|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 6, 2020 20:39:55 GMT 9.5
thinks2much --- yes, increasingly planned. Not yet commonly.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Mar 6, 2020 23:59:42 GMT 9.5
I assume that you mean the ice for air conditioning. A few so-called big box stores have the space and capital to arrange for ice production when the price of electricity is low. This must be rare for homes; I've never heard of it so I assume that it is not economic for some reason. The "Ice Bear" storage system has been available for homes for a couple of decades. I attribute the lack of uptake to perverse "time-of-day" electric rates, which charge top-dollar peak prices to discourage consumption when PV is flooding the market and consumption should be ENcouraged.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 7, 2020 2:47:38 GMT 9.5
... "time-of-day" electric rates, ... Most don't yet have meters capable of determining the instantaneous price. The price agreed to by the utility commission just averages everything for small customers. Large commercial and industrial customers have more flexible arrangements.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 9, 2020 12:15:41 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 10, 2020 7:02:54 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Mar 10, 2020 7:54:19 GMT 9.5
A MOF which selects lithium out of the brine. Misses little. If the claim of 30% recovery from current evaporation methods is correct, this roughly triples the amount of lithium produced from a given quantity of brine. That is going to shake markets in a very good way.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 17, 2020 9:05:09 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 13, 2020 6:06:51 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 21, 2020 12:44:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 9, 2020 11:33:05 GMT 9.5
150 Hours Of Storage? Company Says That Is True To Form Darrell Proctor 2020 May 08 Power Magazine www.powermag.com/150-hours-of-storage-company-says-thats-true-to-form/A Minnesota utility is acquiring this long-duration liquified air energy storage system, although the power rating is not specified beyond the suggestion that modules are 1MW/150MWh.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 10, 2020 0:15:52 GMT 9.5
Flow batteries have always appealed to me, because of the various potentials (no pun intended) made available by having a pumpable electrolyte. Recycling would be easy, pump out the electrolyte to a pump truck and ship it to a recycling center, mechanical components can be repaired or replaced as normal.
Vanadium as mentioned is not interesting, these batteries use way too much of that and it's too rare and expensive for bulk applications.
Bulk grid storage isn't the first application that comes to mind, since that's a tough business. Low margins, low cost competitors (gas turbines). Small grids and remote applications would be interesting, especially for demands where a coal or gas powerplant would be too big, like a tropical island with some resorts (say a MW or less). Any grid that is powered by diesel and has good solar or wind resources could be interesting.
But a more interesting near term application would be transportation. If the power density is decent enough, it could be used for shipping and trucking, pump the electrolyte in and out for fueling, so recharging the vehicle or ship itself isn't necessary - same as diesel fueling. Anything that competes with diesel is much more $$$/kWh than bulk electric storage in a coal and gas grid.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 14, 2020 22:16:48 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 0:24:16 GMT 9.5
Batteries don’t substitute peaking plants. This is nonsense.
What a wind and solar grid needs is 4 power plants: wind, solar, battery AND peaker gas plant. Plus a ton of transmission.
Compare this to an alternative grid having only a combined cycle gas turbine plant.
