ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[Captainant 27524]

Lol you can just say you don't want to lose your O&G job and leave it at that.

I'm not saying we should ditch fossil fuels - I've said as much repeatedly in this thread. I'm saying we should be focusing new investment on renewables and mechanisms to make our grid more durable. I'm sure that will include some additional NG plants, but those are short-term solutions to a power supply problem that's not going to go away.

[Dahobbs 17498]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

The countries you cite have the luxury of hydropower and a very concentrated population.  I think like 90 percent of Uraguay lives in or around Montevideo.  Sweden and Norway has almost a year round wind.  And once again population density and land mass matters.  Germany well, let's see how Germany is doing.  Brazil went deep and hard on biomass.  I am still waiting to see how that turns out.  And I am not saying renewables don't work.  I am all for it.  I'm just not all in at the moment.

I really don't understand what point you are making. I agree that it would be really expensive and difficult to get the US running 80-100% on renewable electrical energy. Not impossible, but not economic. That said, renewables could easily get to 60%-70% in decade or two, backed up by natural gas, batteries, and stored hydro. There are plenty of studies addressing the technical and economic feasibility of this.  And that looks like the direction things are moving based on planned new capacity. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Lol you can just say you don't want to lose your O&G job and leave it at that.

I'm not saying we should ditch fossil fuels - I've said as much repeatedly in this thread. I'm saying we should be focusing new investment on renewables and mechanisms to make our grid more durable. I'm sure that will include some additional NG plants, but those are short-term solutions to a power supply problem that's not going to go away.

Haha.  I got out of oil and gas a couple of years ago.  Getting too shady with maintenance and run until it breaks mentality.  

[Captainant 27524]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

Getting too shady with maintenance and run until it breaks mentality.

Thank god they aren't burdened with BUSINESS KILLING regulations and rules to prevent that sort of dangerous and unnecessary risk-taking!

 

The irony though - our grid's capacity woes last week were from lack of timely maintenance on thermal generation (burning shit) and running things till they break

[FartingMonk 3606]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I really don't understand what point you are making. I agree that it would be really expensive and difficult to get the US running 80-100% on renewable electrical energy. Not impossible, but not economic. That said, renewables could easily get to 60%-70% in decade or two, backed up by natural gas, batteries, and stored hydro. There are plenty of studies addressing the technical and economic feasibility of this.  And that looks like the direction things are moving based on planned new capacity. 

Is the entire thing not about it being economics?  Because if it isn't then every neighborhood gets a small solar farm and all shingles for houses are made of solar panels and each house has a generator as backup.  Every commerical building has solar panel windows and backup by mag bearing generators.  

[Brisketexan 104803]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That said, renewables could easily get to 60%-70% in decade or two, backed up by natural gas, batteries, and stored hydro. There are plenty of studies addressing the technical and economic feasibility of this.  And that looks like the direction things are moving based on planned new capacity. 

All of this.

We are not going to 100% -- or even 80% -- renewables any time soon.  But we can damn sure go to 60-70%, with the cleanest FF (natural gas) as the remainder.  And I'm still pro-nuclear, but that just won't get traction here.

The next generation (20-25 years) will be that sort of mix.  Maybe as there are more advancements in that period, storage and other options can bump renewables up to 80-90% of the generation mix by the end of that period -- there's a lotta time and unknowns between now and then.

[FartingMonk 3606]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Thank god they aren't burdened with BUSINESS KILLING regulations and rules to prevent that sort of dangerous and unnecessary risk-taking!

 

The irony though - our grid's capacity woes last week were from lack of timely maintenance on thermal generation (burning shit) and running things till they break

I've said that shit since before the freeze.  You go into any outage and you have a wish list of things you want to fix.  That 600 line item gets struck down to 200.  The 50 days you have gets knocked down to 30.  The first thing that gets knocked off the list is freeze protection.  

They are weird.  When prices are weak they can't afford to fix anything because they don't have the budget.  When shit is expensive, they can't afford to shutdown because they need to make money.  So when does things get fixed?  When they have a catastrophic failure.  I walked away after the freeze when they wanted us to patch things up and get the unit going.  The business group called every day asking how much longer when we told them prior to the freeze it'd be a good idea to shutdown and drain the systems.  They said nah, we can keep running.  

[Dahobbs 17498]

9 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Is the entire thing not about it being economics? 

