10 ms·

Court ruling clears way for energy storage on the grid

89 points by nathandaly 6y ago

the-pigeon 6y ago
Who benefits? Pretty much everybody except fossil fuel power plant owners. They create much more reliable power grids and eliminate the need for many natural gas power plants that are expensive to maintain and only run during peak power demand.
- hinkley 6y ago
  In growing communities I don't know that this is necessarily a problem for the incumbents. What stops them from installing batteries in front of a base power plant instead of building more peaking plants? Wouldn't that be a cheaper way for them to keep up with growing demand? You can also use energy storage for peak shaving on long distance lines (which might be to our detriment, as they may avoid building needed infrastructure, resulting in brownouts)
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    You don’t need batteries in front of base generation (which there isn’t much left of as coal and nuclear phase out), and batteries allow renewables to generate more revenue per MWh as that power is now considered dispatchable (Callable on demand) by the grid operator. Batteries are direct competitors against large amounts of legacy investments (coal, natural gas, and nuclear). They can charge from any (localish) grid power source when power is cheap, discharge when power is more expensive (arbitrage), and are stupid fast (hundreds of milliseconds) at providing frequency response services thermal generators have previously provided (single digit minutes, competitively, to get spinning metal up to a higher speed). Peak shaving is definitely a use case (Tesla uses it to shave demand charges at some Superchargers for example), but that’s a consumer (not utility or investor owned generator) benefit. TLDR Old grid->new grid is happening rapidly and incumbents are going to get left behind.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      At the risk of repeating myself: High Tension power lines are not free. Some run at capacity, so batteries would help. Battery power in front of base power means fewer peaking plants, which lowers the relative value of renewables to the entrenched (while only slightly improving emissions). Many will be more comfortable with batteries than windmills. I'm not saying this because I think they should win, I'm trying to prepare you for the sort of pushback you should anticipate from policy makers.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Enough storage capacity (like the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant) can store power from nuclear plants overnight, leveling the load on the nuclear plants.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        True, but the geographies to support such pumped storage capacities are rare. When available, fully support their use to buffer base load with the demand curve (and its easier on nuclear generators than having them perform load following, which causes accelerated wear on the valves and related components; let nukes run flat out).
  - NortySpock 6y ago
    Right, I like the "battery in front of a coal plant" option too. However, renewables (especially solar and wind) have the nice quirk that they require no fuel and thus no fuel cost. So solar for example is charging a battery in the middle of the day when the sun is high and solar dominates the grid anyway (solar being over capacity at noon, rates are cheap at that hour because solar is just pouring power onto the grid at zero marginal cost). Coal at that time would be just burning fuel to charge a battery, only slightly better than keeping the plant running below-cost for the sake of keeping it on through the rate dip to keep the lights on for the 5pm load shift to the suburbs (you know, back in pre-COVID days when we had a commute) Curtailing a coal plant (turning it off due to overcapacity) isn't fast, as the boiling water only slowly cools down (vs a natural gas turbine is typically faster to turn off as it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine).
    - PhantomGremlin 6y ago
      it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine Recent gas plants are called CCGT, and use both combusted gas and hot steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant As Wiki explains it: combined cycle has a large gas turbine (operating by the Brayton cycle). The turbine's hot exhaust powers a steam power plant (operating by the Rankine cycle). This is a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant. These achieve a best-of-class real (see below) thermal efficiency of around 64% in base-load operation. Modern natural gas plants are very efficient. (But probably not as efficient as PV solar storing energy in grid scale batteries).
      - Retric 6y ago
        Those are competing with a combined cycle steam to steam turbines. Which take much longer to heat up than a turbine to steam system. With combined cycle gas turbines you get some ramp up time, but about 1/2 of power outpost is available instantly. Also, as a general rule all energy required to heat up an engine to working temperatures is wasted when you turn them off.
      - 6y ago
codeflo 6y ago
In Europe, and I can only assume that it’s similar to the US, the energy market is actually running a surprisingly complicated auction system. For example, since power generation and consumption have to be balanced at all times, power generation capability that can ramp up and down quickly is more valuable than one with the same nominal power that can only be controlled slowly. As far as I understand, all of this is priced in, with separate auctions for different timescales. What batteries allow you to do is to perform time arbitrage in this market. As with many other forms of arbitrage, this should lower average prices, though some specific current uses could suffer. For example, if this is deployed at scale, electricity might no longer be all that much cheaper at night.
- NortySpock 6y ago
  Yes, this is sort-of the case in the US, with the quirk that we have 3 major grids: the Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and Texas. Within that are individual utility companies: some are traditional top-down utilities that own both generation and poles-and-wires, vs some utilities are competitively bidding generation (and sometimes bidding consumption). Layer on top of that many interconnected "power market areas". https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/us-electricity-grid-markets https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/us-electricity-grid-markets
  - 7thaccount 6y ago
    Let me add some detail to your coverage of the interconnects in relation to the more granular power markets. For example, ERCOT (Texas) has a 1:1 relationship with its market, but the rest are different. The Eastern Interconnect has many power markets made up of many many utilities. PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, SPP, & MISO are the energy markets (called ISOs or RTOs) in the Eastern Interconnect. There is also the government owned TVA and Southern Company which is kinda like a large vertically integrated utility. These markets perform some of the most complex MIP models on the planet in their optimization. FERC Order #841 addresses the incorporation of storage into these markets.
loktarogar 6y ago
