To me, this is great! The start of the avalanche!!!!! Thanks for posting. :smile:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
To me, this is great! The start of the avalanche!!!!! Thanks for posting. :smile:
jhm
Well-Known Member
I've had another thought about the notion that utilities have a preference for making investments with a 30 to 40 year time horizon. It seems that would make sense if the utilities could count on a stable regulatory environment and stable technology over 40 years. But batteries throw such stability into serious question. We simply do not know how power generation and distribution will evolve as a result of low cost batteries. We don't even know who will own these batteries or what they will be used for.
Consider this all EV scenario. Suppose that over the next 30 years all motor vehicles will be battery electric vehicles. Consider that prior to the EV, a typical US household uses about 30 kWh, but when this typically family has 1 or 2 EVs, they need an additional 10 to 30 kWh per day for charging. So now typical consumption is say 50 kWh per day and this family has about 100 kWh of storage in their cars. Suppose through a combination of renewable energy generation, there is generally sufficient power for home and business use at the time of use and there is enough surplus energy produced to charge up all the EVs every day. In such a scenario is sufficient numbers of homes and businesses can be induced to charge at times when surplus power is available, then this solves the problem of matching variable power generation to variable demand. What is shocking about this scenario is that neither stand by power nor stationary energy storage are needed to any great degree. The 100 kWh of EV storage per family is pretty much sufficient storage for the whole system, and 20 kWh of load can be shifted anytime around the clock.
What this scenario illustrates is that stationary storage, like peak power plants, may simply be a transient need to facilitate match power generation with power consumption. So if I am a utility and am trying to decide what sort of peak power plant to build for the next 40 years, I may be erroneously assuming that any sort of peak power plant will be needed over the next 40 years. What happens if the combination of aggregated EV charging and aggregated distributed battery storage makes obsolete the economics of any sort of peak power plant in 10 to 20 years? This potential for obsolescence is a serious risk if my financing is based on a 30 to 40 year time horizon. I think this argues in favor of a battery peak power plant where the batteries will have a useful life of 10 to 15 year and where I can scale up or down the number of battery packs as needed. Packs such as Powerpacks can be redeployed or upgraded as needed. This sort of plant gives the utility lots of flexibility. For example, let's say that a few years into operation this battery peak plant, the price for stand by power plummets and it is discovered that placing Powerpacks on commercial sites has much better economics. Then the plant operator can can sell Powerpacks with poor marginal return in the peak plant to businesses that need them at commercial sites. So it is easy to scale back and redeploy without having to take huge asset write down losses. I am not aware that any fossil fuel plant can give utilities this kind of flexibility. It seems to me that if any utility wants survive the coming disruption, they seriously need to scrap the idea of a 30 year plan. They need to be nimble and focus on assets that give them flexibility. Fortunately, batteries and microgrid technologies give them this kind of flexibility. So utilities should build things like battery peak power plants, not because it will pay off in 30 years, but because it can be totally reconfigured in 5 years.
Consider this all EV scenario. Suppose that over the next 30 years all motor vehicles will be battery electric vehicles. Consider that prior to the EV, a typical US household uses about 30 kWh, but when this typically family has 1 or 2 EVs, they need an additional 10 to 30 kWh per day for charging. So now typical consumption is say 50 kWh per day and this family has about 100 kWh of storage in their cars. Suppose through a combination of renewable energy generation, there is generally sufficient power for home and business use at the time of use and there is enough surplus energy produced to charge up all the EVs every day. In such a scenario is sufficient numbers of homes and businesses can be induced to charge at times when surplus power is available, then this solves the problem of matching variable power generation to variable demand. What is shocking about this scenario is that neither stand by power nor stationary energy storage are needed to any great degree. The 100 kWh of EV storage per family is pretty much sufficient storage for the whole system, and 20 kWh of load can be shifted anytime around the clock.
