My contest to try and get some real figures on the round-trip efficiency of pumped hydro was a dud! No studies, no real world numbers. I heard from a few helpful readers that had projected efficiency numbers based on new turbines from Japan, but no information on existing projects. I find this highly interesting because new advanced energy storage systems, like the VRB-ESS(tm), are being compared, sometimes unfavorably, against pumped hydro. If PH is the gold standard for highly efficient time-shifting power generation, then one would think there would be substantial and easily accessed information on real-world experience.
I may try this again. In the meantime, if any reader has any resources on the subject, please leave a comment.
While we're on the subject, here are a couple of interesting points on the electricity in - electricity out efficiency of the VRB. The standard metric is 65% - 75%, AC-AC. However, the actual round-trip efficiency depends on the application.
For example, the lithium battery providers, like A123 and Altairnano, and flywheel providers, like Beacon Power, are advertising 90% efficiency. However, this is for a very limited pulse of power in the middle of their state of charge (SOS). The application is used for balancing the 60Hz frequency of the grid by pulsing to full capacity - in megawatt size - for only 15 minutes. Apparently, just about any battery system, including lead acid, could pulse like this, in the middle of their SOC, with high efficiency and many cycles.
This applies to the VRB-ESS as well. The greatest efficiency loss occurs at the end of the charge cycle, as it takes more work to find "uncharged" vanadium ions to "fill up the tank". In other words, if a facility had installed enough tanks of electrolyte to store 8 hours of energy, but only used the first 6 hours, then the round-trip efficiency would be closer to 80% than 70%, and if the VRB-ESS was used for the same application as the lithium systems, the efficiency would be the same - in the 90% range. However, one of the key distinctives of the VRB is the ability to fully cycle a nearly unlimited number of times without loss of capacity. Capacity is dependent on the amount of electrolyte. So, an application could chose 30 minutes of storage or 8 hours; it's simply a function of how much electrolyte is stored in the tank. After thousands of full cycles, whether on a 30 minute tank of electrolyte, or an 8 hour tank, the VRB is still able to provide full capacity and for the same amount of energy.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Contest! Prizes! Discover Efficiency of Pumped Hydro!
Please help us ferret out (apologies to mink and weasel lovers!) information on what appears to be a great mystery - the round trip efficiency of Pumped Hydro Energy Storage. Prizes will be awarded!
The round trip efficiency of storage technologies are of great interest and discussion. Some are concerned about "wasting energy" when storing
electricity. "Losing" 30% of the electricity going into a storage facility is a "non-starter" for them. However, others counter by pointing out the greater value of electricity delivered on-peak, even if some energy is lost by storing off-peak power.
The number one storage technology in use today is pumped hydro. These are, usually, massive projects, where water is pumped up to a reservoir at night, when power is cheaper, and allowed to flow downhill during the day. The turbine used to pump the water uphill is then spun backwards by the water coming downhill, generating electricity. Whenever energy storage is discussed, pumped hydro is held up as the ideal answer due to it's large storage capacity, low emissions (although some have begun to be concerned about the amount of methane released from underwater biomass), fast response (although only when generating electricity) and high efficiency. However, your humble blogger has had a difficult time finding authoritative literature on pumped hydro efficiency, and I'm hoping to tap the resources of other, more knowledable members of the industry, by tempting them with fame and fortune.
As an example of what appears to be unsupported but accepted wisdom, NREL recently published their technical report on energy storage, and said this about pumped hydro:
"PHS plants can achieve round-trip efficiencies that exceed 75% and may have capacities that exceed 20 hours of discharge capacity. (pg 43)" However, even though this is supposed to be a technical report, no citation was offered.
Again, the Electricty Storage Association indicates efficiencies in the 70 - 85% range, but no authorities or links are provided.
I would tend to accept these statements as accurate, not knowing any better, but I have been at conferences where such claims have been hooted at by participants, with counter claims of less than 65%. This has piqued my interest in getting some authoritative answers, especially since the VRB-ESS achieves efficiencies in the 70 - 75% range when used for the same purposes as PHS. Obviously, if efficiencies of 70% or less are not a problem when applied to PHS, then higher efficiencies from a flow battery, like the VRB-ESS, would be even more desireable. If, however, PHS is much less than 70%, then alternative storage systems become even more attractive. But we need to know the facts before we can have an informed discussion.
