Tesla Energy and utility scale projects

[jhm]

Do we have any insight into cost savings from Battery Day announcements on the megapack side? Is the 56% cost cut equally applicable to storage products?

I suspect that nearly all the gains apply. One exception is cell vehicle integration. However life cycle gains are a big advantage of stationary over private vehicle applications. So to be somewhat conservative we may want to back out the gains from cell vehicle integration. Thus, the $/MWh is potentially reduced 49% (56% total minus 7% cell vehicle. Perhaps more importantly for production ramp up, the capex per GWh is potentially reduced 61% (69% total minus 8% cell vehicle).

Now after having backed out cell vehicle integration, we can certainly respect that the MegaPack housing likely represents a substantial reduction in pack costs over the PowerPack. It's possible that the large cells may require less internal supports. The outer housing is driven by the surface area of the pack in ratio to the volume (and hence MWh capacity) of the battery. So the scale of of MegaPack is really important for reducing the amount of housing per MWh. Additionally, installation costs can be driven down by doing more of wiring and integration with inverter in the factory. The MegaPack size is probably optimized for transport and onsite installation.

The gain in range (from presentation deck) probably speaks to energy density gains (both by weigh and volume). So density speaks to optimizing the capacity of the MegaPack. Maybe this is 40% (54% minus 14% cell vehicle integration.) Density gains likely translate into transport and installation cost efficiencies.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

There's gonna be a major switch flipped this year and next when we can get enough new cheaper cells for megapacks utilizing autobidder.

Just thinking this weekend about the 180MW grid in the USVI and far larger grid in Puerto Rico. They pay $.48 and $.21 per Watt at retail. Imagine the drop-in storage product Tesla could offer to backup moderate sized solar farms, offshore wind, and balance load/frequency. All their blackouts and frequency problems gone, electric bills cut by 1/3.

Gonna bump my USVI energy thread to brainstorm these solutions and try to put a number on savings.

A lot of chatter out there of Jigar Shah becoming Energy Secretary. He's the kind of person who would act lightning fast on "shovel ready" energy projects like that..

 

[Off Shore]

Gonna bump my USVI energy thread

Pointer please.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

US Virgin Islands thread

 

[EinSV]

I suspect that nearly all the gains apply. One exception is cell vehicle integration. However life cycle gains are a big advantage of stationary over private vehicle applications. So to be somewhat conservative we may want to back out the gains from cell vehicle integration. Thus, the $/MWh is potentially reduced 49% (56% total minus 7% cell vehicle. Perhaps more importantly for production ramp up, the capex per GWh is potentially reduced 61% (69% total minus 8% cell vehicle).

Now after having backed out cell vehicle integration, we can certainly respect that the MegaPack housing likely represents a substantial reduction in pack costs over the PowerPack. It's possible that the large cells may require less internal supports. The outer housing is driven by the surface area of the pack in ratio to the volume (and hence MWh capacity) of the battery. So the scale of of MegaPack is really important for reducing the amount of housing per MWh. Additionally, installation costs can be driven down by doing more of wiring and integration with inverter in the factory. The MegaPack size is probably optimized for transport and onsite installation.

The gain in range (from presentation deck) probably speaks to energy density gains (both by weigh and volume). So density speaks to optimizing the capacity of the MegaPack. Maybe this is 40% (54% minus 14% cell vehicle integration.) Density gains likely translate into transport and installation cost efficiencies.

One other thing to factor in is that rapidly falling finance rates for renewables combined with extended battery life should allow for some nice reductions in PPA costs that are not captured in $/MWh battery capacity.

For example, if the battery life is extended from 15 years to 30 years at an interest rate of 5%, the battery cost savings would be about 32% per kWh energy.

You can play around with the assumptions, but the bottom line is that added battery life should reduce PPA costs, whether for batteries alone or batteries combined with solar or wind. This will expand the market for batteries and accelerate the sunsetting of gas and coal plants.