Tesla installed batteries in South Australia and they've already proven themselves a few times. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-south-australia-3-blackouts/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-south-australia-... https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumbering-coal-units-after-loy-yang-trips-70003/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumb...
rudolph9 6y ago
One important aspect of this is battery capacity can be safely placed at the grid edge. Power infringement is built to handle the capacity of the peek days but statically these peeks only occur once in a blue-moon. By adding battery capacity at the edge of the grid significantly less long distance transmission infrastructure is is needed and the grid can be balanced in a much more targeted way.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Lovely. Just got my own 6.6kW ground mount grid-tied array installed. During the summer here in NM, this produces roughly 4x more electricity than we need. Currently, it's just dumping into the (local) grid, and probably powering a few neighbor's homes, which is excellent. But this just highlights the bigger more general problem: it makes little sense for us to have our own battery system, and bigger systems need to power storage if solar is to be able to provide overnight supplies. I keep wringing my hands over whether I should have aimed for full off-grid status rather than grid-tied, but if/as the grid gains viably scaled storage, grid-tied becomes more and more clear as the right choice.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nkingsy 6y ago
  battery prices are far too high to be competitive with grid, even at crazy CA prices. I put in a 1.2kw carport array over my leaf ev so I can trickle charge it (720w is the minimum charge rate, needs a special charger to go that low). That also gives me enough juice to easily power my fridge and a large DIY air filter in the house when fires and outages come around again. The panels are so cheap, even if I get only 2 charges per week it will pay itself off in a couple of years.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    For me it's not about "competitive with grid". I'm already (I hope) at net zero for annual electrical consumption vs. generation. The question is whether it's best to shunt the excess generation into my own storage (batteries) or the grid. Although practically speaking it likely makes no difference (my excess just flows into my neighbors' homes), conceptually flowing into a grid with and without its storage seems quite different.
    - zbrozek 6y ago
      I'm working towards solar+battery mostly because I feel that my electric energy costs are unreasonably high and I scored a residential battery for free. Had I not gotten it for free, I would probably have bought one anyway just to give PG&E the finger.
WalterBright 6y ago
The cheapest grid "battery" is minute-by-minute pricing of electricity. Much of a home's energy use can be time-shifted if there was a point to time-shift - and variable pricing provides that point. Your home is a "battery" as you can run the temperature of your hot water heater higher when electricity is cheaper, and let it "coast" when electricity is more expensive. You still have hot water on demand. The same goes for the refrigerator, heating system and the cooling system. This can be made even more effective by increasing the thermal mass of the house, for example, with a pile of rocks. Pretty cheap for a battery, don't you think? And, of course, there's charging your car when electricity is cheaper. At last, we actually have a use for the Internet-of-things - an internet device on your hotwater heater to query the current price of electricity. Pretty darned cheap for a grid battery.
- shuntress 6y ago
  I'm not here for micromanaging my water heater or refrigerator. Both need to hold their temperature as long as possible and get up(or down) to temperate at some balance point between speed and efficiency. I want my provider to even it out and set a reasonable price between the variable extremes so I don't have to think about it.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    You don't have to think about it. Just get an IoT refrigerator.
    - shuntress 6y ago
      Sorry, I'm also a picky consumer when it comes to appliances. I want my fridge to be just a simple heat pump controlled by a thermostat.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        You'll pay more for electricity, then. Your choice.
haltingproblem 6y ago
I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it? Especially Texas where free competition is the norm ;) Ok, that was sprinkled with a pinch of snark. Honestly, if it helps consumers why would states be against it? What are we missing here?
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it? Corruption. Namely, Regulatory Capture.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
tialaramex 6y ago
In the US how do your solar energy subsidies work? In the UK where green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy is implemented as Contracts for Difference. What this means is that the government ensures you get paid a specific fee for your electricity (the "strike price" decided by auction when the project subsidy was agreed) say £58 per MWh - regardless. If you actually sell electricity for £12 per MWh during a glut the government pays £46 to make up the difference, but if you sell electricity when prices are £95 per MWh during a shortage, the government gets £37 back from that. These CfDs are auctioned, thus providing a signal about whether subsidy is needed. If bids approach the actual market price of electricity then there's no need to have any further rounds of subsidy for this class of power - apparently financial backers are happy to build such generators at the price the market will already pay. This fits nicely with the fact that all the obvious green options are capital dominated. A traditional fossil fuel power plant consumes fuel to make power, which means below some particular price it will shut off to avoid spending more on fuel than it earns from selling electricity. But this is never true for a wind farm, or solar farm, and it's only barely in principle possible for nuclear (Nuclear fuel is expensive, but a little goes a long way). So in fact you will always sell all the power from these sources, and the only question is how much for?
- kolinko 6y ago
  I’m in a process of building 1MW in Poland, and - at least here - it’s not true that renewables are not commercially viable. That is, if I finished building today and began trading on an open market, I would benefit more in the upcoming years (possibly overall), than through auctions. The benefit of auctions is that since they guarantee the proce for the next 15 years, it’s way easier to get financing for them. Our estimates show that we would have way higher returns on the open market, but the risks would be much higher as well.
  - ZeroGravitas 6y ago
    Which basically means the government is taking on that risk and (potential) profit.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
perfunctory 6y ago
> ...the fight generators and transmission companies have waged to prevent wholesale market access for batteries. just in case somebody still thinks that climate change is a technical problem.

