John Petersen Article Slamming Grid Battery Storage

[VValleyEV]

Here is a new one in Mr Petersen's anti-Tesla series, this time on the economics of grid battery storage:

CAISO Data Highlights Critical Flaws In The Evolving Renewables Plus Storage Mythology | Seeking Alpha

Can some of you help pick this apart?

You can decide to dismiss this guy as a shill for the oil industry, but I suspect lots of folks eat his stuff up. Usually his articles include one or two enormous misrepresentations that allow the central thesis to stand, and if this is again the case, I would like to have it in my Petersen file.

Thanks for your help.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

In general, all SA content is considered garbage and dismissed. Not interested in giving them the clicks. I would advise against posting their links here.

 

[VValleyEV]

In general, all SA content is considered garbage and dismissed. Not interested in giving them the clicks. I would advise against posting their links here.

My position:

1. If we are to hone the arguments for renewable energy and Tesla BEVs, we need to know what the nay-sayer arguments are.
2. If there are big misrepresentations and misconceptions repeated in those arguments, we need to be ready for them. Better yet head them off by crafting the positive pitch for renewables and BEVS to deflate them.
3. Not all SA posts are anti-Tesla, some are actually from folks who are long on the stock. The point is not that this post comes from SA, but that it comes from John Petersen, who has a strong following and a long history of spreading anti-Tesla and anti-renewableEnergy FUD.

Does anyone else agree that it is worthwhile here to dissect faulty arguments that are spread around as FUD to turn folks away from renewable energy and BEVs? Does anyone agree that articles posted to SA should not be off-limits to such discussions?

If not I will be quite surprised, but I am willing to withdraw to some other forum for that purpose.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Acknowledging SA nonsense gives it an ounce of legitimacy. That's too much.

 

[GenSao]

Here is a new one in Mr Petersen's anti-Tesla series, this time on the economics of grid battery storage:

CAISO Data Highlights Critical Flaws In The Evolving Renewables Plus Storage Mythology | Seeking Alpha

Can some of you help pick this apart?

You can decide to dismiss this guy as a shill for the oil industry, but I suspect lots of folks eat his stuff up. Usually his articles include one or two enormous misrepresentations that allow the central thesis to stand, and if this is again the case, I would like to have it in my Petersen file.

Thanks for your help.

I somewhat agree with the premise presented in "CAISO Data Highlights Critical Flaws In The Evolving Renewables Plus Storage Mythology" by John Petersen. Although he provided an overly negative outlook on the long term prospects for renewables plus storage (R+S), he provides sound backup to his claims. I believe there is lots of short to moderate term growth in the industry with addressing cost effective (R+S) solutions, the low hanging fruit.

R+S help with “short-duration renewables integration.” Peterson admits, "that batteries can respond more quickly and accurately than conventional resources like spinning reserves and peaking plants. As a result, large battery arrays are becoming the stabilization technology of choice for short -duration renewables integration."

R+S cost effectively aid with “Congestion relief services”, peak shaving, frequency control and ancillary services. Replacement of peaker plants with battery storage is underway. The cost effective reuse of the gas plant land and exiting transmission lines makes the conversion work. As with the PG&E example, NRG's Puente gas plant planned replacement with a 400 MWH battery system is a recent example of this in motion now.

The harder part is to use R+S to offset base load. This is where John Petersen arguments has some merit. The economics are currently not there for to 100% replace fossil fuels. The capital costs to run a traditional power plant over it's lifespan is already considered in the current electric rates and cost.

As time progresses, as with the case of gas peaker plants, it many be cost effective to retire older fossil fuel plants (such as coal). As time progresses, newer, greener technology will replace older, dirtier power. It will be a steady process, but I am hopeful we can work on reducing our carbon footprint.

 

[plumazul]

I somewhat agree with the premise presented in "CAISO Data Highlights Critical Flaws In The Evolving Renewables Plus Storage Mythology" by John Petersen. < snip>

There's a lot to read out there, and so little time. Triage is necessary. The title says all I need to know about John Petersen.