 

[MC3OZ]

Community battery storage will help "dumb" networks catch up with energy transition | RenewEconomy

Transmission is $80 per MWh in Australia or 8 cents per kWh.
The wholesale/retail/transmission split is something like 40%/30%/30%. So retail most be another 8 cents per kWh... So 16 cents per kWh is transmission and retail which behind-the-meter doesn't have to pay.

Australia is probably an extreme example, this would vary by country, but home battery and solar really exposes the inefficiencies and profit-margins in the existing grid.

It is likely that in most locations a simple bundled service per kWh will look bad compared to how batteries and solar. When transmission and retail/administration are split out, they will look even worse.

Utilities and the other power industry companies are suffering from outdated technology, outdated business practices and a business model under threat.

 

[MC3OZ]

There's gonna be a major switch flipped this year and next when we can get enough new cheaper cells for megapacks utilizing autobidder

I was thinking just yesterday that exporting Megapacks from China built with CATL/LG 4680 LFP cells would make a lot of sense.

Tesla is struggling to meet Megapack demand, LFP seems like an ideal fit. China can satisfy internal demand and export to Europe and the Asia Pacific, this would free up US Megapack production for US demand.

 

[jhm]

One other thing to factor in is that rapidly falling finance rates for renewables combined with extended battery life should allow for some nice reductions in PPA costs that are not captured in $/MWh battery capacity.

For example, if the battery life is extended from 15 years to 30 years at an interest rate of 5%, the battery cost savings would be about 32% per kWh energy.

You can play around with the assumptions, but the bottom line is that added battery life should reduce PPA costs, whether for batteries alone or batteries combined with solar or wind. This will expand the market for batteries and accelerate the sunsetting of gas and coal plants.

This is a good point. Also increasing the duration from 15 to 30 years increases the sensitivity to rate assumption. At 30 years, if you reduce the interest rate from 5% to 4%, this decrease the $/MWh about 11.06%, but at just 15 years it would only reduce the cost by 6.44%.

The point here is that cost of capital for renewable projects has been coming down relative to fossil projects. Longer duration batteries can ride that advantage better. Also government/fed policies can work to reduce the cost of capital, for example loan guarantees, quantitative easing. So those policies become more potent. I do expect central banks will move to support climate goals. I also suspect that integrating storage with an RE project could reduce financial risk, which would help to keep the cost of capital down.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Not just Australia anymore....

We Energies to retire 1.8 gigawatts of fossil fuel; utility adding solar, wind, battery storage

 

[Doggydogworld]

Not just Australia anymore....

We Energies to retire 1.8 gigawatts of fossil fuel; utility adding solar, wind, battery storage

These articles tend to be somewhat scattershot. The coal retirements (by 2025) are real, part of an ongoing national trend. WEC's 10-Q mentions them and goes on to say:

... we expect to invest approximately $2 billion in low-cost renewable energy in Wisconsin. Our plan is to replace a portion of the retired capacity by building and owning a combination of clean, natural gas-fired generation and zero-carbon-emitting renewable generation facilities that are anticipated to include:
•800 MW of utility-scale solar;
•600 MW of battery storage;
•100 MW of wind; and
•100 MW of reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) natural gas-fueled generation.​

They have approval for 300 MW of solar. The battery and wind are just goals so far. They also mention approval to buy a 200 MW slice of Alliant's NGCC West Riverside Energy Center. So the approved projects should produce:

NG - 200 MW combined cycle @ 75% duty cycle plus 100 MW piston ICE peakers at 25% duty cycle = ~1500 GWh/year
Solar - 300 MW utility scale trackers in WI @ 20% net AC duty cycle = ~500 GWh/year

As usual, solar, wind and battery get the headlines while NG provides the bulk of the kWhs.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

These articles tend to be somewhat scattershot. The coal retirements (by 2025) are real, part of an ongoing national trend. WEC's 10-Q mentions them and goes on to say:

