-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I cannot overstate how satisfying this is to me.
A couple of things really didn't make sense fully originally. When Tesla first announced their battery products, there seemed to be more focus on the walls than the packs. That was unsatisfying, because packs looked like the product with bigger potential, and easier to scale. Of course the first few wins including Hornsdale were the packs.
Then came the news around flow batteries, which seemed to have a leg up on costs when compared to power packs. Not good.
But the key element here is, both power packs and large scale flow batteries require transmission and distribution investments, especially when you believe transportation is going electric. Scaling power walls like this to create virtual power plants is such an elegant and robust solution, that it just blows my mind.
PS: of course power packs can do so much more than flow batteries, like frequency and voltage regulation, synthetic inertia, etc., but from a pure $/kwh perspective, flow batteries can be cheaper.
jhm
Well-Known Member
This is right. Powerwalls provide a wide variety of services deep in distribution. It will take utilities a long time to figure out just how flexible and beneficial this can be. For example, voltage regulation is worth about 0.9c/kWh for all the power that flows through distribution (at least this was in the case of Nevada). For another, by using distributed Powerpacks for peak power, this lowers the capacity requirement for the transmission grid, and it also protects the substation transformers from heavy loads that prematurely age those assets. So there are many different value streams that distributed storage can provide that ultimately drive down the cost of transmitting and distributing power.
It is my understanding that flow batteries have very low cost per energy capacity ($/kWh) but are more expensive for power capacity ($/kW). This complements lithium ion batteries. So lithium is really good for regulating power on a time scale from seconds to about a week. But flow batteries can help balance energy from a time scale of days to seasons of the year. Thus, flow batteries will be very helpful for deep decarbonization, while lithium is well suited for immediately pressing needs of optimizing the daily performance of grids.
Early evidence that the Hornsdale Power Reserve (aka Tesla Big Battery) is having a material impact in the energy market and prices:
Tesla big battery is already bringing Australia’s gas cartel to heel
FCAS service costs down 75% in the month of December (compared to the previous December).
There's an example of a recent situation where until recently, the gas generator / peaker plants that have provided the FCAS service have taken advantage of the situation to price the servive into the $10,000 - $14,000/MW range. The service btw is to have that capacity available and on standby - not to actually provide any actual electricity.
The Tesla big battery, and the attached wind farm, have begun bidding into that market (a specific outcome the South Australia government was looking for when it went looking for the big battery), and that recent situation saw the FCAS service stabilize at $270/MW.
My important takeaway from this is that this is a unit of evidence of how everybody that is a consumer of grid service benefits from batteries providing services that are historically provided by gas peaker plants. That price delta is a price that everybody else has to pay, and ultimately flows through to the bills that consumers and industry pay for electricity.
And it's why the next big thing out of South Australia - the 250MW / 650MWh virtual battery over 50k households is something that everybody* should view with excitement.
* all consumers anyway. The fossil fuel generators that have been gaming the system are probably not as excited about the new competitor.
Tesla big battery is already bringing Australia’s gas cartel to heel
FCAS service costs down 75% in the month of December (compared to the previous December).
There's an example of a recent situation where until recently, the gas generator / peaker plants that have provided the FCAS service have taken advantage of the situation to price the servive into the $10,000 - $14,000/MW range. The service btw is to have that capacity available and on standby - not to actually provide any actual electricity.
The Tesla big battery, and the attached wind farm, have begun bidding into that market (a specific outcome the South Australia government was looking for when it went looking for the big battery), and that recent situation saw the FCAS service stabilize at $270/MW.
My important takeaway from this is that this is a unit of evidence of how everybody that is a consumer of grid service benefits from batteries providing services that are historically provided by gas peaker plants. That price delta is a price that everybody else has to pay, and ultimately flows through to the bills that consumers and industry pay for electricity.
And it's why the next big thing out of South Australia - the 250MW / 650MWh virtual battery over 50k households is something that everybody* should view with excitement.
* all consumers anyway. The fossil fuel generators that have been gaming the system are probably not as excited about the new competitor.
Very interesting article. The statement below caught my eye as well -- if they can achieve a one-year payback period for the battery (or less) that would be remarkable:
"If it can keep a lid on FCAS prices like it did in January, then it will likely pay back the cost of the battery in a single year from this service alone, let alone the value of its trading in the wholesale market, and the value of its emergency back-up capabilities."
jhm
Well-Known Member
It seem like this kind of potential for huge returns from batteries should drive solar and wind producers around the world to jump in with batteries. Note that the economic impact of these FCAS was a big cost on certain generators including wind. There have got to be other markets on the planet that have similar problems. So if you're a wind or solar generator in such a market, this could give you a huge leg up.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Looks like Squaw Valley ski area (California) is going to install 8 MW (no word on Wh) batteries to overcome frequent power outages and stabilize the grid. Says they can run 6-8 hours on the batteries.