Hence my contest. We will award prizes and fame to those that provide the most useful resources discussing PHS efficiency. Unless you wish to remain anonymous, we will announce the three commentators that provide the best citations or other authoritative resources. And, the winners will receive their choice of the Enerdynamics publications, "Understanding Today's Electricity Business" or "Understanding Today's Natural Gas Business". Both publications are valued over $60!
As a bonus, anyone that also provides authoritative analysis resources on the actual per kWhr cost of PHS will receive both books = $120!
I'm having a little bit of fun with this, but it looks like a good project given the dearth of information, or so it seems to me, on pumped hydro storage efficiency. Your comments will be posted below, therefore contributing to the general store of knowledge, unless you prefer to email your offerings to ctoca@utility-savings.com. I will be the sole judge of the winners - since it's my contest - and we will close the contest on Thursday, April 15th, so we won't continue to "tax" your patience!
Please click the "Post a Comment" link below or email your replies. Thanks for the help!
The round trip efficiency of storage technologies are of great interest and discussion. Some are concerned about "wasting energy" when storing
electricity. "Losing" 30% of the electricity going into a storage facility is a "non-starter" for them. However, others counter by pointing out the greater value of electricity delivered on-peak, even if some energy is lost by storing off-peak power.The number one storage technology in use today is pumped hydro. These are, usually, massive projects, where water is pumped up to a reservoir at night, when power is cheaper, and allowed to flow downhill during the day. The turbine used to pump the water uphill is then spun backwards by the water coming downhill, generating electricity. Whenever energy storage is discussed, pumped hydro is held up as the ideal answer due to it's large storage capacity, low emissions (although some have begun to be concerned about the amount of methane released from underwater biomass), fast response (although only when generating electricity) and high efficiency. However, your humble blogger has had a difficult time finding authoritative literature on pumped hydro efficiency, and I'm hoping to tap the resources of other, more knowledable members of the industry, by tempting them with fame and fortune.
As an example of what appears to be unsupported but accepted wisdom, NREL recently published their technical report on energy storage, and said this about pumped hydro:
"PHS plants can achieve round-trip efficiencies that exceed 75% and may have capacities that exceed 20 hours of discharge capacity. (pg 43)" However, even though this is supposed to be a technical report, no citation was offered.
Again, the Electricty Storage Association indicates efficiencies in the 70 - 85% range, but no authorities or links are provided.
I would tend to accept these statements as accurate, not knowing any better, but I have been at conferences where such claims have been hooted at by participants, with counter claims of less than 65%. This has piqued my interest in getting some authoritative answers, especially since the VRB-ESS achieves efficiencies in the 70 - 75% range when used for the same purposes as PHS. Obviously, if efficiencies of 70% or less are not a problem when applied to PHS, then higher efficiencies from a flow battery, like the VRB-ESS, would be even more desireable. If, however, PHS is much less than 70%, then alternative storage systems become even more attractive. But we need to know the facts before we can have an informed discussion.
Hence my contest. We will award prizes and fame to those that provide the most useful resources discussing PHS efficiency. Unless you wish to remain anonymous, we will announce the three commentators that provide the best citations or other authoritative resources. And, the winners will receive their choice of the Enerdynamics publications, "Understanding Today's Electricity Business" or "Understanding Today's Natural Gas Business". Both publications are valued over $60!
As a bonus, anyone that also provides authoritative analysis resources on the actual per kWhr cost of PHS will receive both books = $120!
I'm having a little bit of fun with this, but it looks like a good project given the dearth of information, or so it seems to me, on pumped hydro storage efficiency. Your comments will be posted below, therefore contributing to the general store of knowledge, unless you prefer to email your offerings to ctoca@utility-savings.com. I will be the sole judge of the winners - since it's my contest - and we will close the contest on Thursday, April 15th, so we won't continue to "tax" your patience!
Please click the "Post a Comment" link below or email your replies. Thanks for the help!