Yes, and what I'm saying is that renewables are extremely economic up until you reach a threshold at a very high percentage of the grid (say 80% and up). Then the economics quickly get more difficult as you have to ramp up storage (battery or otherwise) to really high levels. As the prices in batteries drop (assuming we ever get out of supply chain hell), it becomes more economic to increase the share of renewables. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

All of this.

We are not going to 100% -- or even 80% -- renewables any time soon.  But we can damn sure go to 60-70%, with the cleanest FF (natural gas) as the remainder.  And I'm still pro-nuclear, but that just won't get traction here.

The next generation (20-25 years) will be that sort of mix.  Maybe as there are more advancements in that period, storage and other options can bump renewables up to 80-90% of the generation mix by the end of that period -- there's a lotta time and unknowns between now and then.

But just a quick math to math it.  How do we do it?  The landscape would be insane.  Ok let's choose an easy number.  Let's go with 10.  So 10 GW-H during day light hours.  60-70 percent from renewables.  6-7 GW-H.  And I'm throwing stored hydro out of the mix.  Our water problem isn't getting any better.  So 30 percent supplement by fossils.  Let's say wind works 100 days out of the year and that's what is charging our batteries.  So it can take over as a source instead of a load.  So on days wind isn't there.  Who makes up for the battery charge?  On the days sun isn't there who makes up for the battery charge?  What if on days we don't have either?  

[Js1 85166]

Don't we have a thread on energy independence or whatever for y'all to sidetrack? 

[Dahobbs 17498]

19 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

But just a quick math to math it.  How do we do it?  The landscape would be insane.  Ok let's choose an easy number.  Let's go with 10.  So 10 GW-H during day light hours.  60-70 percent from renewables.  6-7 GW-H.  And I'm throwing stored hydro out of the mix.  Our water problem isn't getting any better.  So 30 percent supplement by fossils.  Let's say wind works 100 days out of the year and that's what is charging our batteries.  So it can take over as a source instead of a load.  So on days wind isn't there.  Who makes up for the battery charge?  On the days sun isn't there who makes up for the battery charge?  What if on days we don't have either?  

That's why you need regional interconnects. It's all statistics. The sun is unlikely to be covered everywhere. Wind is unlikely to not be blowing everywhere. You need to distribute the generation facilities to avoid local/regional weather patterns from dominating. It is also why you need to overbuild nameplate capacity with renewables. The reality of a 70% renewable environment is that many days renewables supply 90-100% of power. The 30% of natural gas in overall mix comes not because gas plants are running full tilt every day, but because they are supply a larger share of generation on those days when renewables are insufficient. 

[Bateshorn 9917]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Don't we have a thread on energy independence or whatever for y'all to sidetrack? 

No…No, this is a reasonable technical discussion. It is absolutely NOT a closeted CR conversation. 
 

[Brisketexan 104803]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's why you need regional interconnects. It's all statistics. The sun is unlikely to be covered everywhere. Wind is unlikely to not be blowing everywhere. You need to distribute the generation facilities to avoid local/regional weather patterns from dominating. It is also why you need to overbuild nameplate capacity with renewables. The reality of a 70% renewable environment is that many days renewables supply 90-100% of power. The 30% of natural gas in overall mix comes not because gas plants are running full tilt every day, but because they are supply a larger share of generation on those days when renewables are insufficient. 

Shit, just get me more transmission.  We are curtailing available solar generation in W. Texas every damned day because it can generate.....but it can't get to where it's needed.

[FartingMonk 3606]

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's why you need regional interconnects. It's all statistics. The sun is unlikely to be covered everywhere. Wind is unlikely to not be blowing everywhere. You need to distribute the generation facilities to avoid local/regional weather patterns from dominating. It is also why you need to overbuild nameplate capacity with renewables. The reality of a 70% renewable environment is that many days renewables supply 90-100% of power. The 30% of natural gas in overall mix comes not because gas plants are running full tilt every day, but because they are supply a larger share of generation on those days when renewables are insufficient. 

Oh.  Hahahahaha.  Ok.  You've got it all figured out.  I'm just gonna go back to my corner and snort unicorn farts.  

[Dahobbs 17498]

25 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh.  Hahahahaha.  Ok.  You've got it all figured out.  I'm just gonna go back to my corner and snort unicorn farts.  

I'm not the one figuring it out. There are numerous studies on this and a variety of countries quickly approaching this threshold. You appear to be believe I'm suggesting something I'm not. I don't really get your deal, e.g., claiming batteries are impossible despite 4.5 GW of battery storage going live in just the US last year. 100% is really really hard and expensive. 70%, significantly less so. Frankly, I expect we'll get close to that in a few decades just because that is where the market is dragging us. 