89 points by nathandaly 6y ago

Who benefits? Pretty much everybody except fossil fuel power plant owners. They create much more reliable power grids and eliminate the need for many natural gas power plants that are expensive to maintain and only run during peak power demand.

hinkley 6y ago
In growing communities I don't know that this is necessarily a problem for the incumbents. What stops them from installing batteries in front of a base power plant instead of building more peaking plants? Wouldn't that be a cheaper way for them to keep up with growing demand? You can also use energy storage for peak shaving on long distance lines (which might be to our detriment, as they may avoid building needed infrastructure, resulting in brownouts)
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  You don’t need batteries in front of base generation (which there isn’t much left of as coal and nuclear phase out), and batteries allow renewables to generate more revenue per MWh as that power is now considered dispatchable (Callable on demand) by the grid operator. Batteries are direct competitors against large amounts of legacy investments (coal, natural gas, and nuclear). They can charge from any (localish) grid power source when power is cheap, discharge when power is more expensive (arbitrage), and are stupid fast (hundreds of milliseconds) at providing frequency response services thermal generators have previously provided (single digit minutes, competitively, to get spinning metal up to a higher speed). Peak shaving is definitely a use case (Tesla uses it to shave demand charges at some Superchargers for example), but that’s a consumer (not utility or investor owned generator) benefit. TLDR Old grid->new grid is happening rapidly and incumbents are going to get left behind.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    At the risk of repeating myself: High Tension power lines are not free. Some run at capacity, so batteries would help. Battery power in front of base power means fewer peaking plants, which lowers the relative value of renewables to the entrenched (while only slightly improving emissions). Many will be more comfortable with batteries than windmills. I'm not saying this because I think they should win, I'm trying to prepare you for the sort of pushback you should anticipate from policy makers.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Enough storage capacity (like the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant) can store power from nuclear plants overnight, leveling the load on the nuclear plants.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      True, but the geographies to support such pumped storage capacities are rare. When available, fully support their use to buffer base load with the demand curve (and its easier on nuclear generators than having them perform load following, which causes accelerated wear on the valves and related components; let nukes run flat out).
- NortySpock 6y ago
  Right, I like the "battery in front of a coal plant" option too. However, renewables (especially solar and wind) have the nice quirk that they require no fuel and thus no fuel cost. So solar for example is charging a battery in the middle of the day when the sun is high and solar dominates the grid anyway (solar being over capacity at noon, rates are cheap at that hour because solar is just pouring power onto the grid at zero marginal cost). Coal at that time would be just burning fuel to charge a battery, only slightly better than keeping the plant running below-cost for the sake of keeping it on through the rate dip to keep the lights on for the 5pm load shift to the suburbs (you know, back in pre-COVID days when we had a commute) Curtailing a coal plant (turning it off due to overcapacity) isn't fast, as the boiling water only slowly cools down (vs a natural gas turbine is typically faster to turn off as it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine).
  - PhantomGremlin 6y ago
    it's working on expanding combusted gas through a turbine, rather than hot steam through a turbine Recent gas plants are called CCGT, and use both combusted gas and hot steam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant As Wiki explains it: combined cycle has a large gas turbine (operating by the Brayton cycle). The turbine's hot exhaust powers a steam power plant (operating by the Rankine cycle). This is a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant. These achieve a best-of-class real (see below) thermal efficiency of around 64% in base-load operation. Modern natural gas plants are very efficient. (But probably not as efficient as PV solar storing energy in grid scale batteries).
    - Retric 6y ago
      Those are competing with a combined cycle steam to steam turbines. Which take much longer to heat up than a turbine to steam system. With combined cycle gas turbines you get some ramp up time, but about 1/2 of power outpost is available instantly. Also, as a general rule all energy required to heat up an engine to working temperatures is wasted when you turn them off.
    - 6y ago