Monday, March 15, 2010
CAISO Postpones Entry of Energy Storage
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the state agency running the transmission system, has postponed the entry of limited energy storage resources (LESRs) into their ancillary services markets.
CAISO is bound by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Nos. 719 and 890 to allow Non-Generator Resources to participate "on a comparable basis to services provided by generation resources in meeting mandatory reliability standards, providing ancillary services and planning the expansion fo the transmission grid".
To that end, CAISO began a stakeholder proceeding in September, 2009. LESR technology providers, like the Beacon flywheel, Altarinano and A123 lithium ion batteries, saw this as an opportunity to open these markets to their short term energy storage systems, as they have been able in other ISO markets. Many saw this as a continuation of the various energy storage proceedings that have started and stopped without resolution at CAISO since 2008.
However, the existing CAISO markets require greater energy resources than the above technologies can provide. Although CAISO reduced their requirements from up to 2 hours of energy, to as little as 30 minutes in the course of this proceeding, the LESR technologies are limited to 15 minutes of energy in one direction - charging or discharging. In fact, they want to be paid for providing service in both directions, requiring them to operate in the middle of their capacity, which only allows them to provide 7 minutes of energy - more or less.
The final decision of CAISO, after months of meetings and stakeholder comments, was the determination that new ancillary services markets would need to be created for these technologies because, "...energy storage and other resource have different operating characteristics and different implementation issues." (Draft Final Proposal, page 3)
CAISO proposes to take up the issue of LESR participation in future proceedings, although the timing is uncertain. This is understandably disappointing for the LESR companies, who have seen some success in other ISO territories, either with full participation or through pilot programs. However, for the foreseeable future, limited energy storage will not be able to participate in CAISO markets.
However, nothing in this decision or other proceedings prevents other energy storage technologies, with longer energy capability, from participating in CAISO markets. For example, the VRB flow battery, with the ability to store hours of energy, qulifies to provide spinning reserve, frequency regulation and other ancillary services. The VRB Energy Storage System (VRB-ESS), sited in conjuction with a solar PV, could shift generation, maintain peak output for the solar generator, and could then provide services to CAISO when not needed for solar energy.
CAISO is bound by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Nos. 719 and 890 to allow Non-Generator Resources to participate "on a comparable basis to services provided by generation resources in meeting mandatory reliability standards, providing ancillary services and planning the expansion fo the transmission grid".
To that end, CAISO began a stakeholder proceeding in September, 2009. LESR technology providers, like the Beacon flywheel, Altarinano and A123 lithium ion batteries, saw this as an opportunity to open these markets to their short term energy storage systems, as they have been able in other ISO markets. Many saw this as a continuation of the various energy storage proceedings that have started and stopped without resolution at CAISO since 2008.
However, the existing CAISO markets require greater energy resources than the above technologies can provide. Although CAISO reduced their requirements from up to 2 hours of energy, to as little as 30 minutes in the course of this proceeding, the LESR technologies are limited to 15 minutes of energy in one direction - charging or discharging. In fact, they want to be paid for providing service in both directions, requiring them to operate in the middle of their capacity, which only allows them to provide 7 minutes of energy - more or less.
The final decision of CAISO, after months of meetings and stakeholder comments, was the determination that new ancillary services markets would need to be created for these technologies because, "...energy storage and other resource have different operating characteristics and different implementation issues." (Draft Final Proposal, page 3)
CAISO proposes to take up the issue of LESR participation in future proceedings, although the timing is uncertain. This is understandably disappointing for the LESR companies, who have seen some success in other ISO territories, either with full participation or through pilot programs. However, for the foreseeable future, limited energy storage will not be able to participate in CAISO markets.
However, nothing in this decision or other proceedings prevents other energy storage technologies, with longer energy capability, from participating in CAISO markets. For example, the VRB flow battery, with the ability to store hours of energy, qulifies to provide spinning reserve, frequency regulation and other ancillary services. The VRB Energy Storage System (VRB-ESS), sited in conjuction with a solar PV, could shift generation, maintain peak output for the solar generator, and could then provide services to CAISO when not needed for solar energy.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
I know this blog is about the VRB Energy Storage System, but...