Gee whiz which grid will be cheaper, the one with 4 powerplants and huge transmission infrastructure. Or the one with only one power plant.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 9:05:49 GMT 9.5
... Gee whiz which grid will be cheaper, ... This belongs on a separate thread regarding grid economics. Here I only mention that transmission costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of power sources.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 15, 2020 10:55:53 GMT 9.5
transmission costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of power sources. Tiny? I would have thought the creation of a renewables-friendly grid would be the dominant costing for fully renewable power. Conversion to a hypothetical 100% renewables generation requires the grid structure to be changed to collect and redistribute it. The modern dendritic pattern of successively lower voltage powerlines centred on giant thermal power stations would be made redundant, and ripped up lest such sinful activity ever resume. Solar and wind facilities on land repossessed from nature parks and reserves across each country would require a web of feeder powerlines in each geographical catchment to a higher voltage spine linking neighbouring catchments and distant consumers. Then as wind or sunlight flickers randomly across the entire country, power surges back and forth to reduce the raggedness of supply to consumers remote from the source of the moment. In the pumped hydro concept of storage, steep valleys right across the country must be repossessed and re-engineered with upper and lower ponds. They too need dedicated power lines connecting their locality to the nearest of the high-voltage spine. Even more demanding is their need for a nationwide grid of water pipelines to provide fresh or desalinated water to make up the evaporation losses. Any costing for a 100% renewables grid must include its special needs for transmission, pipelines and desalination plants. The cost of the system described would be crippling. Cost-reducing compromises to the design would inevitably include a system of gas backup, which would also require a grid of gas pipelines so that there would be responsive backup in every renewables catchment. At the same time the renewables propaganda machine would swerve to make louder excuses for gas. After all, natural gas is natural, it isn't CO2. Every time we add gas to a system, we halve our emissions, so we would now be repeatedly halving our emissions in a frenzy of virtue. Of course gas must go eventually, but not before we have used it to reduce our emissions, then to reduce them again, and again and again. Praise be! We can keep reducing our emissions forever! We must not separate transmission costs from the cost of generation.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 11:16:53 GMT 9.5
Yes. As an example, consider the ERCOT Texas grid with the collectors installed all over West Texas to bring the wind derived power to the load centers in the eastern part of the state. These transmission lines, basically to San Antonio to there join the existing grid, are not the reason for retail power rates to have increased slightly in ERCOT Texas. I call attention to the unique so-called energy only wholesale market on this grid: bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/714/pjm-style-electricity-marketsSo far as I know, ERCOT has yet to comply with the FERC directive about making provision for utility-scale batteries in the wholesale market, possibly because unlike the rest of the US, ERCOT is not obliged to do so. The effect is that the ERCOT grid continues to add natural gas powered generators as fast as wind farms. Of course natural gas is very inexpensive in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 11:32:40 GMT 9.5
Batteries don’t substitute peaking plants. ... This is false. The vertically integrated utility in this area is the privately-owned Avista Utilities. They now buy from a wind farm attached to the feeder from Spokane, with dispatchable generators, and here in Pullman and points south. So they considered purchasing a peaker for balancing rather than modifying the flows through hydropower facilities. But the opportunity to acquire, almost for free due to a federal grant, a battery matching the power of the wind farm at maximum and with a one hour duration put an end to the peaker acquisition. The battery is a great success. It responds instantly to disturbances; my lights never flicker any longer, even during lightening strikes. I'm sure that I've mentioned this before, possibly on this thread. Tch, tch.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 14:35:57 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 17:33:53 GMT 9.5
Batteries don’t substitute peaking plants. ... This is false. The vertically integrated utility in this area is the privately-owned Avista Utilities. They now buy from a wind farm attached to the feeder from Spokane, with dispatchable generators, and here in Pullman and points south. So they considered purchasing a peaker for balancing rather than modifying the flows through hydropower facilities. But the opportunity to acquire, almost for free due to a federal grant, a battery matching the power of the wind farm at maximum and with a one hour duration put an end to the peaker acquisition. The battery is a great success. It responds instantly to disturbances; my lights never flicker any longer, even during lightening strikes. I'm sure that I've mentioned this before, possibly on this thread. Tch, tch. This works reasonably well in a grid with lots of dispatchable generation, and a small battery system added, i.e. on the margin. Not in a renewables grid where the sole choice is between a gas peaker and a battery - there isn't such a choice, unless the battery has enormously more than 4 hours of storage. Which isn't feasible. dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/Tch, Tch. Have you ever checked the sales numbers for gas peaking plants over recent years?
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 17:39:55 GMT 9.5
CAISO has an available capacity of over 33000 MW www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx100 MW in a 33000 MW cap grid is marginal, can easily be treated as negative load. Hell it's in the margin of error for forecasts (!). This proves nothing. You obviously have no perspective on this matter and don't seem to have much clue as to the basic concepts of marginal generation, effective load carrying capacity, etc.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 18:01:46 GMT 9.5
cyrilr --- You appear to lack an adequate understanding of basic logic. You write universals where conditional statements are all that is correct. I remind you of the first two, and locked, posts in the Forum Help section.
Regarding California, first of all, I just report what a local blogger stated. Possibly he knows more about Ventura County, where he lives, than you do.
