Battery storage systems 30% cheaper than rival gas peaker plants for firming renewables

[thackney]

Battery storage systems 30% cheaper than rival gas peaker plants for firming renewables
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/04/12/battery-storage-systems-30-cheaper-than-rival-gas-peaker-plants-for-firming-renewables/
APRIL 12, 2021

In its new paper — Battery Storage — The New, Clean Peaker — released on the weekend, the Clean Energy Council (CEC) has amassed a battery of evidence that large-scale battery energy storage has become the superior solution to spreading energy generated by solar and wind throughout any day, and instantly responding to peak energy needs in the National Electricity Market (NEM) for long and short durations.

The paper compares the levelised cost of energy delivered by a new 250 MW gas peaker plant with 250 MW four-hour and two-hour grid-scale batteries, and finds that overall — when capital cost, cost of fixed operations and maintenance, and cost of variable operations and maintenance are calculated — the batteries are 17% (2-hour) and 30% (four-hour) cheaper.

Improvements in battery-operating technology mean storage now outperforms gas-fired peaking plants on speed and reliability of response, which was the basis of gas technology’s biggest claim to a place in the future renewable-energy-based electricity system.

Where gas plants can respond within 15 minutes, says the CEC report, battery solutions can discharge as “demand (and correspondingly prices) approach peak levels” and sustain output “to cover the typical daily peak duration”....

[thackney]

BATTERY STORAGE
THE NEW, CLEAN PEAKER
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/battery-storage-the-new-clean-peaker.pdf
APRIL 2021

[HoustonSam]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the two battery systems studied here will provide power for 2 hours or for 4 hours, and the study deals with these battery systems as extra power necessary to get through relatively short periods of peak demand.  Are 2 and 4 hour periods realistic for peak demand?

What do these 2/4 hour peak demand constraints mean for the larger-scale use of batteries to alleviate the intermittent nature of "renewables" as full-scale 24/7 sources of power?  How much generation capacity is necessary to charge the batteries, over and above the capacity providing on-demand power?

[thackney]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the two battery systems studied here will provide power for 2 hours or for 4 hours, and the study deals with these battery systems as extra power necessary to get through relatively short periods of peak demand.  Are 2 and 4 hour periods realistic for peak demand?

It varies of course by region and season, and day-to-day varies based upon weather, but it does fit a need.

Keep in mind the 2 and 4 hour ratings are maximum discharge rate and capacity.  The same battery system can discharge less kW for longer periods of time.



How Energy Use Varies with the Seasonshttps://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/keeping-the-lights-on/how-energy-use-varies

What do these 2/4 hour peak demand constraints mean for the larger-scale use of batteries to alleviate the intermittent nature of "renewables" as full-scale 24/7 sources of power?  How much generation capacity is necessary to charge the batteries, over and above the capacity providing on-demand power?

The idea with renewables is to shift generation period to more match the demand period.

But these also give benefit allowing more base loaded units like coal and nuclear to operate above the night demand curve and provide power at the peak.

Keep in mind these are connected to the grid and not typically associated directly with a generation source, just like a pumped storage system.

[Joe Wooten]

How much of the cost of the battery installations is covered up by federal subsidies?

[thackney]

How much of the cost of the battery installations is covered up by federal subsidies?

I am not aware of federal subsidies for installing electric grid batteries.  Do you have a link?

[Bigun]

 

A gas facility will continue to provide power for as long as it has fuel or until something breaks.

A battery facility will provide power for some period of time until the batteries are exhausted or until something breaks.

Seems like an easy choice to me but what the hell do I know.

[thackney]

A gas facility will continue to provide power for as long as it has fuel or until something breaks.

A battery facility will provide power for some period of time until the batteries are exhausted or until something breaks.

Seems like an easy choice to me but what the hell do I know.

But this application of a peaker unit is not for continuous operation.  The demand need goes away in hours.

Baseload units that operate continuously would not be economical if it used a typical peaker nat gas power turbine.  It would be too ineffecient.

[Bigun]

But this application of a peaker unit is not for continuous operation.  The demand need goes away in hours.

Indeed! But I'll bet the number of hours involved will be many more than four!

Baseload units that operate continuously would not be economical if it used a typical peaker nat gas power turbine.  It would be too ineffecient.