Squaw Valley Gets Tesla Batteries to Stabilize Tahoe Power Grid
Squaw Valley Gets Tesla Batteries to Stabilize Tahoe Power Grid
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Hornsdale cuts off gas energy cartel at the knees
Tesla big battery is already bringing Australia’s gas cartel to heel
Tesla big battery is already bringing Australia’s gas cartel to heel
jhm
Well-Known Member
jhm
Well-Known Member
How solar, wind and hydro could power the world, at lower cost
This is some good progress on research into a 100% renewable energy world. The authors demonstrate that wind, hydro and solar along with battery storage and some firm renewables like renewable gas, bioenergy, geothermal, tidal etc. Specifically excluded are fossil fuels and nuclear. In case you haven't been following the deep decarbonization debate mostly it pivots around whether nuclear is essential. So these authors are among those that say that a 100% renewable world is possible.
My own view is that nuclear is supportive of environmental goals, but new nuclear is often too expensive to compete economically with renewables and modern storage. Over half of the US nuclear fleet is not operationally profitable. Average power prices in wholesale market are simply too low to cover variable costs of running the plant. Moreover, continued cost declines for batteries, solar, and wind will continue to drive down average power prices, even if natural gas or coal were to become more expensive. Indeed, I see little upside to natural gas and coal prices longterm because wind, solar and batteries are to price competitive already. Higher fossil fuel prices simply price those fuels out of the the power markets.
The deep decarbonization theorists who insist upon nuclear tend to argue that the storage requirement is incredibly high and astronomically expensive. So argue that as much as a 90-day supply of stored electricity may be required. Of course, this is attempting to cover all contingencies wherein most of that storage capacity would be cycled less than once per year. This, I believe, is a confusion of back up power from ordinary storage. Renewable fuels like gas from electricity, biogas and biodiesel can serve as back up power and distributed globally for that purpose. In any case, those who argue that nuclear is essential hold that the cost of storage is too high.
I think ultimately this is an economic question. At what point do renewables and storage become so expensive for marginal reductions in carbon emissions that expensive nuclear become the lower cost solution? Analysts who ask this question now have to project their own ideas about where costs and technologies will be so many decades out. But in reality this is an unfolding process. What gives me hope is how the big Tesla battery at HPR is demonstrating capabilities and economic benefits that few energy analysts were able to imagine just a year ago. These analysts also underestimate just how quickly battery costs are declining. Indeed, deep decarbonization requires heavy reliance on BEVs. The scale and cost of batteries must improve substantially just to achieve modest decarbonization in transportation. Naturally, these advances spill over for stationary storage as well.
How we imagine a low carbon future will change radically over the next ten years. We will have witnessed how batteries have reshaped our world. We simply will not be making the same assumptions about the future of energy as analysts are inclined to make at the present moment. Really the question about nuclear is whether technology can drive the cost down fast enough and low enough to compete with other energy storage technologies. If nuclear never becomes competitive, then its only hope is to bully the public into paying a premium for yesteryear's technology. Who knows, SMRs or some other nuclear tech could solve thses problems. But for the next ten years the world will discover how far batteries can take us.
This is some good progress on research into a 100% renewable energy world. The authors demonstrate that wind, hydro and solar along with battery storage and some firm renewables like renewable gas, bioenergy, geothermal, tidal etc. Specifically excluded are fossil fuels and nuclear. In case you haven't been following the deep decarbonization debate mostly it pivots around whether nuclear is essential. So these authors are among those that say that a 100% renewable world is possible.
My own view is that nuclear is supportive of environmental goals, but new nuclear is often too expensive to compete economically with renewables and modern storage. Over half of the US nuclear fleet is not operationally profitable. Average power prices in wholesale market are simply too low to cover variable costs of running the plant. Moreover, continued cost declines for batteries, solar, and wind will continue to drive down average power prices, even if natural gas or coal were to become more expensive. Indeed, I see little upside to natural gas and coal prices longterm because wind, solar and batteries are to price competitive already. Higher fossil fuel prices simply price those fuels out of the the power markets.
The deep decarbonization theorists who insist upon nuclear tend to argue that the storage requirement is incredibly high and astronomically expensive. So argue that as much as a 90-day supply of stored electricity may be required. Of course, this is attempting to cover all contingencies wherein most of that storage capacity would be cycled less than once per year. This, I believe, is a confusion of back up power from ordinary storage. Renewable fuels like gas from electricity, biogas and biodiesel can serve as back up power and distributed globally for that purpose. In any case, those who argue that nuclear is essential hold that the cost of storage is too high.