The Pacific Northwest exports power to California, where I lived for 9 years. Just possibly I know more about CalISO than you. In particular, there are 3 distinct market areas, northern, Los Angeles basin and San Diego. Lumping the three together gives a false impression of the ability to meet load in one part by generation in another. For example, where does Path 15 deliver to?
Stick to cited sources, not your conception of what actually is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 18:13:22 GMT 9.5
... Have you ever checked the sales numbers for gas peaking plants over recent years? You seem not to have noticed that all the manufacturers of gas turbines are having great difficulty in finding enough customers. Why do you think that might be?
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 18:15:10 GMT 9.5
... Have you ever checked the sales numbers for gas peaking plants over recent years? You seem not to have noticed that all the manufacturers of gas turbines are having great difficulty in finding enough customers. Why do you think that might be? Several; for one thing they have sold far too many in the past, hence we have too much capacity of such flexible plants. So much that you can install a battery system and "claim" it does not need more peaking gas turbines.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 18:18:43 GMT 9.5
Let me spell out the issue since you've missed it David.
Wind plus solar plus battery grid doesn't work. It needs a lot of dispatchable peakers to work. There are no grids that have wind and solar and battery without dispatch backup.
The challenge for the future is to have grids that have no fossil fuels. Not a marginal situation with lots of gas peakers and a little battery and solar. We need no fossil grids to meet the GhG reduction targets. 80% below 1990 levels or so by 2050. Due to economic growth and population growth, that means more like a 95% reduction by 2050. Let's not split hairs here - that means zero fossil grids. I want you and everyone else to think about this.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 18:43:57 GMT 9.5
Let me spell out the issue since you've missed it ... Of course I haven't. You fail to understand what a reporter does: reports. Pay attention to the fact that on the BNC Discussion Forum we discuss what is known, avoiding what-we-wish-to-be. Advocacy needs to be clearly labeled as such. Now this is supposed to be a thread about utility-scale batteries. Stick to that on this thread. Create another thread for your topic-of-the-day.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 18:57:49 GMT 9.5
No, I understand you reported the article, and pointed out to your claim - which is advocacy on your account - that utility batteries replace peaker plants. They don't, unless you want to be pedantic and say that at the margin they do. They don't on larger scales. On small scales anything goes - the battery can be a dud, if it is rated at 1% of a grid's capacity, it can be accomodated easily. Even with zero output.
And yes, all this IS about utility scale batteries. It is not advocacy to point out basic concepts in power grids such as the concept of "marginal". It is not my fault that you can't understand basic concepts.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 19:06:28 GMT 9.5
cyrilr, I claimed nothing. I merely summarized, most briefly, the article. I fear that your education is deficient.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 15, 2020 20:41:33 GMT 9.5
cyrilr, I claimed nothing. I merely summarized, most briefly, the article. I fear that your education is deficient. To the contrary, you claimed various things, including your rebuttal that it is "false" that batteries don't displace peakers. I took issue with your blanket statement, as it is obfuscatory. Don't take it personally. This isn't an easy topic to wrap your head around. For instance, at a 100 MWe, 2 hour battery level, added to a say 33000 MWe grid, you may well have a replacement percentage, and depending on the grid that could well be close to 100%. The issue is that this does not imply that installing say 10000 MWe of 2 hour battery will displace 10000 MWe of peakers in the 33000 MWe grid. The real value will be closer to 1000 MWe than 10000. The problem is 2 hours of capacity is very little. Fine for marginal generation, higher penetrations start to see diminishing returns. To compensate, more hours of battery capacity have to be added. This quickly becomes uneconomical so it won't be done. This is true even if batteries were to become much cheaper: the cost problem isn't even in the right order of magnitude, as Professor Murphy explained numerically. dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/My claim is correct: batteries (certainly not with a mere 2 hour capacity) do not displace peakers at the scale required. Your claim that this is false is correct on a scale that is not relevant (ie marginal generation). Readers please draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 21:03:47 GMT 9.5
cyrilr appears to have gone off deep end.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on May 16, 2020 1:52:05 GMT 9.5
'Fraid I have to agree with cyrilr.
|
|