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/the-challenge-of-the-last-few-percent-quantifying-the-costs-and-emissions-benefits-of-100-renewables.html

Quote

 

Large-Scale Simulations Show U.S. Can Get Close to 100% Renewable Generation Cost-Effectively—But Final Few Percent Drive Nonlinear Increase in Total System Cost

Only two decades ago, some scientists were skeptical we could integrate more than about 20% renewable energy generation on the U.S. power grid. But we hit that milestone in 2020—so, these days, experts’ sights are set on finding pathways toward a fully renewable national power system. And according to new research published in Joule, the nation could get a long way toward 100% cost-effectively; it is only the final few percent of renewable generation that cause a nonlinear spike in costs to build and operate the power system.

* * * 

"Our results highlight that getting all the way to 100% renewables is really challenging in terms of costs, but because the challenge is nonlinear, getting close to 100% is much easier," Cole said. "We also show how innovations such as lower technology costs, or alternate definitions for 100% clean energy such as including nuclear or carbon capture, can lower the cost of reaching the target."

* * *

The team simulated a total of 154 different scenarios for achieving up to 100% renewable electricity to determine how the resulting system cost changes under a wide range of future conditions, timeframes, and definitions for 100%—including with systems that allow nonrenewable low-carbon technologies to participate.

"Here we use total cumulative system cost as the primary metric for assessing the challenge of increased renewable deployment for the contiguous U.S. power system," said Trieu Mai, NREL senior energy analyst and coauthor of the paper. "This system cost is the sum of the cost of building and operating the bulk power system assets out to the year 2050, after accounting for the time value of money."

To establish a reference case for comparison, the team modeled the system cost at increasing renewable energy deployment for base conditions, which use midrange projections for factors such as capital costs, fuel prices, and electricity demand growth. Under these conditions, the least-cost buildout grows renewable energy from 20% of generation today to 57% in 2050, with average levelized costs of $30 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Imposing a requirement to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050 under these same conditions raises these costs by 29%, or less than $10 per MWh. System costs increase nonlinearly for the last few percent approaching 100% 

 

The paper itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435121002464

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Dahobbs

[PTINS 3442]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Batteries are already near price-parity with gas turbine peakers. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a completely unsolved problem. It is technically doable and being implemented in mass now. Yes, we need prices to keep going down and we'll need adjustments to manage fire risks (and those lessons are being learned an implemented quickly). But, fundamentally, we know how to do this. Like anything, it costs money. 

I'm also not sure why you think a high level of renewable electric energy generation isn't possible. A good number of countries are above 80%, including Norway, Uruguay, and Brazil (mostly relying on hydropower).  Denmark is at 60% with the bulk coming from wind power. Germany gets ~30% from wind and solar combined and another 10% from biomass and hydro. California gets ~35% from non-hydro renewables and another 14% from hydro. 

Article on new capacity being majority renewable: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/wind-solar-to-dominate-new-us-generating-capacity-in-2021/

 

A good number of countries are above 80%, including Norway,  Denmark is at 60%, Germany gets ~30% from wind and solar combined.  Local climate and intraday demand is a HUGE variable lost in these numbers.   It's not so much the high temperature, but it's hot 16+/- hours a day for 6-8 months.  

The A/C Load in Texas is off the charts relative to Norway, Denmark & Germany.  ERCOT Demand @ 5 am was 48,350 MW, Demand @ 6 pm ~ 79,100, a intra-day swing of over 30,000 MW. Just for the intraday swing, you need the equivalent of 12 South Texas Nuclear Power Plants, 10,000 wind mills, or a big ass battery system!!!

The Siemens Energy simple cycle gas turbines that deliver 150 MW within 10 minutes are good for quick starts, but they are 35% less efficient than the combined cycle, which raises the fuel cost proportionally.  A couple hundred of these would do the trick.

I'm all for renewables, but you need a reliable back up system, and today, fossil fuel power generation makes more sense than batteries.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17498]

4 minutes ago, PTINS said:

 

I'm all for renewables, but you need a reliable back up system, and today, fossil fuel power generation makes more sense than batteries.

 

 

I agree. Batteries are a smaller part of the grid equation in the near term. Gas CC and turbines are a good backup

[Brisketexan 104803]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree. Batteries are a smaller part of the grid equation in the near term. Gas CC and turbines are a good backup

Yep.