I think ultimately this is an economic question. At what point do renewables and storage become so expensive for marginal reductions in carbon emissions that expensive nuclear become the lower cost solution? Analysts who ask this question now have to project their own ideas about where costs and technologies will be so many decades out. But in reality this is an unfolding process. What gives me hope is how the big Tesla battery at HPR is demonstrating capabilities and economic benefits that few energy analysts were able to imagine just a year ago. These analysts also underestimate just how quickly battery costs are declining. Indeed, deep decarbonization requires heavy reliance on BEVs. The scale and cost of batteries must improve substantially just to achieve modest decarbonization in transportation. Naturally, these advances spill over for stationary storage as well.
How we imagine a low carbon future will change radically over the next ten years. We will have witnessed how batteries have reshaped our world. We simply will not be making the same assumptions about the future of energy as analysts are inclined to make at the present moment. Really the question about nuclear is whether technology can drive the cost down fast enough and low enough to compete with other energy storage technologies. If nuclear never becomes competitive, then its only hope is to bully the public into paying a premium for yesteryear's technology. Who knows, SMRs or some other nuclear tech could solve thses problems. But for the next ten years the world will discover how far batteries can take us.
Is Panasonic making panels like those used for this project at gigafactory 2 near Buffalo?
Panasonic Developed The Biggest Project with HIT Solar Panels in Latin America | Panasonic Newsroom Global
Panasonic Developed The Biggest Project with HIT Solar Panels in Latin America | Panasonic Newsroom Global
Good round up of the recent FERC order here.
Federal Commission Issues Order to Integrate Energy Storage with U.S. Power Markets
Federal Commission Issues Order to Integrate Energy Storage with U.S. Power Markets
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
An interesting tidbit:
The SolarCity guys were pushing pretty hard for "aggregation services" in residential markets. In other words SC wanted to bundle and sell your excess electricity at wholesale, rather than you having to sell it as an individual at the whim of utilities and PUCs. This rule makes that pretty easy, no?
Paracelsus
Active Member
Tesla recently installed a 2MWh Powerpack in the Philippines to complement 2MW of solar installed by Solar Philippines. The project by itself is modest in size, but was the first stage of an ambitious project that aims to replace all planned coal plants in the Philippines with solar plus storage.
Solar Philippines founder Leandro Leviste sees this project as the first step of a grand vision for ending brownouts and reducing energy costs throughout the Philippines:
‘NO MORE BROWNOUTS!’: Philippines town hails arrival of Tesla battery
The people from the town look pretty psyched to have reliable electricity instead of constant brownouts:
Solar Philippines founder Leandro Leviste sees this project as the first step of a grand vision for ending brownouts and reducing energy costs throughout the Philippines:
Leviste said that there was no reason this type of solution could not be rolled out to “every other town in the Philippines”. The company has also submitted plans in more urbanised regions to provide power, this time at a potential saving of around 30% on existing electricity costs, it claims.
This includes a 5,000MW proposal to replace all planned coal plants with solar-plus-storage. Solar Philippines has built its own solar panel factory in Batangas with around 800MW capacity, building up to 2GW. As an integrated developer, investor, EPC and now manufacturer, the company has 700 employees and 300MW of PV projects under construction or already completed.
This includes a 5,000MW proposal to replace all planned coal plants with solar-plus-storage. Solar Philippines has built its own solar panel factory in Batangas with around 800MW capacity, building up to 2GW. As an integrated developer, investor, EPC and now manufacturer, the company has 700 employees and 300MW of PV projects under construction or already completed.
The people from the town look pretty psyched to have reliable electricity instead of constant brownouts:
More good news for Tesla battery storage. In Victoria Australia, Tesla will be installing another large battery -- 50 MWh/25 MW. Construction begins this month with project completion before next summer in Australia (toward the end of the year). Fluence (Siemens/AES JV) will also be installing a 30 MWh/30 MW battery.
Tesla, Fluence to build two big batteries in Victoria
Tesla also has another project in Victoria with Neoen to install a 34 MWh/20 MW battery scheduled for completion next year. Neoen starts work on next Tesla big battery project in Victoria
Tesla, Fluence to build two big batteries in Victoria
Tesla also has another project in Victoria with Neoen to install a 34 MWh/20 MW battery scheduled for completion next year. Neoen starts work on next Tesla big battery project in Victoria
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Tesla says its giant battery is not getting paid correctly because it sends power too quickly
Looks like the battery fixes problems too fast to get paid.
Looks like the battery fixes problems too fast to get paid.
That's an interesting article because it suggests that Tesla isn't getting paid. But if Tesla is entitled to payments, that means the battery wasn't really fully bought and we are looking at a PPA or similar scheme (but then for frequency regulation) But on the other hand Tesla is claiming it will book revenue from the battery sale this quarter? Is the article wrong? Or did Tesla sell one part of the battery, while retaining ownership in the other and merely contracting out frequency regulation services through it?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