What this scenario illustrates is that stationary storage, like peak power plants, may simply be a transient need to facilitate match power generation with power consumption. So if I am a utility and am trying to decide what sort of peak power plant to build for the next 40 years, I may be erroneously assuming that any sort of peak power plant will be needed over the next 40 years. What happens if the combination of aggregated EV charging and aggregated distributed battery storage makes obsolete the economics of any sort of peak power plant in 10 to 20 years? This potential for obsolescence is a serious risk if my financing is based on a 30 to 40 year time horizon. I think this argues in favor of a battery peak power plant where the batteries will have a useful life of 10 to 15 year and where I can scale up or down the number of battery packs as needed. Packs such as Powerpacks can be redeployed or upgraded as needed. This sort of plant gives the utility lots of flexibility. For example, let's say that a few years into operation this battery peak plant, the price for stand by power plummets and it is discovered that placing Powerpacks on commercial sites has much better economics. Then the plant operator can can sell Powerpacks with poor marginal return in the peak plant to businesses that need them at commercial sites. So it is easy to scale back and redeploy without having to take huge asset write down losses. I am not aware that any fossil fuel plant can give utilities this kind of flexibility. It seems to me that if any utility wants survive the coming disruption, they seriously need to scrap the idea of a 30 year plan. They need to be nimble and focus on assets that give them flexibility. Fortunately, batteries and microgrid technologies give them this kind of flexibility. So utilities should build things like battery peak power plants, not because it will pay off in 30 years, but because it can be totally reconfigured in 5 years.
NZ Power Utility considers push using Tesla battery into Australia
Vector says Tesla storage a game-changer, mulls push into Australia : Renew Economy
Vector says Tesla storage a game-changer, mulls push into Australia : Renew Economy
jhm
Well-Known Member
At the Powerwall unveiling, Musk explained that 90 TWh of batteries would be needed to eliminate fossil fuels from the world's power supply and 200 TWh to remove fossil fuels from both transportation and electrical power markets. This suggests that long term transportation batteries may remain a larger market than stationary, 110 TWh to 90 TWh. But the situation becomes a little more complex when you consider that the mobile batteries must at a minimum connect to the grid to recharge. If the charging of mobile batteries can be coordinated, it can provide huge stabilization to power grids around the world. Consider 2 billion vehicles with an average of 60 kWh each that need about 10 kWh of charge each day. So that is 120 TWh of mobile batteries with 20 TWh of daily charge load. For the most part it does not make sense to charge mobile batteries from stationary batteries. This may be needed exceptionally for high speed charging or emergencies, but not for the bulk of daily charging. It is simply not efficient. What makes most sense is to cultivate charging infrastructures that make the most of surplus renewable power as it is being produced. Absorbing surplus power in real time provides most of the benefits of stationary storage. So perhaps the combination of 120 TWh of mobile storage with aggregated charging could reduce the need for stationary from around 90 TWh to 60 TWh or less.
I suspect this was the line of thinking that lead Tesla to assume that only 30% of the GF capacity may be needed for stationary. This ratio may prove to hold up well in the long run, while in the short run the stationary market may grow more quickly. The batteries simply need to go where they can deliver the highest return on investment first. This will do two things: it will expand battery production rapidly, and it change the way power is generated and distributed. As the price of batteries comes down an increasingly wider market will open up. It's perfectly fine if right now the economics of the Powerwall does not work out. There are many other places that will get much more value out of a Powerwall unit, and they should get those units first. Moreover, in the long run, it will make sense to have 60 kWh EV in every garage, and if regulatory hang ups do not impede, this 60 kWh mobile battery may well contribute more to reducing the cost of grid power than a Powerwall unit anyway. So I am not at all disparaging stationary storage. I am simply trying to understand the value how EV serve a dual purpose of providing transportation and grid stabilization. So we need to press for regulatory reform that properly values distributed batteries because the batteries in EVs actually will contribute much of this value.