I think that the "defend FF generation no matter what!" crowd is overreading what most folks are suggesting.  We know that FF generation will be a material part of the generation mix for at least the next 20-25 years.  It's important, we shouldn't get rid of it, and in fact, we may need to add some to keep up with growing demand.  The fuel mix should move to as close to 100% NG as possible (no more coal) for environmental reasons.

If we could get the global energy mix to 2/3 renewables, 1/3 NG, it would be a huge environmental improvement.  And we can do that here, in the very near future, so we should.  Added bonus: fix the grid and market structure, and we can have better reliability, too.

[GreenspointTexas 9573]

Welp, looks like DFW gonna run outta water soon

[justhookit 4191]

20 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Welp, looks like DFW gonna run outta water soon

So you’ve put this in 2 threads with no context. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

40 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not the one figuring it out. There are numerous studies on this and a variety of countries quickly approaching this threshold. You appear to be believe I'm suggesting something I'm not. I don't really get your deal, e.g., claiming batteries are impossible despite 4.5 GW of battery storage going live in just the US last year. 100% is really really hard and expensive. 70%, significantly less so. Frankly, I expect we'll get close to that in a few decades just because that is where the market is dragging us. 

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/the-challenge-of-the-last-few-percent-quantifying-the-costs-and-emissions-benefits-of-100-renewables.html

The paper itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435121002464

 

Ok.  Here's my thing on batteries.  You cite 6.5Gs.  you know where most of that was purchased by?  Yeah.  The data centers.  Guess what I work for?  Yes the data centers. You know what load bank testing is?  It's basically where they hook up a bunch of heaters to your battery.  They do that with generators too.  And just try to power it.  Guess what fails miserably at load bank testing or especially confidence testing where you are running at full load + x amount of time.  Battery discharge characteristics get wonky after 12 hours and they start to get really fucking hot.  And this is at a steady discharge rate.  Oscillating discharge rates would be even crazier.  So yeah there is lots more storage.  But right now it's the back up to the backup if the backups mom isn't available.  Not ready for prime time.

 

[Brisketexan 104803]

28 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Welp, looks like DFW gonna run outta water soon

 

7 minutes ago, justhookit said:

So you’ve put this in 2 threads with no context. 

Yeah....WTF are you talking about?

[Guest]

If we want Texas grid at 70% renewables, we need to add lots of generation capacity and storage.  Norway and Denmark are not useful comparisons to Texas.  Norway has ample hydro power, providing around 90% of their energy needs, and they have hydro energy storage systems to achieve high utilization from renewable power (Norway alone accounts for roughly half of the total energy storage capacity of Europe).  Texas does not have hydro resources on that scale.  Denmark's peak demand is only around 6 GW and they can import their peak energy load from neighboring countries.  This gives them flexibility to add renewable capacity as needed.  Texas peak energy load is closer to 80 GW.  Even if we connect to our neighboring states, there isn't a surplus of 80 GW of power we can access and rely upon to enable us to play around with renewable power the way Denmark does.   

70% renewables for Texas is possible.  But it will require massive investment (likely to exceed $500B) and proper incentives & regulatory environment.  We need to develop and install better long duration storage technologies as well.  Lithium ion batteries are not great for large-scale, long duration storage.     

[Brisketexan 104803]

7 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Even if we connect to our neighboring states, there isn't a surplus of 80 GW of power we can access and rely upon to enable us to play around with renewable power the way Denmark does.   

We don't need access to 80 GW of power from neighboring grids, for the same reason that your car doesn't come with 4 spare tires.  We don't fall 100% short of our energy needs -- usually, the gap is just a few MW.  And, if we actually winterize the necessary infrastructure, then the loss of generation in severe cold events (and we'll be getting more and more of those) won't be too much, either, so having additional energy we can draw on from adjacent grids could be helpful there as well.

Also, all of y'all sleeping on local transmission are missing a huge part of the picture.  There's a lot of new renewable generation in the pipeline for W. Texas....we just need to hurry up and build the transmission to get it to the rest of the state.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We don't need access to 80 GW of power from neighboring grids, for the same reason that your car doesn't come with 4 spare tires.  We don't fall 100% short of our energy needs -- usually, the gap is just a few MW.  And, if we actually winterize the necessary infrastructure, then the loss of generation in severe cold events (and we'll be getting more and more of those) won't be too much, either, so having additional energy we can draw on from adjacent grids could be helpful there as well.