I guess I'm one of those people who will step aside when the herd is all heading one way to look and make sure we're going the right way, and not off the cliff. Never been a lemming. I don't readily accept the "conventional wisdom". I've found out that usually, when some concept attains universal acceptance, it is probably due to some other reason than good logic, facts or common sense. So, I like to find the "other side of the story" - there is always one.
The VRB ESS fits in this concept. Popular sentiment is rushing toward renewable energy, like wind and solar, without truly considering the consequences. I believe we should develop distributed energy resources for many good reasons, including homeland security, energy independence, and local control v. centralized control. The VRB-ESS connected to solar PV or a wind turbine will provide all of that. And we'll need large energy storage facilities like the VRB to make large wind and solar PV installations useful and to prevent them from crashing the grid due to thier intermittant power output.
But I'm far from convinced that we need renewables to save our planet from global warming (opps! I mean climate change...) There, I've said it. But, even though I don't follow the climate change faith, I still have common ground for the reasons stated above.
All this so I could share these interesting bits:
ScienceDaily (2009-12-31) -- Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
And also:
ScienceDaily () -- A physicist from Colorado State University and his colleagues from the North American Carbon Program (NACP) have discerned and confirmed the unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels. Through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration, scientists have been able to elucidate why plants are growing more rapidly than they are dying. The NACP is employing methods, such as the use of cell phone and aircraft towers to monitor and retrieve carbon data for their continuing study.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
CAES - Lies and Damned Lies
With apologies to Mark Twain, I keep thinking of his categorization of whoppers when I hear the misleading, if not willfully false, claims made for Compressed Air Energy Storage - CAES.
The Wall Street Journal has a story on the DOE grants for CAES, due to be announced soon. $60 million is planned to "promote a patented technology that stores energy until it is needed".
First, referring to CAES as "energy storage", is a stretch, if not downright misleading. The WSJ doesn't mention that the compressed air is "stored" for the purpose of firing a natural gas generator! Yes, that's true - a natural gas, greenhouse gas emitting, fossil fueled generator.
Advocates of CAES are quick to point out that using compressed air increases the efficiency of natural gas generators, from about 33% to as much as 88%, so less GHG is emitted. That's great for fossil fueled generation, but don't call it energy storage. However, as discussed in an earlier blog, on an energy in - energy out basis, counting the energy used to compress the air, actual energy efficiency is about 54% or less. But I digress...
Second, how can anyone compare CAES to advanced batteries - like the VRB-ESS - and conclude that it's, "much cheaper than battery storage and far more durable"? The article quotes Robert Schainker of EPRI advising that batteries are too expensive. Elsewhere he is quoted as saying CAES costs about $700 per kWhr. If the PG&E project stays on budget - how likely is that? - then PG&E will get 10 hours at 300 MW, or 3,000 MWHrs for under $400 million, about $133 per kWhr? Wow, what a deal - if it happens. However, what about the cost of the natural gas? No information has been provided yet, but 8 million MMBtu per year seems in the ballpark. At $7 MMbtu, that's at least $560 million over 10 years. Twice that over 20 years. And what are the O&M costs? The generators are typically completely overhauled every 10,000 hours. We need more information...
By contrast, Prudent Energy is expecting the VRB-ESS to run about $500 per kWhr for 6 hours of storage within 2 years, and much cheaper for a 10 hour system. Refurbishment at 10 years, for about $60 kWhr for a 10 hour system, will allow the ESS to run another 10 years. And, wind power can be stored and delivered as needed, without emissions, with about 75% efficiency.
One final digression - if renewable energy, subsidized by taxpayers, is used to enhance a natural gas generator, is it still "renewable". Renewable wind power is consumed to run the air compressors. The compressed air is then released to enhance natural gas generation, turning "clean" energy into "dirty" energy. What does this do to the Renewable Portfolio Standards? Does wind energy, that is not delivered to consumers, but instead is consumed to produce natural gas fired electricity, count toward the 20% - 33% RPS?
There's no guarantee a 300 MW CAES will or can get built as expected, or that it will ultimately cost under $400 million. However, VRB systems can begin to be installed at wind farms and end-users now. It's more likely that 300 MW of VRB batteries can get installed in 5 years than CAES, and we won't have to substitute wind power for natural gas.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
How Do You Value Grid Connected Energy Storage?