 

[NinjaVece]

Grid battery storage should always be looked at as the second leg of a three legged stool:

1) The first leg is renewable power, be it solar, wind, hydro or other technology. Most of which provide intermittent power depending on the type. Solar due to clouds and night, wind as the breeze alternates between furious and slow, hydro due to water levels, etc.

2) The second leg is battery grid storage that can provide 'smoothing' for intermittent power sources. It soaks up high production and discharges at lower production to keep the voltage regulated dependent on consumer need. It can be a power sink for up to 20-30 minutes for large communities but unlikely for more time than that.

3) The third leg is a long-term storage device such as pumped-hydro. Recent research found 500,000 non-river based locations suitable for pumped-hydro, which can store days worth of power. However, turbine spin up can take 10-20 minutes which leads us directly back to #2 where the batteries provide the bridge to the back-up power. When #1 is running hot, it can power the pumps that take water from the lower basins back to the upper basins to again provide the long-term backup needed for this complete scenario. Whatever evaporation takes that rain doesn't replace creates the only need for water update in those systems.

Thus the author completely misses the point. The battery (#2) solutions are the middle ground between back-up power and the main solar / wind / hydro / etc. that generally feeds the system. And it allows a system to be vastly over-subscribed in those #1 sources as the pumped-hydro can absorb a LOT of excess power when it pumps that water uphill.

 

[neroden]

So he already admits that batteries eliminate peakers, by handling subminute and minute-scale grid fluctuations.

Solar and wind both produce plenty of very cheap power, though at slightly random times. Solar eliminates midday load, of course. Wind generally produces more at night.

We're already seeing in South Australia that batteries can and will eliminate the evening *and morning* peaks, while making money doing so -- covering hour-length grid fluctuations with ease.

So what's left to cover? An entire night with no wind; a day with almost no sun (blizzard, maybe); so we're talking whole-day coverage. Batteries may well be able to handle that -- we haven't installed enough batteries to be sure yet -- but the fact is, where I live, we simply have whole-day power outages during blizzards and we live with it. So I don't see it as an actual problem.

Of course, hydro and pumped hydro still exist so we can reduce the number of whole-day outages that way. And transmission can move power from an area with sun to an area without or from an area with wind to an area without, so the number of outages due to "no sun, no wind, batteries depleted" is simply going to be very low.

If we leave a few of the existing fuel burning plants in mothballs and pull them out once a year for a week-long blizzard... that's frankly insignificant. We'll be 99% of the way there and I won't be worried.

 

[miimura]

I refuse to click on anything at SA. To me, hypothesizing about a 100% renewable grid is not useful right now. The grid can and does integrate the increasing renewable percentages we're seeing in places like California, Hawaii and South Australia. Adding grid scale batteries will only help integrate more renewables. Batteries integrated into utility scale renewable generation will also help reduce the size of local grid connections and allow those solar generating sites to sell power through the evening and night. When the renewable percentages get high enough, we will have surplus power at times and using that power for inefficient things like electrolysis for hydrogen production and atmospheric carbon capture would make sense to use as dispatchable loads.

 

[m3-pw2]

This is an article for investors and not renewable enthusiasts or people concerned about climate change and want to do something to fix it.

What he says are the realities and shortcomings of renewable that we already know.

He's not concerned about technological breakthroughs to solve these shortcomings, or ways to reduce carbon footprint in an exponential fashion.

 

[VValleyEV]

Where “R+S” = Renewable energy plus (batterty) Storage:

The harder part is to use R+S to offset base load. This is where John Petersen arguments has some merit. The economics are currently not there for to 100% replace fossil fuels. The capital costs to run a traditional power plant over it's lifespan is already considered in the current electric rates and cost.

