Post by David B. Benson on May 16, 2020 10:28:29 GMT 9.5
Unfortunately cyrilr & engineer-poet fail to understand the role of open cycle gas turbines and RICE as peak-power generators on those grids which have such, often called peakers.
The units turn on quickly. A typical aeroderivative turbine takes but 20 seconds to reach full power from a standing start.
So if a under-frequency condition is detected, a peaker can provide the required power soon thereafter. However, peakers are inefficient and so expen$ive to run. But this gives the efficient thermal generators time to make more steam. So peakers only run for minutes, say 30 perhaps, before shutting off.
I already gave the example of Avista Utilities. But more widely here in the Pacific Northwest I know of exactly one peaker. It never runs except for maintenance tests. Why? Because BPA controls so many dams that the most minor variation of the turbine inlet gates suffices to provide the required ancillary services.
However, utility-scale batteries have just recently become sufficiently inexpensive that the day of traditional peakers is now at an end. The power planners find batteries have lower costs. Except of course in Texas.
When you are reporting something from an article, we need to know that it is a quote, not your own voice. Thus when you are pasting a title in, say – Santa Claus delivers limitless backup to those who believe we need it in quotes and preceded by a spoiler – Title: "Santa Claus delivers limitless backup to those who believe" otherwise we might unnecessarily spend time trying to write a tactful reply to someone who still believes in Santa Claus.
A 100MW, 4 hour duration battery to replace, partially, the old seaside gas-fired generators
Instead of merely quoting verbatim from the article, we want you to have done the experienced engineer's homework of criticising it for less knowledgeable readers. We need your wise assessment, such as –
If they have indeed obtained a battery of 400 MWh capacity, capable of delivering at 100 MW for four hours, the technology has lept threefold in capacity, twofold in power and an unknown leapfrog of cost. Since the article fails to quote an authoritative source for these capabilities, it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Well written survey of a variety of attempts to provide long-term grid energy storage. The emphasis is on the MIT derived sulfer storage battery and the Form Energy startup.
Current utility-scale batteries provide cost effective solutions for intraday storage as well as the usually unmentioned ancillary services. But batteries have to be used in order to pay for construction as well as O&M. The current technology cannot pay for year long storage of, for example, summer energy versus winter need. So this clutch of startups are trying.
The aqueous sulfer flow battery might indeed prove successful. Maybe in California...
Post by David B. Benson on May 16, 2020 14:42:28 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton --- Quotes are only found between quotation marks. I rarely quote.
Kiel Field of CleanTechnica obviously relied upon press releases from the developer of the Ventura County project. By law, these are factual descriptions of the project. The project is, of course, approved by the California state regulators as being in the rate payers best interest.
I had assumed that everyone here knew these basics as they are similar everywhere...
These should be less expensive than the lithium-ion batteries often installed as add-ons to solar power and wind power projects. Note that 'should be'; the one not 2 km north of me was much more expensive, only made possible by a federal research grant.
While slow responding, flow batteries are adequately fast for grid ancillary services, as the battery near me continues to demonstrate.
these are factual descriptions of the project... everyone here knew these basics as they are similar everywhere...
I believe that everyone here knows that it is a basic of the renewables movement to present technical fantasies as if they were real. You say this battery must be real because a blogger on CleanTechnica says so. I don't think that is good reason to believe that it is real. In fact I think you want us to believe that it is real even if you haven't seen evidence that it is. There are previous times when I have challenged you to show evidence of mythical batteries but you have not done so. Come on, this time, provide us with a link to a document that is a legal declaration or peer-reviewed. That doesn't include hearsay, bloggers or journalists in trade journals. Otherwise we should conclude that there is no such battery and never has been.
BNC's comments policy requires that "authoritative references/links be supplied to back up personal assertions".
We can reasonably ask that any assertion that a giant battery is in operation somewhere in the world should be backed with some reference that is independent of the manufacturer or the political group driving it. However the references you attach are not independent at all. The most recent link (above) takes us to the would-be construction company's website boasting of grand plans underway. Searching the article for evidence of a battery in operation reveals that the giant battery is a "gonna be", that is, it simply does not exist.
Consistent failure to provide evidence of any such giant batteries actually operating anywhere in the world leads the reader to conclude that the technology is impractical or too costly and will never be widely applied. Like so many other pipedreams in the renewables resistance (to full decarbonisation) it is a project seeking an excuse to be trimmed back to a token affair that achieves little more than a political gesture.
Post by David B. Benson on May 17, 2020 16:16:51 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton --- As I pointed out already, these companies do not lie. The final project approval is the California state regulators. Oh yes, there has to be a PPA with SCE, the local utility. So that link is sufficiently authoritative.
... you wanted finished projects. The largest listed in Wikipedia is a massive 108MW, 6 hour duration project in Abu Dabi completed last year.
This is a good link, tabulating the largest grid-scale batteries in operation. The biggest batteries in operation are sodium-sulphur, including the 648 MWh battery that David referred us to. The biggest of the smaller but much more fashionable lithium-cobalt batteries in operation was commissioned back in December 2017. Of course that does not include the much bigger "gonna be" lithium-cobalt batteries that we hear so much of during promotions, and hear so little of in operation. Perhaps that merely implies that the table is several revolutionary years out of date – or that it was compiled by an unbeliever.
Sodium-sulphur batteries can be scaled up inexpensively and have an environment-friendly end-of-life, unlike the more fashionable lithium-cobalt batteries which are so frequently promoted.
Post by David B. Benson on May 18, 2020 15:53:02 GMT 9.5
I fail to see any reason to use other than a sulfur flow battery for the utility-scale addon as a peaker replacement or for ancillary services. While a bit slower than the lithium batteries, these are more than adequate for the grid. Obviously size is not an issue. Cost and service life are.