Also, all of y'all sleeping on local transmission are missing a huge part of the picture.  There's a lot of new renewable generation in the pipeline for W. Texas....we just need to hurry up and build the transmission to get it to the rest of the state.

I didn't say we need to access 80 GW.  I'm saying that comparisons to the Denmark grid and the Texas grid are not very useful. 

[Dahobbs 17498]

58 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Ok.  Here's my thing on batteries.  You cite 6.5Gs.  you know where most of that was purchased by?  Yeah.  The data centers.  Guess what I work for?  Yes the data centers. You know what load bank testing is?  It's basically where they hook up a bunch of heaters to your battery.  They do that with generators too.  And just try to power it.  Guess what fails miserably at load bank testing or especially confidence testing where you are running at full load + x amount of time.  Battery discharge characteristics get wonky after 12 hours and they start to get really fucking hot.  And this is at a steady discharge rate.  Oscillating discharge rates would be even crazier.  So yeah there is lots more storage.  But right now it's the back up to the backup if the backups mom isn't available.  Not ready for prime time.

 

No. Just no. I have no doubt that you work for a datacenter (or centers). And I'm aware that datacenters are looking to replace their old lead-acid UPS systems and potentially the need for gas generator backups entirely, but I'm not talking about those smaller scale battery backup systems. I'm talking about very large scale utility batteries that provide capacity and ancillary services to the grid, e.g.:

https://investor.vistracorp.com/2022-01-24-Vistra-Announces-Expansion-of-Worlds-Largest-Battery-Energy-Storage-Facility

Quote

 

IRVING, Texas, Jan. 24, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Vistra (NYSE: VST) today announced that it plans to further expand its Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in Moss Landing, California. The company has entered into a 15-year resource adequacy agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a new 350-megawatt/1,400-megawatt-hour battery system. This would complement the existing 400 MW/1,600 MWh of energy storage capacity already at the site. On Jan. 21, 2022, PG&E filed its application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to approve the contract, with a decision expected within 180 days.   

"Through this partnership with PG&E, Vistra is bringing its capabilities and expertise to lead the clean energy transition and provide much-needed electricity to the people of California," said Curt Morgan, Vistra CEO. "These innovative battery energy storage systems are necessary to maintain electric grid reliability as increasing levels of intermittent renewable power are integrated into the electric grid."

 

https://broadreachpower.com/projects/texas/

Quote

 

Broad Reach Power operates 17 Battery Energy Storage resources across Texas, providing energy reliability services to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), electric cooperatives, retail electric providers, and municipal utilities. This portfolio in operation represents nearly $200 million investment.

The company is presently actively developing, designing and building an additional 800 MW of transmission-level battery projects in ERCOT territory.

In addition, Broad Reach Power leads the ERCOT interconnection queue for large battery projects with 6,000 MW on the boards. These projects represent an estimated $3 billion in investment potential, with projects being constructed as early as 2022.

 

https://www.fpl.com/energy-my-way/battery-storage.html

Quote

Located in Parrish, Florida, this 409-MW by 900-megawatt-hour (MWh) battery storage system is the size of 30 football fields and has the same charging capacity as approximately 100 million iPhone batteries. The battery stores solar energy generated by the FPL Manatee Solar Energy Center and sends it to the grid when it’s needed most. 

 

[BLKNSTY 289]

Welp, looks like DFW gonna run outta water soon

Not sure if connected.

[GreenspointTexas 9573]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-residents-asked-immediately-conserve-water-amid-drought/story?id=87010305

[chainsaw 9841]

8 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-residents-asked-immediately-conserve-water-amid-drought/story?id=87010305

[Biff Tannen 45597]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No. Just no. I have no doubt that you work for a datacenter (or centers). And I'm aware that datacenters are looking to replace their old lead-acid UPS systems and potentially the need for gas generator backups entirely, but I'm not talking about those smaller scale battery backup systems. I'm talking about very large scale utility batteries that provide capacity and ancillary services to the grid, e.g.:

https://investor.vistracorp.com/2022-01-24-Vistra-Announces-Expansion-of-Worlds-Largest-Battery-Energy-Storage-Facility

https://broadreachpower.com/projects/texas/

https://www.fpl.com/energy-my-way/battery-storage.html

 

Are these similar to the Tesla battery back ups that have worked really well in Australia?

[Dahobbs 17498]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Are these similar to the Tesla battery back ups that have worked really well in Australia?

Some of them are based on Tesla megapacks, some of them are competitors. But yes, in principle they are all similar. 