This seems a solid argument but one that we should not simply ignore, because it is being used to lobby against investment and financial policy that favors renewable energy integration into the grid and BEV vehicles, actually ridiculing all of that as based on “mythology”.

THIS seems like a good comprehensive answer, that with the addition of #3 the mythology part evaporates, and Mr Petersen’s case against replacing the fossil fuel base for energy production collapses:

Grid battery storage should always be looked at as the second leg of a three legged stool:

1) The first leg is renewable power, be it solar, wind, hydro or other technology. Most of which provide intermittent power depending on the type. Solar due to clouds and night, wind as the breeze alternates between furious and slow, hydro due to water levels, etc.

2) The second leg is battery grid storage that can provide 'smoothing' for intermittent power sources. It soaks up high production and discharges at lower production to keep the voltage regulated dependent on consumer need. It can be a power sink for up to 20-30 minutes for large communities but unlikely for more time than that.

3) The third leg is a long-term storage device such as pumped-hydro. Recent research found 500,000 non-river based locations suitable for pumped-hydro, which can store days worth of power. However, turbine spin up can take 10-20 minutes which leads us directly back to #2 where the batteries provide the bridge to the back-up power. When #1 is running hot, it can power the pumps that take water from the lower basins back to the upper basins to again provide the long-term backup needed for this complete scenario. Whatever evaporation takes that rain doesn't replace creates the only need for water update in those systems.

Thus the author completely misses the point. The battery (#2) solutions are the middle ground between back-up power and the main solar / wind / hydro / etc. that generally feeds the system. And it allows a system to be vastly over-subscribed in those #1 sources as the pumped-hydro can absorb a LOT of excess power when it pumps that water uphill.

It seems to me that without #3 (long-term energy storage devices such as pumped hydro), we will always be losing the argument about renewables vs fossil fuel, because well if you can’t replace the base load why bother so you folks must be wearing tin foil hats. If we say well we can but you will have to put up with some outages, that will not go over well.

 

[VValleyEV]

This is an article for investors and not renewable enthusiasts or people concerned about climate change and want to do something to fix it.

I disagree. This is an argument that the “renewal enthusiasts and people concerned about climate change” are delusional cultists, that we should not support their causes with financial policy and instead stick with oil as the base energy supply.

What he says are the realities and shortcomings of renewable that we already know.

Yes and no. The shortcoming he focuses on is one that can be addressed relatively easily by adding long-term storage to the mix of renewables and battery storage. He completely ignores that point, and we should not.

He's not concerned about technological breakthroughs to solve these shortcomings, or ways to reduce carbon footprint in an exponential fashion.

If we concede that renewables+batteries are not economically feasible now without new technological breakthroughs, we have lost the argument for a pro-renewable energy policy. If instead we can argue that adding long-term energy storage to the mix makes renewable energy+batteries a credible replacement for fossil fuel RIGHT NOW without further technological breakthroughs, we have a good argument for renewable energy policy that should be difficult for Mr Petersen and his supporters to counter.

 

[Zythryn]

This is an article for investors and not renewable enthusiasts or people concerned about climate change and want to do something to fix it.

What he says are the realities and shortcomings of renewable that we already know.

He's not concerned about technological breakthroughs to solve these shortcomings, or ways to reduce carbon footprint in an exponential fashion.

No, what he says are his personal interpretation of the data, often cherry picked, that he collects.
His track record is awful. Ask him how Axion (?) is doing. Or the "castle" in Europe he quipped about years ago.

He is an albatross with no ability to predict trends in technology and business. Want to know where he is? Just follow the trail of bankrupt and failed companies.

 

[GenSao]

It seems to me that without #3 (long-term energy storage devices such as pumped hydro), we will always be losing the argument about renewables vs fossil fuel, because well if you can’t replace the base load why bother so you folks must be wearing tin foil hats. If we say well we can but you will have to put up with some outages, that will not go over well.

I agree.