I think everyone here understands what we are talking about.

[thackney]

Indeed! But I'll bet the number of hours involved will be many more than four!

See the seasonal charts posted above, but of course it changes day by day.  For something like Ercot it is a lot of units, just like it is a lot of nat gas peakers now.  They stagger on as required and may only come on for partial capacity at times.  4 hours max is likely +8 hours at half capacity.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

BATTERY STORAGE
THE NEW, CLEAN PEAKER
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/battery-storage-the-new-clean-peaker.pdf
APRIL 2021

It would be nice to see some detailed economics as well as costs to see how they stack up.

I rarely see the economics or assumptions contained within them as economics, not costs, are the true decider in what relative attractiveness between systems.

For instance, do the economics include the benefits of royalties paid for hydrocarbon extraction, as well as attendant revenue taxes that add benefit to natural gas power generation compared to solar panel and turbine manufacturing made overseas that have no such benefit?

Also, as to costs, am wondering whether the costs exhibit full life cycle of systems or represent simply early costs?  I understand battery life requires replacement regularly so do these costs include those replacements?

There are also the components of risk and reliability.  We know that natural gas reliability is typically fuel delivery through pipelines, which of course can be mitigated via on site storage, an appealing alternative particularly for peaker plants, and there is some risk due to fire or explosion inherent in their operations.

I wonder what considerations for batteries are present to compare?

It is noted this comparison chart is for NSW where the country is notoriously bent upon the usage of renewables to the extent it is pursuing insane policies that produce the highest electrical rates in the world, in spite of have some of the largest natural gas deposits anywhere.

[thackney]

For instance, do the economics include the benefits of royalties paid for hydrocarbon extraction,

To include those would mean the gas would otherwise not get produced.  Not a true claim.

as well as attendant revenue taxes that add benefit to natural gas power generation compared to solar panel and turbine manufacturing made overseas that have no such benefit?

This is not a comparison of wind/solar.  This is taking the place of peakers.  The batteries are as easily charged at night with coal, nuke and base load Nat gas.

Also, as to costs, am wondering whether the costs exhibit full life cycle of systems or represent simply early costs?  I understand battery life requires replacement regularly so do these costs include those replacements?

These batteries do not operate at the levels of charge/discharge like your phone.  They do not have the volume constraint, just economic.  20 year life cycle with current technology is described in the article.

There are also the components of risk and reliability.  We know that natural gas reliability is typically fuel delivery through pipelines, which of course can be mitigated via on site storage, an appealing alternative particularly for peaker plants, and there is some risk due to fire or explosion inherent in their operations.

That is a massive cost if you build storage and the associated equipment unless you routinely use it depleting most of it by the end of winter.

I wonder what considerations for batteries are present to compare?

I do not understand the question.

It is noted this comparison chart is for NSW where the country is notoriously bent upon the usage of renewables to the extent it is pursuing insane policies that produce the highest electrical rates in the world, in spite of have some of the largest natural gas deposits anywhere.

Although they can be used with renewables, that is not the purpose here.  It is a different application.  Large battery systems can allow more economic use of non-dispatchable renewables, where they may generate more than demand, but the primary discussion of the article is replacing the gas peakers.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

To include those would mean the gas would otherwise not get produced.  Not a true claim.

That is false.  Comparative economics show the true economics of one alternative and another  One alternative gives one the enrichment of mineral interest owners via royalties from natural gas production being extracted, and the benefits to the governments of revenues from extraction.  These do not exist for renewables nor for releasing potential energy from batteries compared to hydrocarbons.

This is not a comparison of wind/solar.  This is taking the place of peakers.  The batteries are as easily charged at night with coal, nuke and base load Nat gas.

Nice theory, but the undenying fact is that all this battery hyperbole is generated by the incessant dialogue on promoting solar and wind energy which lacks potential energy storage unlike coal or natural gas and MUST come up with a storage system to make them compete reliably with other forms of power generation. 

These batteries do not operate at the levels of charge/discharge like your phone.  They do not have the volume constraint, just economic.  20 year life cycle with current technology is described in the article.

Sure, 20 year operating life may be described, but will it be realized?  Typically, optimistic claims are made to see the product, before experience proves otherwise.  We see this all the time in the climate change nut world. 