... we expect to invest approximately $2 billion in low-cost renewable energy in Wisconsin. Our plan is to replace a portion of the retired capacity by building and owning a combination of clean, natural gas-fired generation and zero-carbon-emitting renewable generation facilities that are anticipated to include:
•800 MW of utility-scale solar;
•600 MW of battery storage;
•100 MW of wind; and
•100 MW of reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) natural gas-fueled generation.​

They have approval for 300 MW of solar. The battery and wind are just goals so far. They also mention approval to buy a 200 MW slice of Alliant's NGCC West Riverside Energy Center. So the approved projects should produce:

NG - 200 MW combined cycle @ 75% duty cycle plus 100 MW piston ICE peakers at 25% duty cycle = ~1500 GWh/year
Solar - 300 MW utility scale trackers in WI @ 20% net AC duty cycle = ~500 GWh/year

As usual, solar, wind and battery get the headlines while NG provides the bulk of the kWhs.

The article is about future plans, not what's already been approved. They are seeking PUC approval for it.

The 200MW CCGT you mention, plus another 100MW ICE NG, plus some solar covers the current requirements from the 1.1GW coal plant closure, and then the other renewables would cover the remaining 0.7GW of fossil retirements.

 

[Christine69420]

I don't have full read access but perhaps someone here has? I could read the first few lines of text:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

A Megabattery Boom Is Coming to Rescue Overloaded Power Grids
The race began at 100 megawatts. Now 300- and 400-megawatt plants are on the way.

The world’s overloaded power grids are on the cusp of a megabattery boom. California, keen to avoid last year’s blackouts, could add more than 2 gigawatts of energy storage, including from batteries, by summer.

The frenzied rush to claim the title of “biggest battery” started in 2017, when Tesla Inc. and French renewable energy company Neoen SA installed the first 100-megawatt lithium-ion storage project in Australia.

As systems get bigger, they can store and dispatch more energy. That’s seen the titleholder changing frequently—leading to Vistra Corp.’s 300MW Moss Landing project in California claiming the current top spot.

TODAY’S No. 1

Moss Landing Energy Storage FacilityMonterey County, Calif.Initial capacity: 300MW; 1,200 megawatt-hoursAfter expansion: 400MW; 1,600MWh

 

[mongo]

I don't have full read access but perhaps someone here has? I could read the first few lines of text:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

A Megabattery Boom Is Coming to Rescue Overloaded Power Grids
The race began at 100 megawatts. Now 300- and 400-megawatt plants are on the way.

The world’s overloaded power grids are on the cusp of a megabattery boom. California, keen to avoid last year’s blackouts, could add more than 2 gigawatts of energy storage, including from batteries, by summer.

The frenzied rush to claim the title of “biggest battery” started in 2017, when Tesla Inc. and French renewable energy company Neoen SA installed the first 100-megawatt lithium-ion storage project in Australia.

As systems get bigger, they can store and dispatch more energy. That’s seen the titleholder changing frequently—leading to Vistra Corp.’s 300MW Moss Landing project in California claiming the current top spot.

TODAY’S No. 1

Moss Landing Energy Storage FacilityMonterey County, Calif.Initial capacity: 300MW; 1,200 megawatt-hoursAfter expansion: 400MW; 1,600MWh

Edit, we know, but that blurb does not call out that:
Moss landing is also using Tesla tech, 256+ Megapacks.

 

[mspohr]

I don't have full read access but perhaps someone here has? I could read the first few lines of text:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

A Megabattery Boom Is Coming to Rescue Overloaded Power Grids
The race began at 100 megawatts. Now 300- and 400-megawatt plants are on the way.

The world’s overloaded power grids are on the cusp of a megabattery boom. California, keen to avoid last year’s blackouts, could add more than 2 gigawatts of energy storage, including from batteries, by summer.

The frenzied rush to claim the title of “biggest battery” started in 2017, when Tesla Inc. and French renewable energy company Neoen SA installed the first 100-megawatt lithium-ion storage project in Australia.