[UTGrad98 2268]

31 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I must have one

[FartingMonk 3606]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

No. Just no. I have no doubt that you work for a datacenter (or centers). And I'm aware that datacenters are looking to replace their old lead-acid UPS systems and potentially the need for gas generator backups entirely, but I'm not talking about those smaller scale battery backup systems. I'm talking about very large scale utility batteries that provide capacity and ancillary services to the grid, e.g.:

https://investor.vistracorp.com/2022-01-24-Vistra-Announces-Expansion-of-Worlds-Largest-Battery-Energy-Storage-Facility

https://broadreachpower.com/projects/texas/

https://www.fpl.com/energy-my-way/battery-storage.html

 

And ask them how they are doing and how much they are providing to the grid in our troubled times 

[Dahobbs 17498]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

And ask them how they are doing and how much they are providing to the grid in our troubled times 

The same way other such facilities are? They are operating all over the world. It is a strange premise to suggest  that the facilities operating all over the world and the billions of dollars in new facilities being built this year alone are somehow worthless. I'm not sure what you're looking for. By all accounts, these things have done a great job providing stability to the grid. 

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/8069/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjgno_71IP5AhW4lWoFHSLHAjAQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Ep9sg7LacQlRZaBEwJWgd

Quote

 

Batteries have been shown to be able to support a range of power system needs, in­cluding frequency response [11,12], voltage support [13], synthetic inertia [14,15], demand peak shaving [16] and renewable generation smoothing [17–19]. In addition, it has been demonstrated that batteries can reduce renewable energy curtailment [20], defer transmis­sion and distribution upgrades [21] and provide black start services [22]. Batteries can be used either in standalone application [23] or can be co-located with variable renewable energy generation [24]. Finally, battery storage can be utilized by other market participants to improve their profits or decrease their risk. Examples of various participant bidding strategies are discussed in [25–27]. Grid-scale battery applications have already emerged in various power systems [28].

Currently, the Australian power grid has welcomed 260 MW of battery energy storage systems (BESS) operating capacity, with the system operator expecting approxi­mately 19 GW of combined flexible, dispatchable generation to arrive in the coming two decades [29]. Hornsdale Power Reserve, built in South Australia using 150 MW/194 MWh of Tesla batteries, provided around 15% of total mainland National Electricity Market (NEM) contingency FCAS (frequency control ancillary services) market volume in 2019 [30].

 

 

[FartingMonk 3606]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The same way other such facilities are? They are operating all over the world. It is a strange premise to suggest  that the facilities operating all over the world and the billions of dollars in new facilities being built this year alone are somehow worthless. I'm not sure what you're looking for. By all accounts, these things have done a great job providing stability to the grid. 

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/8069/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjgno_71IP5AhW4lWoFHSLHAjAQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Ep9sg7LacQlRZaBEwJWgd

 

Yeesh.  They are good man.  The stock holders and the share holders tell you they are great.  What else will they tell you. Talk to the battery man and ask him I trust battery with my life.  Let him explain 

 

[Bateshorn 9917]

The pro fossil fuel “It’s too hard” people would have spent all of 1944 and 1945 planning in London instead of trying to get off the god damn beach.

 

[Biff Tannen 45597]

7 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeesh.  They are good man.  The stock holders and the share holders tell you they are great.  What else will they tell you. Talk to the battery man and ask him I trust battery with my life.  Let him explain 

 

Ah, the ol battery conspiracy.  I'm with ya.  I see it.  Good work Nancy Drew.

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

Chalk Mountain Fire might make a run on Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant later today. It's still several miles away from the fire but in the direct line of it and the transmission lines will be impacted for sure. Somervell County is getting ready to activate their nuclear emergency plan.

https://mappingsupport.com/p2/gissurfer.php?center=32.239156,-97.848186&zoom=13&basemap=USA_scanned_topo&overlay=VIIRS_7_day,MODIS_7_day,State_boundary,Wildland_fire_name&data=https://mappingsupport.com/p2/special_maps/disaster/USA_wildland_fire.txt

It burned through famous Texas writer John Graves ranch Hardscrabble last night, which I am heartbroken about. If you have read anything he ever wrote about Texas it's a loss. Might burn through some of Dinosaur Valley State Park too.