And I bet battery replacement is not included in any of these optimistic scenarios either, just like to the suckers who get sold on purchasing EVs.

That is a massive cost if you build storage and the associated equipment unless you routinely use it depleting most of it by the end of winter.

You state this so positively.  Yet we are talking about a peaker plant that runs infrequently, so demands little fuel compared to a baseload operation.  I am not talking about underground storage, as perhaps some other small storage component may be feasible or even like propane.

I do not understand the question.

Battery risk and reliabilities, ie, do batteries explode?  Do they always perform reliably?  Are there hazards in utilization, etc.

Although they can be used with renewables, that is not the purpose here.  It is a different application.  Large battery systems can allow more economic use of non-dispatchable renewables, where they may generate more than demand, but the primary discussion of the article is replacing the gas peakers.

Understood.  I just want a fair comparison of all aspects, which must include items such as availability of underlying battery components, in the considerations.  And economics should mean a whole lot.

[thackney]

That is false.  Comparative economics show the true economics of one alternative and another  One alternative gives one the enrichment of mineral interest owners via royalties from natural gas production being extracted, and the benefits to the governments of revenues from extraction. These do not exist for renewables

This discussion is NOT about renewable energy.

nor for releasing potential energy from batteries compared to hydrocarbons.

When the batteries are charged using excess base load generation at night, where you and I live, that is primarily Natural Gas.  The batteries just move the energy to better match the demand load.

Nice theory, but the undenying fact is that all this battery hyperbole is generated by the incessant dialogue on promoting solar and wind energy which lacks potential energy storage unlike coal or natural gas and MUST come up with a storage system to make them compete reliably with other forms of power generation.

Again, this discussing is not about renewables.  Quit deflecting.

Sure, 20 year operating life may be described, but will it be realized?  Typically, optimistic claims are made to see the product, before experience proves otherwise.  We see this all the time in the climate change nut world. 

And I bet battery replacement is not included in any of these optimistic scenarios either, just like to the suckers who get sold on purchasing EVs.

You state this so positively.  Yet we are talking about a peaker plant that runs infrequently, so demands little fuel compared to a baseload operation.  I am not talking about underground storage, as perhaps some other small storage component may be feasible or even like propane. Battery risk and reliabilities, ie, do batteries explode?  Do they always perform reliably?  Are there hazards in utilization, etc.Understood.  I just want a fair comparison of all aspects, which must include items such as availability of underlying battery components, in the considerations.  And economics should mean a whole lot.

Many less moving parts in the batteries system.  Most of the fires I've done repairs at for Nat Gas Compressors and Generator involved the lube oil systems.   Fewer systems have fewer problems.

I've designed and maintain battery systems for large UPS systems for decades.  Lithium Ion just the past decade.  Properly maintained, these have far fewer problems than most of the systems I deal with in oil/gas/petrochem facilities.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This discussion is NOT about renewable energy.

Although it in the end is as battery storage assists renewables most as its achilles heel is its lack of storage, you are missing the point.

A natural gas peak shaver burns natural gas wherein an alternative battery storage device does not.

Natural gas necessitates the extraction of minerals which cause royalties and taxes to be paid.  Both are absent in battery utilizations.

This is point: there are other value components using natural gas and its potential energy storage not found in using batteries.

When the batteries are charged using excess base load generation at night, where you and I live, that is primarily Natural Gas.  The batteries just move the energy to better match the demand load.


Again, this discussing is not about renewables.  Quit deflecting.

see above

Many less moving parts in the batteries system.  Most of the fires I've done repairs at for Nat Gas Compressors and Generator involved the lube oil systems.   Fewer systems have fewer problems.

I've designed and maintain battery systems for large UPS systems for decades.  Lithium Ion just the past decade.  Properly maintained, these have far fewer problems than most of the systems I deal with in oil/gas/petrochem facilities.

thanks for clarifications.

Since we are dealing with a newer type of battery system, by and large, I remain skeptical that all issues of risk and reliability are known and resolved to the extent that natural gas peak shavers are.  Time will ascertain.  In the meantime, let's just agree there remains some uncertainty connected with it that should be factored in until such time as more operational experience is strengthened to eliminate such.

My experience tells me that is always a component of proper economics assessment, which, in full circle turning to my original comment, have yet to be present.