Pumped hydro is an excellent example of a long term storage option that "can aggregate multiple functions in a single facility." As far back as 2000, during the California Energy Crisis the Department of Water Resources (DWR) would utilize the California State Water Project dams to generate electricity during peak energy use. At night, DWR wound reverse the turbines to refill reservoirs with fore-bays and pump water along the California Aqueduct. This practice likely continues to this day.

There are other options out there. I am hopeful a few can be economically viable in the future.

 

[NinjaVece]

Where “R+S” = Renewable energy plus (batterty) Storage:


This seems a solid argument but one that we should not simply ignore, because it is being used to lobby against investment and financial policy that favors renewable energy integration into the grid and BEV vehicles, actually ridiculing all of that as based on “mythology”.

THIS seems like a good comprehensive answer, that with the addition of #3 the mythology part evaporates, and Mr Petersen’s case against replacing the fossil fuel base for energy production collapses:



It seems to me that without #3 (long-term energy storage devices such as pumped hydro), we will always be losing the argument about renewables vs fossil fuel, because well if you can’t replace the base load why bother so you folks must be wearing tin foil hats. If we say well we can but you will have to put up with some outages, that will not go over well.

VValleyEV, the requirement for a long-term power store is obvious. Battery based systems (even flow batteries or others) simply can't store days worth of power should intermittent power sources like solar or wind have cloudy or still days in conjunction (admittedly, not likely for both to be true but possible). NON river based pumped-hydro can fit the bill here and recent analysis states that there are 500,000 vialble locations for it around the world - many times what we need:

www.iflscience.com/technology/500000-possible-pumped-hydro-sites-show-we-can-easily-store-renewable-energy/

Now, there are other solutions like centralized H2 production (for economies of scale) and storage which can then be reversed for power generation like pumped-hydro. This would work for flat locales and is an H2 solution I support (H2 for motive transportation is very inefficient however so is not recommended).

The one-time cost to install pumped-hydro or large H2 generation / storage / electricity production can be factored into the life of those facilities and STILL be much lower cost over time than natural gas - certainly coal. And if the associated costs to mitigate CO2 were included with natural gas and coal, the cost is MUCH lower with pumped-hydro or H2 storage.

 

[Wooloomooloo]

OK hands up who is castigating this article having not read it... come on, own up... The headline actually doesn't really summarize what he says at all

The one point he's making that people should take notice of, is that renewable energy and battery storage won't create some utopia where we don't need to worry about energy consumption or the cost of energy. We absolutely will need to get a lot smarter about how much energy we use. What he's complete wrong about is that Tesla and others are complicit in this attitude, because they're not, and he's also not facing the reality that fossil fuels will be gone someday.

I have actually been FAR more aware about my energy consumption since I got my Tesla. I never really worried about gas consumption, my financial circumstances are fortunate enough that I never needed to, but I DO worry about my Whr/mi because I have to get somewhere. Want it 80 degrees and toasty inside, when it's 10 degrees outside... that's gonna cost you time and/or range. That's a GOOD thing.

Cheap fossil energy has been hugely damaging in so many ways, whether pollution, spills, climate change, war or whatever. I don't expect everyone to be a hippy-dippy tree-hugger here, but if you remotely give a crap about your kids and their kids, you should know that the days of cheap energy are gone. Even if we go nuclear rather than solar/wind etc, cars, planes, ships etc will need to run on something. Oil will be gone more or less in 50 - 100 years, so this is only a matter of time.

So yes it will be more expensive, relatively, as a precious resource. So will drinkable water, so will food (especially meat) and so on.

 

[m3-pw2]

I disagree. This is an argument that the “renewal enthusiasts and people concerned about climate change” are delusional cultists, that we should not support their causes with financial policy and instead stick with oil as the base energy supply.

A lot of investors, not all, are looking at the short-term returns. To say that natural gas or petrol is going away in the next five years is delusional. You got to be realistic. If you want change, don't expect it to come from there. You'd need policies and incentives enacted at the government level, and also businesses to drive the process and commit to reduce their carbon footprint.