I suspect this was the line of thinking that lead Tesla to assume that only 30% of the GF capacity may be needed for stationary. This ratio may prove to hold up well in the long run, while in the short run the stationary market may grow more quickly. The batteries simply need to go where they can deliver the highest return on investment first. This will do two things: it will expand battery production rapidly, and it change the way power is generated and distributed. As the price of batteries comes down an increasingly wider market will open up. It's perfectly fine if right now the economics of the Powerwall does not work out. There are many other places that will get much more value out of a Powerwall unit, and they should get those units first. Moreover, in the long run, it will make sense to have 60 kWh EV in every garage, and if regulatory hang ups do not impede, this 60 kWh mobile battery may well contribute more to reducing the cost of grid power than a Powerwall unit anyway. So I am not at all disparaging stationary storage. I am simply trying to understand the value how EV serve a dual purpose of providing transportation and grid stabilization. So we need to press for regulatory reform that properly values distributed batteries because the batteries in EVs actually will contribute much of this value.
good thoughts jhm... Consider though that energy is transitioning to a technology over that time frame (away from current production, distribution, loading etc.)- In the 30-40 year time frame, Half or more of that 10kWh per day for auto will be transformed locally by the car itself- (PV will be imbedded in the car surface paint and stored in Super Capacitors while the car sits in the sun all day). We need to throw out all conventional energy thinking from the current model- Production largely disappears, Distribution largely disappears, Transmission largely disappears, Utilities largely disappear. The markets we were once accustomed to will become moot- energy of each device (including home) will be largely imbedded in the device itself, including it's cost- hence (nearly)free - Energy consumption is going to be a non-issue; Excess Energy sink will become the most important piece of the equation... imho
Tesla PowerWall app leaked
Sourcd: Tesla Eye Candy, Exhibition 1 | Aftermarket Accessories for Tesla Model S
Last edited:
Vector NZ Power Utility head "biggest changes are likely to occur at utility scale
Most energy markets suffer what is know as the “twin peaks”, the morning and afternoon energy demands that push usage to its highest levels.
They used to be separated by a plateau of day-time usage, but that has now been eroded by solar energy to the point it now looks more like a duck, and wholesale prices – which once peaked during the day – are now going into negative territoty.
That has changed the economics, the dynamics and the culture of the energy industry, and McKenzie says that will be accelerated by the introduction of cost competitive storage.
“Everything has been built to cater for those twin peaks,” McKenzie told RenewEconomy in an interview late last week.
“The last baston of the energy sector was never being able to store at scale. Being able to access that will make a hell of an impression. It will smooth those peaks …. and take those peaks out of the system. That will bring down the overall cost of generation.”
McKenzie says the biggest changes are likely to happen at utility scale, but residential storage will also have a place for customers who want to manage their costs, and to control their loads and demand.
From renewenergy australia article
Most energy markets suffer what is know as the “twin peaks”, the morning and afternoon energy demands that push usage to its highest levels.
They used to be separated by a plateau of day-time usage, but that has now been eroded by solar energy to the point it now looks more like a duck, and wholesale prices – which once peaked during the day – are now going into negative territoty.
That has changed the economics, the dynamics and the culture of the energy industry, and McKenzie says that will be accelerated by the introduction of cost competitive storage.
“Everything has been built to cater for those twin peaks,” McKenzie told RenewEconomy in an interview late last week.
“The last baston of the energy sector was never being able to store at scale. Being able to access that will make a hell of an impression. It will smooth those peaks …. and take those peaks out of the system. That will bring down the overall cost of generation.”
McKenzie says the biggest changes are likely to happen at utility scale, but residential storage will also have a place for customers who want to manage their costs, and to control their loads and demand.
From renewenergy australia article
jhm
Well-Known Member
Yep, an awful lot can change over the next 30 to 40 years. I think what you are suggesting is a scenario where power is highly localized. I certainly see a lot of potential in that direction. So just as I questioned whether there would be much of a need for peak power plants, we might likewise question there will be much of a need for long distance power transmission. Batteries provide an essential hub for a microgrid, while transmission lines connecting a microgrid to other grids are completely optional. An intelligent micro grid battery integrates whatever mix of energy assets may be available to the microgrid. But the transmission line is just one potential asset. If the transmission line can deliver cheap power or critical back up power, then it may be worth the cost. Clearly there are presently populations that are under served by grid. The economics of transmission just do not work in these areas. And this is where microgrids can leapfrog the grids in the same way that cell phones have leapfrogged landline telephones. Clearly there has always been a market for phones in these areas, but the transmission costs of landlines was out of scale with the demand. But cell phones did not require so much capital outlay to serve remote or impoverished communities. So I am very optimistic about microgrids creating much more favorable economics at small scale. I think that intelligent batteries will enhance the economics and performane of microgrid. While the battery in a vehicle might not be ideal for serving as an energy hub, it will be advantageous for the microgrid to integrate these assets when available. Mobile batteries can even serve as means to transport energy and to provide back up power. So definitely mobile and stationary storage can coexist in a mutually beneficial way. It's not clear if long distance transmission lines can continue to create enough value to pay for their upkeep.