This is almost a part II to my earlier post, but I was reminded again of the problems we face when it comes to defining, and then valuing, Grid Connected Energy Storage (GCES).
The recent New York Times article, "Companies Race to Develop Utility-Scale Power Storage" pointed up the problems and potential for confusion. "Power storage" technologies listed included the Beacon flywheel, the NGK molton sodium-sulfur battery, the A123 lithim ion battery, and compressed air (again!). Quoting a report by GTM Research, this article made a very insightful distinction between "power oriented" technologies, used mainly to regulate short-term changes to grid frequency, and "energy oriented" storage -- in which energy use is shifted to other times of the day. However, the author could have done a better job applying this distinction and pointing out the difference in cost.
For example, the article discussed the $69 million Beacon project in New York, where they will install, "...hundreds of "flywheels" to store 20 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 200 homes for a day." In reality, the flywheel is designed to store only 15 minutes of power and falls into the "power oriented" category above. Its total energy storage will only be 5 MW hrs, about enough to power 40 homes for a day, although it will never be used for that purpose.
Also, the article reported on the $25 million requested by Southern California Edison for an A123 "32-megawatt-hour battery" - but is it really 32 MW hrs? I pose the question because the system will be designed as an 8 MW battery with 4 hours of storage (32 MW hr), but the application is at a wind farm, where multiple cycling is needed to firm wind - a "power oriented" application. Lithium ion batteries are good for about 500 - 600 complete charge and discharge cycles. If it is used in an "energy oriented" application, shifting wind power at night to the day, then it will only last about 2 years. However, in a "power" application, where the battery is barely discharged, it will last for many thousands of cycles. In fact, this is how it is currently applied. In this case it would be operated like an 8 MW flywheel, with usable energy storage of only about 2 MW hrs.
So how do you value these installations? If we value the flywheel and the li-ion systems by the MW hr, then their cost is $13.8 million and $12.5 million respectively. However, if all we care about is their power capacity, then the cost is $3.45 million and $3.125 per MW. (The NGK battery is the only energy oriented technology mentioned in the article, but no cost information was provided.)
By contrast, a VRB-ESS (vanadium redox flow battery - energy storage system) will provide both energy and power, with nearly unlimited cycles, full or partial, for about the same cost per MW of the flywheel or li-ion battery. However, the VRB-ESS will also include 4 - 8 hours of storage, dropping the cost per MW hr to a fraction of the cost for a "power oriented" system.
For example, a 5 MW system with 6 hours of storage would cost about $18 million, with all costs included - a complete turn-key system. That would provide 30 MW hrs of energy at a cost of about $600 thousand per MW hr. The cost of power is only $3.6 million per MW.
Although not directly relevant to the discussion, it's good to know that the VRB-ESS will last 10 years before needing refurbishment. This consists of replacing the PEM (proton exchange membrane) at a cost of about $3 million. The system is then good for another 10 years!
Bottom-line? - It's important to understand the application, whether energy, power or both, and then determine the cost per energy (MW) and/or the cost for power (MW hr), when evaluating the technology.
The recent New York Times article, "Companies Race to Develop Utility-Scale Power Storage" pointed up the problems and potential for confusion. "Power storage" technologies listed included the Beacon flywheel, the NGK molton sodium-sulfur battery, the A123 lithim ion battery, and compressed air (again!). Quoting a report by GTM Research, this article made a very insightful distinction between "power oriented" technologies, used mainly to regulate short-term changes to grid frequency, and "energy oriented" storage -- in which energy use is shifted to other times of the day. However, the author could have done a better job applying this distinction and pointing out the difference in cost.
For example, the article discussed the $69 million Beacon project in New York, where they will install, "...hundreds of "flywheels" to store 20 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 200 homes for a day." In reality, the flywheel is designed to store only 15 minutes of power and falls into the "power oriented" category above. Its total energy storage will only be 5 MW hrs, about enough to power 40 homes for a day, although it will never be used for that purpose.