Yes and no. The shortcoming he focuses on is one that can be addressed relatively easily by adding long-term storage to the mix of renewables and battery storage. He completely ignores that point, and we should not.

I haven't heard about projects that have long-term storage in the mix. Can they survive a multi-day low production? Are they economical to implement?

If we concede that renewables+batteries are not economically feasible now without new technological breakthroughs, we have lost the argument for a pro-renewable energy policy. If instead we can argue that adding long-term energy storage to the mix makes renewable energy+batteries a credible replacement for fossil fuel RIGHT NOW without further technological breakthroughs, we have a good argument for renewable energy policy that should be difficult for Mr Petersen and his supporters to counter.

We definitely need to start somewhere and keep the momentum going. In my opinion, climate change is a real thread that we will face in our lifetime, and we need to get our act together and pragmatically move towards a better and healthier future. I don't think this can be done in 5 years. It will take at least 2 decades, and only if we start now.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So he already admits that batteries eliminate peakers, by handling subminute and minute-scale grid fluctuations.

Solar and wind both produce plenty of very cheap power, though at slightly random times. Solar eliminates midday load, of course. Wind generally produces more at night.

We're already seeing in South Australia that batteries can and will eliminate the evening *and morning* peaks, while making money doing so -- covering hour-length grid fluctuations with ease.

So what's left to cover? An entire night with no wind; a day with almost no sun (blizzard, maybe); so we're talking whole-day coverage. Batteries may well be able to handle that -- we haven't installed enough batteries to be sure yet -- but the fact is, where I live, we simply have whole-day power outages during blizzards and we live with it. So I don't see it as an actual problem.

Of course, hydro and pumped hydro still exist so we can reduce the number of whole-day outages that way. And transmission can move power from an area with sun to an area without or from an area with wind to an area without, so the number of outages due to "no sun, no wind, batteries depleted" is simply going to be very low.

If we leave a few of the existing fuel burning plants in mothballs and pull them out once a year for a week-long blizzard... that's frankly insignificant. We'll be 99% of the way there and I won't be worried.

It's status quo thinking. Because we have a just-in-time grid, we must always have a just-in-time grid.

If you can focus on 99% and make it cheap, people are going to be a lot more comfortable with restrictions and higher cost for the 1%.

 

[NanoGrid]

3) The third leg is a long-term storage device such as pumped-hydro.

It is taking a very long time for pumped hydro to make headway. Twelve years have passed since the great surge in project planning and licensing, and I don't recall a single completed project of more than nominal capacity. Those slated for California died because there is no rate mechanism to capture the value of the functions provided. Even unregulated public utilities like SMUD and TID/MID shelved their projects. The private and licensed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project has perfect siting and the two reservoirs readymade, but can't get off the ground.

Some kind of paradigm shift is needed to build that third leg. Maybe we have to wait for the wearing-out of the first generation of 10-year battery banks to grasp the value of funding 100-year infrastructure.

(A retired hydropower engineer)

 

[VValleyEV]

It is taking a very long time for pumped hydro to make headway. Twelve years have passed since the great surge in project planning and licensing, and I don't recall a single completed project of more than nominal capacity. Those slated for California died because there is no rate mechanism to capture the value of the functions provided. Even unregulated public utilities like SMUD and TID/MID shelved their projects. The private and licensed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project has perfect siting and the two reservoirs readymade, but can't get off the ground.

Some kind of paradigm shift is needed to build that third leg. Maybe we have to wait for the wearing-out of the first generation of 10-year battery banks to grasp the value of funding 100-year infrastructure.

(A retired hydropower engineer)

That is discouraging that so many have not been able to get off the ground. Here is one I found, although this is a standalone hydro-storage facility that seems to be using grid energy to pump the water up, rather than integrated into a power generator facility. They say they pump the water up at night and feed it back into the grid during the day, the reverse of what you would expect for balancing solar generation.