LA Times on utility-scale solar storage

[DanKegel]

"California's push for clean energy has a problem: no place to store it"

California is pushing for more wind and solar power, but has no place to store the energy for when it's needed
California must find a practical way to store clean energy if it wants to rely more on solar and wind power
'If you don't have a way to store [clean energy], you'll end up wasting renewables,' PUC official says

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-green-energy-20150324-story.html

[SunEagle]

"California's push for clean energy has a problem: no place to store it"

California is pushing for more wind and solar power, but has no place to store the energy for when it's needed
California must find a practical way to store clean energy if it wants to rely more on solar and wind power
'If you don't have a way to store [clean energy], you'll end up wasting renewables,' PUC official says

http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...324-story.html

I believe that article is exactly what some of us have been saying for a while. Once you hit a certain percentage of RE generation it becomes hard for the Utility to make sure it can provide power instantly to everyone when needed. So they limit the amount RE is being generated to a much lower level than what is available.

As for the "holy grail" of storage claim. My thinking is the Utilities have to show progress in this technology since they are under the spotlight (and public eye) to have a state mandated 1300 MW of storage in place in a few short years. If they didn't show "progress" the RE industry would come to a screeching halt very quickly as push back from the Utilities for new installs (like Hawaii) and lower demand for RE increases.

[DanKegel]

See my 'crystal ball' thread

[inetdog]

See my 'crystal ball' thread

http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showthread.php?20347-My-dusty-crystal-ball-and-the-future-economics-of-home-solar

[Sunking]

A really stupid idea and will drive up rates significantly in California. You guys deserve it for putting those fruit cakes in office.

[J.P.M.]

Who/whatever solves the storage equation in a scalable way will/can be the next Bill Gates.

[J.P.M.]

Who/whatever solves the storage equation in a scalable way will/can be the next Bill Gates.

Also, notice that the writer of the L.A. Times piece is one of the knowledgeable people who expound about energy and yet seem to not know the difference between a kW and a kWh. Doesn't do credibility much good when you can't take to get/know the basics.

[SunEagle]

Who/whatever solves the storage equation in a scalable way will/can be the next Bill Gates.

Based on how some of the early small time operations trying to introduce a new product like an automobile (Tucker) I would figure they would run into some big interference from the big players even if they did find the "holy grail" of storage first.

That is why the person to find that device will probably be someone like Gates, Musk or companies like GE or a military equipment contractor.

[Sunking]

Who/whatever solves the storage equation in a scalable way will/can be the next Bill Gates.

Well this is true JPM, but as of yet we are no where even remotely close.

Can it be done today?

Most certainly can but who is willing to pay $1/Kwh except for folks in CA? You guys have so much money in CA you could care less what electricity cost as long as it is not generated in your state. The rest of us like paying less than 10-cents. Makes us competitive in the world with lots of good jobs and affordable cost of living.

To make it feasible battery cost over the life have to be roughly the same as fuel cost of 4-cents per Kwh. As of now the lower Kwh cost today is still Pb batteries of roughly 55 to 75-cents per Kwh. Highly doubtful any of us will live to see that happen. One of the major reasons is EROI of batteries. It takes a huge amount of energy to make a battery, and right now there is no battery that can store and release more energy than it takes to make one. That means not only do you waste resources putting energy into a battery, but the price of a energy carrier like a battery or hydrogen will always me a multiple of great then 1 of the source fuel to make it. That is what people do not understand. Battery systems are heavy polluters and waste our resources. Far better off using NG, coal, or uranium to make electricity directly than wasting it on a battery system.

[DanKegel]

Where'd the figure of $1/kwh come from?

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/forecast-2030--stored-electricity-at-005-kwh_100016581/

says
"If the battery has 80% usable capacity and holds 5,000 cycles, the cost of stored electricity in this evaluation will fall from €0.20/kWh ($0.25) in 2012 to €0.05/kWh ($0.06) in 2030"

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/ubs--solar-plus-storage-is-already-cost-effective-in-australia_100017116

says
"the lowest cost system for 5 KW plus 5KWh LiIo battery is $18,000 with SREC benefit and provides about a 10 per cent internal rate of return compared to buying power from the grid [in Australia]".

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/inside-the-enphase-storage-play_100017000/

says Solaredge is introducing their small storage option this year; I'm looking forward to hearing the price.

[Sunking]

Where'd the figure of $1/kwh come from?

From reality. There is no such thing as a 5000 cycle battery to 80%, not even at 20% DOD. If you think otherwise you are a fool who will believe anything if it sounds green.

If such batteries existed EV's would already have taken over ICE cars.

[J.P.M.]

Based on how some of the early small time operations trying to introduce a new product like an automobile (Tucker) I would figure they would run into some big interference from the big players even if they did find the "holy grail" of storage first.

That is why the person to find that device will probably be someone like Gates, Musk or companies like GE or a military equipment contractor.

+1.

[pleppik]

Also, notice that the writer of the L.A. Times piece is one of the knowledgeable people who expound about energy and yet seem to not know the difference between a kW and a kWh. Doesn't do credibility much good when you can't take to get/know the basics.

I'm not defending the reporter here because he clearly got his terminology wrong, but....It's my understanding that these utility-scale battery systems are sized in terms of both MW and MWh. Those are two different parameters measuring two different things: the total energy capacity, and how much power they can move on/off the grid.

For the nontechnical layperson, this is more than the average confusing.

[SunEagle]

I'm not defending the reporter here because he clearly got his terminology wrong, but....It's my understanding that these utility-scale battery systems are sized in terms of both MW and MWh. Those are two different parameters measuring two different things: the total energy capacity, and how much power they can move on/off the grid.

For the nontechnical layperson, this is more than the average confusing.

Confusing yes. Especially when you hear big numbers like Megawatts you think this is a really big long lasting battery when it may actually provide just a few minutes to keep the grid stabilized and enough time for the Utility to fire up some peakers.

[foo1bar]

As for the "holy grail" of storage claim. My thinking is the Utilities have to show progress in this technology since they are under the spotlight (and public eye) to have a state mandated 1300 MW of storage in place in a few short years. If they didn't show "progress" the RE industry would come to a screeching halt very quickly as push back from the Utilities for new installs (like Hawaii) and lower demand for RE increases.

1300MW or 1300MWh ?

And what mandate are you talking about? Because I couldn't find one for CA in the few quick searches I did.

I'm guessing 1300MWh - but apparently like the reporter, you had a mixup with the units.

BTW - CA already has some significant energy storage in place
The San Luis reservoir can generate 424MW of power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Dam

And all of that is pumped storage (there's a little water that flows into the reservoir naturally from the surrounding hills or falling on the water surface - but very little - possibly similar amount to what is lost in evaporation when it's full.)

And I'm sure that it could be much much more than 1300MWh


For those predicting gloom and doom for the utilities being able to handle the PV supplied by residential installs:
How much of the energy generation do you think solar PV is for CA (or whichever state you like)?
And how much do you think it'll be in 5 or 10 or 20 years?
And at what % do you think it' becomes a significant issue to the utility because the solar generation is ramping up in AM and ramping down in PM? Or because it's getting shaded by eclipse or storm or whatever?

IMO the % where it's a real issue for the utility is much higher than what we see installed now and what we will see installed in 20 years. Germany already has significantly higher % than the US - and they handled their eclipse without problem (not that it really should have even been a news story IMO)