Also, the article reported on the $25 million requested by Southern California Edison for an A123 "32-megawatt-hour battery" - but is it really 32 MW hrs? I pose the question because the system will be designed as an 8 MW battery with 4 hours of storage (32 MW hr), but the application is at a wind farm, where multiple cycling is needed to firm wind - a "power oriented" application. Lithium ion batteries are good for about 500 - 600 complete charge and discharge cycles. If it is used in an "energy oriented" application, shifting wind power at night to the day, then it will only last about 2 years. However, in a "power" application, where the battery is barely discharged, it will last for many thousands of cycles. In fact, this is how it is currently applied. In this case it would be operated like an 8 MW flywheel, with usable energy storage of only about 2 MW hrs.
So how do you value these installations? If we value the flywheel and the li-ion systems by the MW hr, then their cost is $13.8 million and $12.5 million respectively. However, if all we care about is their power capacity, then the cost is $3.45 million and $3.125 per MW. (The NGK battery is the only energy oriented technology mentioned in the article, but no cost information was provided.)
By contrast, a VRB-ESS (vanadium redox flow battery - energy storage system) will provide both energy and power, with nearly unlimited cycles, full or partial, for about the same cost per MW of the flywheel or li-ion battery. However, the VRB-ESS will also include 4 - 8 hours of storage, dropping the cost per MW hr to a fraction of the cost for a "power oriented" system.
For example, a 5 MW system with 6 hours of storage would cost about $18 million, with all costs included - a complete turn-key system. That would provide 30 MW hrs of energy at a cost of about $600 thousand per MW hr. The cost of power is only $3.6 million per MW.
Although not directly relevant to the discussion, it's good to know that the VRB-ESS will last 10 years before needing refurbishment. This consists of replacing the PEM (proton exchange membrane) at a cost of about $3 million. The system is then good for another 10 years!
Bottom-line? - It's important to understand the application, whether energy, power or both, and then determine the cost per energy (MW) and/or the cost for power (MW hr), when evaluating the technology.
Friday, September 18, 2009
What is Grid Connected Energy Storage?
The California Energy Commission recently requested input on what the definition should be for "utility connected energy storage". Here are some of my thoughts:
***************************
1. How do you define utility scale energy storage?
I would suggest looking at several common sense issues to get a handle on what is utility scale or grid connected energy storage (GCES).
First, we should define energy storage as "electrical" energy storage. That means electrical energy storage in and electrical storage out. For utility or grid applications, we need to store electrical energy for use when needed; meaning excess electrical energy is shifted to a time when electric energy is scarce. This excludes some types of valuable energy storage, like thermal energy storage, but it clarifies what we are doing.
Thermal storage is a good thing and useful, but it cannot be used to produce electrical power for the grid, so it should be excluded from our consideration. This is not to single out thermal energy, but to illustrate the need to focus on electric energy storage. The distinctive of utility or grid energy storage should be the storage of electricity. Storing electricity energy for use as some other type of useful energy does not provide the grid with the electric energy when needed. It is load only. Electric energy storage should be a two way street, not a one way street.
Logically, this also excludes electric energy generators. Again, this is an example of taking a different type of energy and converting it to electricity. Unless we define GCES as electricity in and electricity out, then a coal plant could be considered as GCES since it stores energy in the form of coal and provides energy as needed. If we do not specify electric in - electric out, then our discussion will be so broad as to be meaningless.
And, if we are careful to define GCES as electric in - electric out, then this will also exclude fuel driven compressed air energy storage systems. Such CAES systems are more clearly understood as highly efficient natural gas generators. Electric energy is used to run compressors. The compressed air is used to run natural gas generators more efficiently. Burning natural gas to produce electricity is not electric energy storage. It may be very desirable in some ways, but it should not be in the same box as other technologies that store electricity. If we include fuel driven technologies, then, again, our discussion becomes meaningless.
The second concept to address is the "storage" issue. The common sense expectation is that we are focused on storing and delivering useful amounts of electrical energy.
For example, there is a difference between delivering energy and providing power quality services. Various devices and technologies can store and deliver short bursts or pulses of power to balance short term variations in power quality. Utilities and energy users install various devices for this purpose. But their use is for power quality, not energy.