codeflo 6y ago

In Europe, and I can only assume that it’s similar to the US, the energy market is actually running a surprisingly complicated auction system. For example, since power generation and consumption have to be balanced at all times, power generation capability that can ramp up and down quickly is more valuable than one with the same nominal power that can only be controlled slowly. As far as I understand, all of this is priced in, with separate auctions for different timescales. What batteries allow you to do is to perform time arbitrage in this market. As with many other forms of arbitrage, this should lower average prices, though some specific current uses could suffer. For example, if this is deployed at scale, electricity might no longer be all that much cheaper at night.

NortySpock 6y ago
Yes, this is sort-of the case in the US, with the quirk that we have 3 major grids: the Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and Texas. Within that are individual utility companies: some are traditional top-down utilities that own both generation and poles-and-wires, vs some utilities are competitively bidding generation (and sometimes bidding consumption). Layer on top of that many interconnected "power market areas". https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/us-electricity-grid-markets https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/us-electricity-grid-markets
- 7thaccount 6y ago
  Let me add some detail to your coverage of the interconnects in relation to the more granular power markets. For example, ERCOT (Texas) has a 1:1 relationship with its market, but the rest are different. The Eastern Interconnect has many power markets made up of many many utilities. PJM, NYISO, ISO-NE, SPP, & MISO are the energy markets (called ISOs or RTOs) in the Eastern Interconnect. There is also the government owned TVA and Southern Company which is kinda like a large vertically integrated utility. These markets perform some of the most complex MIP models on the planet in their optimization. FERC Order #841 addresses the incorporation of storage into these markets.

loktarogar 6y ago

Tesla installed batteries in South Australia and they've already proven themselves a few times. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-south-australia-3-blackouts/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-big-battery-south-australia-... https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumbering-coal-units-after-loy-yang-trips-70003/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumb...