As systems get bigger, they can store and dispatch more energy. That’s seen the titleholder changing frequently—leading to Vistra Corp.’s 300MW Moss Landing project in California claiming the current top spot.

TODAY’S No. 1

Moss Landing Energy Storage FacilityMonterey County, Calif.Initial capacity: 300MW; 1,200 megawatt-hoursAfter expansion: 400MW; 1,600MWh

Batteries are good but probably better if they were distributed rather than lumped together. Better to respond to local conditions.

 

[mongo]

Batteries are good but probably better if they were distributed rather than lumped together. Better to respond to local conditions.

Responsiveness is going to be similar through a local grid. Distribution helps if it puts the storage on the other side of an overloaded substation or other end of an overloaded set of power lines (or islanding during faults). Since this is going in at an existing substation, it will reduce upstream feeder loads during load peaks, so bulk capacity.

 

[mspohr]

Responsiveness is going to be similar through a local grid. Distribution helps if it puts the storage on the other side of an overloaded substation or other end of an overloaded set of power lines (or islanding during faults). Since this is going in at an existing substation, it will reduce upstream feeder loads during load peaks, so bulk capacity.

Moss landing is a good site. Others may not be.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

It should be clear to all fans of Tesla and their vision that there's a market for these products at today's prices. We don't need subsidies and a Green New Deal per se, we most urgently need regulation and clear direction from FERC and the DoE.

Why don't homeowners have a nationwide Energy Bill of Rights yet? If someone puts a solar array on their roof today, their net metering could be taken away tomorrow creating an untenable and absurdly unfair economic situation. We need to be given priority, as was intended, not the grid operator

Why isn't there a mandatory grid storage formula yet? If every utility were mandated a certain percentage of peak load and daily demand be installed as storage, that creates a much easier landing for new wind/solar projects. Better yet, simply quantify ALL value of a technology like battery storage and force it into the standard utility equation. Gas peaker plants get paid millions every day to balance the load/frequency of grids, a minimum of battery storage removes that cost almost entirely. We need to fully take that into account.

If the market were reshaped properly, simply on the principles of resilience and efficiency as intended, battery storage would flourish immediately with zero subsidy.

 

[mspohr]

It should be clear to all fans of Tesla and their vision that there's a market for these products at today's prices. We don't need subsidies and a Green New Deal per se, we most urgently need regulation and clear direction from FERC and the DoE.

Why don't homeowners have a nationwide Energy Bill of Rights yet? If someone puts a solar array on their roof today, their net metering could be taken away tomorrow creating an untenable and absurdly unfair economic situation. We need to be given priority, as was intended, not the grid operator

Why isn't there a mandatory grid storage formula yet? If every utility were mandated a certain percentage of peak load and daily demand be installed as storage, that creates a much easier landing for new wind/solar projects. Better yet, simply quantify ALL value of a technology like battery storage and force it into the standard utility equation. Gas peaker plants get paid millions every day to balance the load/frequency of grids, a minimum of battery storage removes that cost almost entirely. We need to fully take that into account.

If the market were reshaped properly, simply on the principles of resilience and efficiency as intended, battery storage would flourish immediately with zero subsidy.

Part of the problem is that fossil fuels are su subsidized in many ways. Remove those subsidies.

 

[MC3OZ]

Useful background on what is actually happening to RE generation assets in a mixed gird;-
Why a whole solar farm went “missing” in Queensland

One is economic curtailment – for many plants, it can be important to get out of the way of zero or strongly negative price intervals. With more instances of negative prices in 2020 than in previous years, more assets will have deliberately reduced output.

Not surprising, but the impact on Wind and Solar generators from economic curtailment, means batteries are the right price are needed ASAP.

 

[jboy210]

Looks like the project at Moss Landing is moving along well. Looks like all the Megapacks are on-site. Hopefully, that means it will meet its Q2 2021 target.

PS. Check out the roll of copper wire and the kayakers at the end!