jhm
Well-Known Member
What new chokepoints do you envision at this point?
I think Hawaii is an import state to watch. There are no transmission lines connecting the islands. So each island is a small grid. So if the introduction of solar and batteries can lead to a lower cost of electricity, then it will vindicate the move toward smaller grids. So I am eager to see this unfold.
I was thinking that as long distance power lines get increasingly neglected, they will tend to go out of order more and more, here and there. Cf railroads - a lethal accident in PA only the other day, and we have had more than one serious incidents in Sweden over the past year or so that kept trains off-line for days or weeks, due to neglected upkeep of infrastructure because "someone else" should have paid for it and every entity was more busy raking in money.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Got it. Yeah, if transmission lines become unreliable through neglect, then they will cease to be a good back up resource. So all they will be good for is really cheap power when available. It seems this would lead to a death spiral. Makes me wonder what value could be recovered by taking down lines and recycling the metals. Copper investors might be concerned.
I might add that as transmission lines fall into disrepair, remote power generators will have stranded assets, literally. Such operators may need to pick up the cost of delivering their product to market. I believe it is a free market falacy to think that ratepayers are the ones who are under obligation to pay for underutilized infrastructure. Rather, if you produce a good, it is your responsibility to get it to market. The buyer is free to buy locally or to pay prices high enough to cover the cost of transmission.
Remember that transmission is currently about 31% of the powerbill. Microgrids, therefore, have the potential to cut power bills by 31% by simply disintermediating remote power generators. So it is incumbent on these operators to produce power so cheap that it can be grossed up by 31% and still compete with local, distributed power. That is a tall order considering that the cost of solar keeps coming down every year. On the SolarCity thread we had this debate about utility solar having an installed cost of like $1.90/Wp, while SolarCity's total cost is about $2.84/Wp or installation only (excluding SG&A) is $2.09/Wp. The argument was that utility solar would win the day because it is so much cheaper than rooftop. But gross up remote solar by 31% for transmission and 11% for distribution, and we're taling about $3.28/Wp for utility solar. So I think the transmission model is already in serious trouble. What's left is some sort of moral argument that owners rooftop solar and other distributed energy resources have an obligation to pay for transmission infrastructure of which they make little use now and less in the future. But leaving aside moral arguments intended to protect the interests of incumbent power producers, the economic model is broken.
Last edited:
jhm, we seem to be on the same page.
Used to be, in Grampa's time, that government ran all (well, almost all) railroad from sleepers to conductors. "Statens Järnvägar, SJ".
Then it was split up so a division of govmt got responsibility for rails, signals, etc (Banverket), while a number of operators got to run traffic where they put in the lowest bid, for a limited time, with leased rolling stock. Since other needs were more pressing, Banverket had insufficient funding from govmt budget to actually keep the lines reliably open, especially when winter turned out to bring snow and ice blocking switches, or summer heat made sun curves and power lines sagged and started brush fires. And of course, the temporary operators saw no pressing need to maintain the hired trains, so wheels tended to be not quite round and beat up the rails for all.
Even as some lines were being built out, thieves stole tons of copper so neither power nor signals were reliable and no trains could run; the investment was useless.
So, the great populace decided it was too much trouble to chance a train and took a bus or went by car or flew instead. Which increased the financial pressure on operators to only bid on the most lucrative connections between the biggest cities (and also complicated buying tickets from multiple vendors with byzantine pricing).
In short, the Tragedy of the Commons.
And I am not a Socialist! Actually, the former Chairman of SJ, Ulf Adelsohn who used to be the leader of the Conservative party, resigned over this fiasco -- he saw it coming.