rudolph9 6y ago

One important aspect of this is battery capacity can be safely placed at the grid edge. Power infringement is built to handle the capacity of the peek days but statically these peeks only occur once in a blue-moon. By adding battery capacity at the edge of the grid significantly less long distance transmission infrastructure is is needed and the grid can be balanced in a much more targeted way.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Lovely. Just got my own 6.6kW ground mount grid-tied array installed. During the summer here in NM, this produces roughly 4x more electricity than we need. Currently, it's just dumping into the (local) grid, and probably powering a few neighbor's homes, which is excellent. But this just highlights the bigger more general problem: it makes little sense for us to have our own battery system, and bigger systems need to power storage if solar is to be able to provide overnight supplies. I keep wringing my hands over whether I should have aimed for full off-grid status rather than grid-tied, but if/as the grid gains viably scaled storage, grid-tied becomes more and more clear as the right choice.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nkingsy 6y ago
battery prices are far too high to be competitive with grid, even at crazy CA prices. I put in a 1.2kw carport array over my leaf ev so I can trickle charge it (720w is the minimum charge rate, needs a special charger to go that low). That also gives me enough juice to easily power my fridge and a large DIY air filter in the house when fires and outages come around again. The panels are so cheap, even if I get only 2 charges per week it will pay itself off in a couple of years.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  For me it's not about "competitive with grid". I'm already (I hope) at net zero for annual electrical consumption vs. generation. The question is whether it's best to shunt the excess generation into my own storage (batteries) or the grid. Although practically speaking it likely makes no difference (my excess just flows into my neighbors' homes), conceptually flowing into a grid with and without its storage seems quite different.
  - zbrozek 6y ago
    I'm working towards solar+battery mostly because I feel that my electric energy costs are unreasonably high and I scored a residential battery for free. Had I not gotten it for free, I would probably have bought one anyway just to give PG&E the finger.

WalterBright 6y ago

The cheapest grid "battery" is minute-by-minute pricing of electricity. Much of a home's energy use can be time-shifted if there was a point to time-shift - and variable pricing provides that point. Your home is a "battery" as you can run the temperature of your hot water heater higher when electricity is cheaper, and let it "coast" when electricity is more expensive. You still have hot water on demand. The same goes for the refrigerator, heating system and the cooling system. This can be made even more effective by increasing the thermal mass of the house, for example, with a pile of rocks. Pretty cheap for a battery, don't you think? And, of course, there's charging your car when electricity is cheaper. At last, we actually have a use for the Internet-of-things - an internet device on your hotwater heater to query the current price of electricity. Pretty darned cheap for a grid battery.

shuntress 6y ago
I'm not here for micromanaging my water heater or refrigerator. Both need to hold their temperature as long as possible and get up(or down) to temperate at some balance point between speed and efficiency. I want my provider to even it out and set a reasonable price between the variable extremes so I don't have to think about it.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  You don't have to think about it. Just get an IoT refrigerator.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    Sorry, I'm also a picky consumer when it comes to appliances. I want my fridge to be just a simple heat pump controlled by a thermostat.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      You'll pay more for electricity, then. Your choice.

haltingproblem 6y ago

I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it? Especially Texas where free competition is the norm ;) Ok, that was sprinkled with a pinch of snark. Honestly, if it helps consumers why would states be against it? What are we missing here?

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>I get why the legacy plant owners are fighting it but why are the state regulators fighting it? Corruption. Namely, Regulatory Capture.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

tialaramex 6y ago

In the US how do your solar energy subsidies work? In the UK where green energy isn't commercially viable on its own the subsidy is implemented as Contracts for Difference. What this means is that the government ensures you get paid a specific fee for your electricity (the "strike price" decided by auction when the project subsidy was agreed) say £58 per MWh - regardless. If you actually sell electricity for £12 per MWh during a glut the government pays £46 to make up the difference, but if you sell electricity when prices are £95 per MWh during a shortage, the government gets £37 back from that. These CfDs are auctioned, thus providing a signal about whether subsidy is needed. If bids approach the actual market price of electricity then there's no need to have any further rounds of subsidy for this class of power - apparently financial backers are happy to build such generators at the price the market will already pay. This fits nicely with the fact that all the obvious green options are capital dominated. A traditional fossil fuel power plant consumes fuel to make power, which means below some particular price it will shut off to avoid spending more on fuel than it earns from selling electricity. But this is never true for a wind farm, or solar farm, and it's only barely in principle possible for nuclear (Nuclear fuel is expensive, but a little goes a long way). So in fact you will always sell all the power from these sources, and the only question is how much for?

kolinko 6y ago
I’m in a process of building 1MW in Poland, and - at least here - it’s not true that renewables are not commercially viable. That is, if I finished building today and began trading on an open market, I would benefit more in the upcoming years (possibly overall), than through auctions. The benefit of auctions is that since they guarantee the proce for the next 15 years, it’s way easier to get financing for them. Our estimates show that we would have way higher returns on the open market, but the risks would be much higher as well.
- ZeroGravitas 6y ago
  Which basically means the government is taking on that risk and (potential) profit.
- tialaramex 6y ago

perfunctory 6y ago

> ...the fight generators and transmission companies have waged to prevent wholesale market access for batteries. just in case somebody still thinks that climate change is a technical problem.