Edited July 19, 2022 by CHEF DIESEL

[Dahobbs 17498]

9 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeesh.  They are good man.  The stock holders and the share holders tell you they are great.  What else will they tell you. Talk to the battery man and ask him I trust battery with my life.  Let him explain 

 

They are expensive, but they work. I'm not aware of any serious technical complaints about the batteries' abilities to provide power and services to the grid. The challenges I'm aware of are ones of scale and cost, not limitations of performance. If a battery storage system is showing unreliable performance with extended continuous use (as you alluded to earlier), then it sounds like it either doesn't have a proper BMS and active cooling or the system's packs are not properly ventilated. Discharge/charge characteristics of these batteries are well understood. There is no reason a modern, utility/commercial grade system should not be able to sustain its rated maximum continuous discharge rating if it is properly functioning. 

[TexPx 2322]

Chalk Mountain Fire might make a run on Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant later today. It's still several miles away from the fire but in the direct line of it and the transmission lines will be impacted for sure. Somervell County is getting ready to activate their nuclear emergency plan.
https://mappingsupport.com/p2/gissurfer.php?center=32.239156,-97.848186&zoom=13&basemap=USA_scanned_topo&overlay=VIIRS_7_day,MODIS_7_day,State_boundary,Wildland_fire_name&data=https://mappingsupport.com/p2/special_maps/disaster/USA_wildland_fire.txt
It burned through famous Texas writer John Graves ranch Hardscrabble last night, which I am heartbroken about. If you have read anything he ever wrote about Texas it's a loss. Might burn through some of Dinosaur Valley State Park too.

Sucks. Talked to a friend at Fossil Rim. They cancelled tours today. They are south of the fire but getting some smoke and ash.

[Guest]

Every technology has advantages and disadvantages.  Lithium ion battery storage systems can be implemented effectively for certain applications and can play an important role for short duration peak power demands.  They are not great for large scale, long duration (over four hour) energy storage and it is a very well known and accepted fact in the energy industry that that we need to develop better long duration energy storage technologies to achieve higher percentage renewable energy penetration.  Stating this is not controversial within the energy industry and in no way implies that one is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.  

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

This is why billions of dollars is being invested into new types of low cost long duration energy storage systems.  One example of many:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/form-energy-raises-240-million-on-iron-air-battery-promise.html

 

  

[Dahobbs 17498]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Every technology has advantages and disadvantages.  Lithium ion battery storage systems can be implemented effectively for certain applications and can play an important role for short duration peak power demands.  They are not great for large scale, long duration (over four hour) energy storage and it is a very well known and accepted fact in the energy industry that that we need to develop better long duration energy storage technologies to achieve higher percentage renewable energy penetration.  Stating this is not controversial within the energy industry and in no way implies that one is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.  

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

This is why billions of dollars is being invested into new types of low cost long duration energy storage systems.  One example of many:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/form-energy-raises-240-million-on-iron-air-battery-promise.html

 

  

I agree with this generally. I just want to point out, the highlighted is because of cost (including opportunity cost). For a lithium ion battery, as capacity increases, it becomes easy to also increase max discharge rate. Further, overall cost increases proportional with increased capacity.  As a result, it generally makes more economic sense for a project to maximize discharge rate and, as a result, lower duration (typically 4-hour duration at max discharge). That said, the economics of lithium ion batteries keep improving, notwithstanding the recent supply chain issues, so that you have 8-hour and 10-hour facilities being proposed and developed (e.g., https://www.energy-storage.news/eight-hour-lithium-ion-project-wins-in-california-long-duration-energy-storage-procurement/). There is no technical reason you couldn't have a 24-hour duration battery other than cost. 

Your first article (and its referenced study) are also a good read. Keep in mind, the study is quite dated (2016) in terms of changes in technology. But there is some really good information in both that align with what I've been saying on this thread. For reference, a full pre-publication copy of the study is available here:http://web.mit.edu/ferds/www/Value_of_energy_storage_May_1_2016_pre-publication.pdf (the article includes only a link to the abstract). 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Dahobbs

[dcar00 14085]

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yeah....WTF are you talking about?

It's the ercot thread version of "ballgame"

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree with this generally. I just want to point out, the highlighted is because of cost (including opportunity cost). For a lithium ion battery, as capacity increases, it becomes easy to also increase max discharge rate. Further, overall cost increases proportional with increased capacity.  As a result, it generally makes more economic sense for a project to maximize discharge rate and, as a result, lower duration (typically 4-hour duration at max discharge). That said, the economics of lithium ion batteries keep improving, notwithstanding the recent supply chain issues, so that you have 8-hour and 10-hour facilities being proposed and developed (e.g., https://www.energy-storage.news/eight-hour-lithium-ion-project-wins-in-california-long-duration-energy-storage-procurement/). There is no technical reason you couldn't have a 24-hour duration battery other than cost. 