Back on topic: Stationary Power Storage, Solar and other local renewable distributed generation and power management have a very bright future, in my view. And Tesla is at least one lap ahead.
Used to be, in Grampa's time, that government ran all (well, almost all) railroad from sleepers to conductors. "Statens Järnvägar, SJ".
Then it was split up so a division of govmt got responsibility for rails, signals, etc (Banverket), while a number of operators got to run traffic where they put in the lowest bid, for a limited time, with leased rolling stock. Since other needs were more pressing, Banverket had insufficient funding from govmt budget to actually keep the lines reliably open, especially when winter turned out to bring snow and ice blocking switches, or summer heat made sun curves and power lines sagged and started brush fires. And of course, the temporary operators saw no pressing need to maintain the hired trains, so wheels tended to be not quite round and beat up the rails for all.
Even as some lines were being built out, thieves stole tons of copper so neither power nor signals were reliable and no trains could run; the investment was useless.
So, the great populace decided it was too much trouble to chance a train and took a bus or went by car or flew instead. Which increased the financial pressure on operators to only bid on the most lucrative connections between the biggest cities (and also complicated buying tickets from multiple vendors with byzantine pricing).
In short, the Tragedy of the Commons.
And I am not a Socialist! Actually, the former Chairman of SJ, Ulf Adelsohn who used to be the leader of the Conservative party, resigned over this fiasco -- he saw it coming.
Back on topic: Stationary Power Storage, Solar and other local renewable distributed generation and power management have a very bright future, in my view. And Tesla is at least one lap ahead.
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
jhm
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a real mess. Government contracting is ripe for abuse all over the place. The City of Atlanta thought they could get rid of there water works group and replace it with a contractor. This seemed to save the city money until water mains started bursting all over the place for lack of proper maintenance. It's hard for contractors to have a sense of ownership for long-term problem. So they make money in the short term by allowing long-term decay in infrastructure. So ultimately the government holds the bag on long-term neglect.
I do think the issues with localization of power has a different dynamic, however. It is motivated by individuals and business finding more economical ways to source power. In the case of Atlanta's water fiasco, there was not alternative. The whole city still depends on the same pipes for water. But if transmission lines fall into disrepair because they get little use owing to better alternatives, then such decay is economically beneficial and governments need not feel obligated to prop it up. Of course, utilities will expect governments to bail them out when their assets prove worthless, but it does not truly serve to common good to do so. There is another sort of trajedy of the commons, where everyone is expected to pay for something that no one really needs. I am really not a conservative politically, but it seems that if there is a way for people to save money on energy by sourcing local resources and minimizing transmission and distribution costs, then how is it in the common good to prop up an infrastructure that wastes money and energy and largely pollutes the environment? I really do believe the common good will be better served with microgrids and local renewable energy.
As for trains, I think they have a tremendous future. Well maintained they are the most efficient way to ship goods over land. So this is infrastructure that is largely worth maintaining and using well.
To me the problem seems to be with incompetent buyers, who don't know how to specify what is important, besides price. So we get what we paid for, not what we need, from the lowest bidder.
This has bitten me too, as the second lowest bidder :-/
But we are creeping off topic, sorry about that.
This has bitten me too, as the second lowest bidder :-/
But we are creeping off topic, sorry about that.
jhm
Well-Known Member
While this might have been the case in the Atlanta water fiasco this is not the case with all contractors. There are a lot of dishonest or untrained contractors but if you ask around you can find some really honest ones too !
As a contractor that one rubbed me a littleCheers
Sorry, did not mean to slight all contractors. It's just a risk that some contractors cut corners, and it's a risk that some politicians cut bad deals and fail to monitor results.
- - - Updated - - -
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/battery-storage-pays-back-in-less-than-five-years-sc-finds
Not sure if this was posted already, but it looks promissing.
Does anyone know how many kW the 100 kWh Powerpack can deliver? The article mentions a 1 MW system for $1 million. I'm not sure if that would be 20 or 40 Powerpacks. 40 would cost $1 million, but leave no allowance of other costs of installation.
Similar threads