Similarly, the CAISO operates a market for frequency regulation that is considered a "capacity" market, as distinguished from their "energy" markets. Some ISO's are developing opportunities for Limited Energy Storage Resources (LESRs) to provide capacity - not energy - services, because they recognize the benefit from the quick response of such technologies. However, these systems are, by definition, limited in their energy and are not valued for their volume but for their capacity. Although valuable, they are not useful for energy delivery. At a minimum, a GCES facility should be able to store and deliver electric energy in hours, not minutes. We refer to the technical parameters used by the California Public Utilities Commission in their definition of advanced energy storage for the Self Generation Incentive Program. (Decision 08-11-044 November 21, 2008, page 12, “Ability to be discharged for at least four hours of its rated capacity to fully capture peak load reductions in most utility service territories (required AES duration of discharge will depend on each customer’s specific load shape, and the duration of its peak demand during peak utility periods).”)
LESRs should be in their own separate category for the valuable power quality benefits they provide to the grid, but they should be excluded from the GCES discussion because they cannot deliver energy in useful quantity.
***********************************
Any comments?
***************************
1. How do you define utility scale energy storage?
I would suggest looking at several common sense issues to get a handle on what is utility scale or grid connected energy storage (GCES).
First, we should define energy storage as "electrical" energy storage. That means electrical energy storage in and electrical storage out. For utility or grid applications, we need to store electrical energy for use when needed; meaning excess electrical energy is shifted to a time when electric energy is scarce. This excludes some types of valuable energy storage, like thermal energy storage, but it clarifies what we are doing.
Thermal storage is a good thing and useful, but it cannot be used to produce electrical power for the grid, so it should be excluded from our consideration. This is not to single out thermal energy, but to illustrate the need to focus on electric energy storage. The distinctive of utility or grid energy storage should be the storage of electricity. Storing electricity energy for use as some other type of useful energy does not provide the grid with the electric energy when needed. It is load only. Electric energy storage should be a two way street, not a one way street.
Logically, this also excludes electric energy generators. Again, this is an example of taking a different type of energy and converting it to electricity. Unless we define GCES as electricity in and electricity out, then a coal plant could be considered as GCES since it stores energy in the form of coal and provides energy as needed. If we do not specify electric in - electric out, then our discussion will be so broad as to be meaningless.
And, if we are careful to define GCES as electric in - electric out, then this will also exclude fuel driven compressed air energy storage systems. Such CAES systems are more clearly understood as highly efficient natural gas generators. Electric energy is used to run compressors. The compressed air is used to run natural gas generators more efficiently. Burning natural gas to produce electricity is not electric energy storage. It may be very desirable in some ways, but it should not be in the same box as other technologies that store electricity. If we include fuel driven technologies, then, again, our discussion becomes meaningless.
The second concept to address is the "storage" issue. The common sense expectation is that we are focused on storing and delivering useful amounts of electrical energy.
For example, there is a difference between delivering energy and providing power quality services. Various devices and technologies can store and deliver short bursts or pulses of power to balance short term variations in power quality. Utilities and energy users install various devices for this purpose. But their use is for power quality, not energy.
Similarly, the CAISO operates a market for frequency regulation that is considered a "capacity" market, as distinguished from their "energy" markets. Some ISO's are developing opportunities for Limited Energy Storage Resources (LESRs) to provide capacity - not energy - services, because they recognize the benefit from the quick response of such technologies. However, these systems are, by definition, limited in their energy and are not valued for their volume but for their capacity. Although valuable, they are not useful for energy delivery. At a minimum, a GCES facility should be able to store and deliver electric energy in hours, not minutes. We refer to the technical parameters used by the California Public Utilities Commission in their definition of advanced energy storage for the Self Generation Incentive Program. (Decision 08-11-044 November 21, 2008, page 12, “Ability to be discharged for at least four hours of its rated capacity to fully capture peak load reductions in most utility service territories (required AES duration of discharge will depend on each customer’s specific load shape, and the duration of its peak demand during peak utility periods).”)
LESRs should be in their own separate category for the valuable power quality benefits they provide to the grid, but they should be excluded from the GCES discussion because they cannot deliver energy in useful quantity.
***********************************
Any comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