Your first article (and its referenced study) are also a good read. Keep in mind, the study is quite dated (2016) in terms of changes in technology. But there is some really good information in both that align with what I've been saying on this thread. For reference, a full pre-publication copy of the study is available here:http://web.mit.edu/ferds/www/Value_of_energy_storage_May_1_2016_pre-publication.pdf (the article includes only a link to the abstract). 

Lithium ion battery pricing has come down since then and that trend is expected to continue over the next few decades.  Some projections have them coming down to the $100-150/kwh total installed within next few decades:

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

The more they come down in price the wider implementation we will see, but they will likely always be relegated to a limited role.  A 2021 study published in Nature Energy concluded we need significantly lower cost energy storage to replace nuclear and natural gas:

"The researchers used an advanced model of a simulated electric system to evaluate different LDES technologies based on power capacity cost, energy capacity cost and efficiency. The technologies — covering a range of solutions including hydropower, aqueous sulfur flow batteries, hydrogen storage and compressed air — were considered relative to existing energy sources, rather than being assessed as standalone tools. The study found that the energy capacity cost for an LDES solution would have to drop to roughly $10 per kWh to fully displace nuclear power on the grid, and would have to fall to $1 per kWh to displace natural gas power plants with carbon capture and sequestration. The current storage energy capacity cost of batteries is around $200 per kWh."

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrel-details-cost-declines-needed-for-long-duration-storage-to-displace-nuc/600973/

Also, it's not ideal to have the main energy storage medium tied to commodities in which demand is expected to outpace supply and create price volatility such as the recent 400% increase in price.  This issue is less of an obstacle for lithium ion for wide adoption for large scale, long duration storage than the above, but it is an issue.  

 

[4th_and_18 687]

At what point do we start worrying about the fires headed right at the two reactors in glen rose? Too late? Prepare our anuses?

[FartingMonk 3606]

Yeah.  I don't know why people think it's a conspiracy theory or anything.  You guys are going to Garrett Gilbert the battery industry.  It has potential to change energy forever.  It's just not ready for the spotlight.  You start implementing this stuff too early and you'll put us in the dark ages like Texas football

[Bozo_Casanova 26383]

33 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

You start implementing this stuff too early and you'll put us in the dark ages like Texas football

It’s not too early. It’s a crucial growth engine for our state economy. This is like saying it’s too early to implement ERP systems in like 2002. Specifics matter, obv, but the stuff that isn’t there yet (like storage) doesn’t negate the stuff that is.

and even so, the idea that implementing additional anything will put us in the dark ages is pretty silly. Green power isn’t damaging our grid.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[Dahobbs 17498]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  I don't know why people think it's a conspiracy theory or anything.  You guys are going to Garrett Gilbert the battery industry.  It has potential to change energy forever.  It's just not ready for the spotlight.  You start implementing this stuff too early and you'll put us in the dark ages like Texas football

I don't think anyone is doing that. No one is saying go all in on battery storage right now or that it'll solve everything. We're just saying it does have a (small) place right now and in the near future in assisting grid. 

[Brisketexan 104803]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anyone is doing that. No one is saying go all in on battery storage right now or that it'll solve everything. We're just saying it does have a (small) place right now and in the near future in assisting grid. 

Correct.  Every little bit in the mix matters.  Some of those little bits will grow significantly in the next 10 years or so.

[Guest]

Agreed on the "every little bit" approach.  The world needs abundant low cost clean energy.  I believe this is the single greatest challenge to civilization and will be the pinnacle achievement of the 21st century.   It will take decades to implement and will require numerous technologies, methods, and approaches.  Hydro and geothermal where it can be utilized, solar and wind elsewhere with short duration peak storage and later addition of long duration storage.   Natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration for base load power in regions with limited hydro and geothermal and abundance of natural gas (e.g. Texas) as a transition fuel.  Maybe walk-away safe small modular nuclear reactors in a decade or two when that technology gets proven at scale.   Hydrogen/ammonia for the hard to abate heavy industry and as an energy carrier and seasonal storage medium.  And hopefully many other technologies that people aren't even planning on at present.   

It will happen one project at a time, MW by MW.  Some technologies won't pan out and will fall by the wayside.  Others will thrive and gain market share.  We have to learn from what works and what doesn't, make adjustments, and keep moving ahead.