[thackney]

Although it in the end is as battery storage assists renewables most as its achilles heel is its lack of storage, you are missing the point.

A natural gas peak shaver burns natural gas wherein an alternative battery storage device does not.

Natural gas necessitates the extraction of minerals which cause royalties and taxes to be paid.  Both are absent in battery utilizations.

Batteries do not release energy without first being charged.  Where you and I both live, that is primarily produced by Natural Gas.

This is point: there are other value components using natural gas and its potential energy storage not found in using batteries.

Batteries do not produce energy themselves.  They do not replace any form of energy.  They only move the production of power from an energy source to a time more matching the demand.

Since we are dealing with a newer type of battery system, by and large, I remain skeptical that all issues of risk and reliability are known and resolved to the extent that natural gas peak shavers are.  Time will ascertain.  In the meantime, let's just agree there remains some uncertainty connected with it that should be factored in until such time as more operational experience is strengthened to eliminate such.

My experience tells me that is always a component of proper economics assessment.

Commercial Lithium Ion batteries have been around for three decades, this is hardly new and unknown technology.  This application is relatively knew because of where the cost have come down.

Long life stationary battery systems, needs and demands have been in use for decades.

Your uncertainty is more a part of your inexperience than my experience in the subject matter.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Batteries do not release energy without first being charged.  Where you and I both live, that is primarily produced by Natural Gas.

You are now talking in circles.  I take it you do not understand that natural gas is itself an energy storage entity, just like a battery.

Why have battery storage systems when one has natural gas peak shavers?  Both batteries and natural gas contain stored potential energy.

It is a commercial decision based upon economics.

Batteries do not produce energy themselves.  They do not replace any form of energy.  They only move the production of power from an energy source to a time more matching the demand.

Who ever said that?

I am stating as a fact that a storage system like a battery must be justified by economics and those economics are not simply the cost and operating costs of a battery storage system. Some alternatives contain value-adding components that sway economics away from batteries.

Commercial Lithium Ion batteries have been around for three decades, this is hardly new and unknown technology.  This application is relatively knew because of where the cost have come down.

Long life stationary battery systems, needs and demands have been in use for decades.

Your uncertainty is more a part of your inexperience than my experience in the subject matter.

Of course I do not have the experience in dealing with power plants that you do. 

I do however, have much more expertise in dealing with risked economics and factors dealing with uncertainty of major projects over many decades and in many venues and financial regimes.

All have a common element of assessing true underlying economics with prudent input with the acknowledgement there is always an array of scenarios that factor into those input parameters based upon experience.

And in no way would the return of a far more proven process such as power generation via natural gas to serve as energy storage be on par with a system having much less proven abilities to replicate.

[thackney]

You are now talking in circles.  I take it you do not understand that natural gas is itself an energy storage entity, just like a battery.

Only if you build storage system of the gas, which raises the cost of the peakers.  Or don't you remember Texas in the dark just a couple months ago.

Why have battery storage systems when one has natural gas peak shavers?  Both batteries and natural gas contain stored potential energy.

It is a commercial decision based upon economics.

EXACTLY!!!  LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD!!!!

Who ever said that?

I am stating as a fact that a storage system like a battery must be justified by economics and those economics are not simply the cost and operating costs of a battery storage system. Some alternatives contain value-adding components that sway economics away from batteries.Of course I do not have the experience in dealing with power plants that you do. 

I do however, have much more expertise in dealing with risked economics and factors dealing with uncertainty of major projects over many decades and in many venues and financial regimes.

All have a common element of assessing true underlying economics with prudent input with the acknowledgement there is always an array of scenarios that factor into those input parameters based upon experience.

And in no way would the return of a far more proven process such as power generation via natural gas to serve as energy storage be on par with a system having much less proven abilities to replicate.
[/quote]

We disagree.  I'm done.  God Bless.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Only if you build storage system of the gas, which raises the cost of the peakers.  Or don't you remember Texas in the dark just a couple months ago.

Completely false.  Peakers are used right now without storage systems. Storage systems are used to add reliability only.

And you continue to believe there is no potential energy contained within natural gas.  You need to go back to your thermo class.

EXACTLY!!!  LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD!!!!

Yep, those are costs.  I started out talking about true economics.

We disagree.  I'm done.  God Bless.

Me too, same to you.