and it has failed miserably on each attempt. It has taken the small to midsize oil/natural gas companies to make us damn near independent.

[Joe Wooten]

For stationary applications, flywheels make a great alternative to batteries - http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/flywheels

Flywheels still require subsidies at a practical utility level to compete with even simple cycle gas turbines. They are even worse than batteries.

[Bigun]

Because we have a huge bureaucracy called the Dept of Energy that keeps on trying.

Both DOE's (Energy and Education) need to be dismantled, especially Education. The dept of Energy was formed during the Carter years with the goal of energy independence, and it has failed miserably on each attempt. It has taken the small to midsize oil/natural gas companies to make us damn near independent.

  @Joe Wooten along with a whole lot of others that serve no useful purpose to you and I.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If the economics WITHOUT subsidies are driving this, then that is fine. I have a major problem with the FEDS mandating batteries. A government mandate strongly implies they are not economic and the feds have to step in to force the issue. 20 years ago they tried the same thing with fuel cells. First there was major hype on how efficient and clean they were, a few small pilot projects were built in New York City, Tokyo, and I think Los Angeles. The greenies and FERC were touting the performance.Then they discovered that without massive subsidies, they were not economical, nor were they as durable as advertised.

Let each utility decide if batteries work for them, and the stockholders, or in the case of Municipals or government utilities, the local taxpayers, take the hit.

Isn't that the same for a whole plethora of energy schemes from biofuels to solar to wind to ......?

[Bigun]

Isn't that the same for a whole plethora of energy schemes from biofuels to solar to wind to ......?

As far as I'm concerned, the answer to that is a resounding YES!

[thackney]

For stationary applications, flywheels make a great alternative to batteries - http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/flywheels

Flywheels are effective at grid stability for immediate response.  But their ability to store energy and release it 8~12 hours later results in very low efficiencies, ie expensive.

[Joe Wooten]

As far as I'm concerned, the answer to that is a resounding YES!

Agreed!

[Joe Wooten]

Flywheels are effective at grid stability for immediate response.  But their ability to store energy and release it 8~12 hours later results in very low efficiencies, ie expensive.

The best use for a flywheel I ever saw was a proposal to spin up a series of big flywheels to provide power for either a laser or EM rail launcher for initial boost into orbit.

[thackney]

The best use for a flywheel I ever saw was a proposal to spin up a series of big flywheels to provide power for either a laser or EM rail launcher for initial boost into orbit.

Short-term storage and very fast discharge is their strength.  That is the reason some are used for grid stability.

[Joe Wooten]

Short-term storage and very fast discharge is their strength.  That is the reason some are used for grid stability.

Yep. The laser launch proposal said that only about 15 minutes or so per launch.