ECONOMICS OF UTILITY-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS FOR DUCK-CURVES

Solar systems have their highest electricity production at midday.

The surge of production from near-zero to maximum causes disturbances on the grid, aka DUCK-curves.

Southern California and Southern Germany, with high MW of installed solar, have major DUCK-curves on sunny days.

At present, mostly gas-fired, combined-cycle gas-turbine (CCGT) power plants are used to counteract the DUCK-curve surges.

In California, the shutdowns of 15 of 19 coastal, CCGT plants led to rolling blackouts during a multi-day heat wave covering a large area of the US southwest, followed by forest fires.

 

Climate fighters want to shut down the CCGT plants and replace them with utility-scale battery systems.

Climate fighters accused the plants of heating the Pacific Ocean!

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

NOTE: In case of Germany:

 

- Whenever it has excess wind and solar electricity (which has high, subsidized costs/kWh), it usually spreads the excess into grids of nearby countries at very low, even negative, wholesale prices (excess supply lowers the price).

 

- Whenever Germany has very little wind and solar electricity, these countries sell to Germany at higher wholesale prices (shortages increase prices). That procedure avoids having utility-scale battery systems, which would be off-the-charts more expensive, as shown in this article.

Solar Electricity Production and Midday Duck Curves

 

The image is of electricity demand, MW, versus time of day, due to various levels of installed MW DC of solar systems producing electricity, mostly at midday. Solar dozes off in late-afternoon/early-evening, when peak electricity demands occur, and does not reappear until about mid-morning the next day.

 

The image is of solar electricity production, during variable cloudiness, at various US Postal System area codes in California. Southern California has much greater DUCK-curves than northern California.

 

Wind Electricity Production

 

The image is of the calculated wind electricity production, during very windy conditions, of future, 1600 MW-offshore wind turbine systems, located south of Martha’s Vineyard Island in Massachusetts, New England.

 

- The top flat areas indicate production curtailments during strong winds to avoid damaging the wind turbines. Curtailment payments would be made to Owners.

 

- The huge up/down, weather/season-dependent, output variations would need to be counteracted by up to 3200 MW of CCGT plants varying their outputs, 24/7/365.

 

- Typically, CCGT plants operate near rated capacity to maximize production and revenues. However, with higher levels of wind electricity on the grid, they would have to vary their outputs from about 50% to 100% of rated capacity to counteract the variations of wind; operating below 50% needs to be avoided, because CCGT plants tend to become unstable.

 

- Payments would need to be made to CCGT plant owners for forcing them to: 1) Generate less electricity, than without wind, i.e., operate uneconomically, and 2) Provide counteracting services, 24/7/365.

NE Grid Conditions at End 2019

 

The energy sources of electricity in New England were 40% from gas, 25% from nuclear, 19% from net imports, 9% from renewables, 7% from hydro, 0.4% from coal and 0.1% from oil.

 

Generators fed about 125.5 TWh into the NE grid, customers (mostly utilities) drew 119 TWh from the NE grid, i.e., losses due to transmission from generators to utilities was 6.5 TWh, or 5.2%. This excludes distribution losses within the service areas of NE utilities.

 

Wholesale electricity prices have remained consistently low, due to low-cost gas and low-cost nuclear. The average annual price to utilities was $42.02/MWh in 2009 and $30.67/MWh in 2019.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf

 

Proposed New Generating Capacity to be Connected to NE Grid

 

Proposed NE generating capacity is 20,927 MW, of which wind is 14,256 MW. The annual production is shown in table 1.

 

The production of all generators fed to the NE grid, aka grid load, would be much greater in 2035 than in 2019, because the increase in heat pumps and electric vehicles.

 

Because wind speeds continuously vary in a random manner, the production would vary as well; if wind speeds increase 2 times, say from 10 mph to 20 mph, the production would increase 8 times.

 

The production likely would be about 15% of the average of that time of year, during a multi-day wind lull

The production likely would be about 80% of nameplate rating, during very windy weather; some areas with wind turbines likely would have output curtailments.

 

The production could not be fed into any grid, without the existing generators counteracting the wind output variations, 24/7/365, i.e., wind could not exist/would be totally dependent on the other generators.

 

The alternative would be to have sufficient battery storage capacity (MW/MWh, delivered as AC) to provide electricity when winds are low and to absorb electricity when winds are high.

 

However, the turnkey capital cost, CAPEX, of custom-designed, site-specific, grid-scale battery systems would be exorbitantly high, even if prices /kWh, delivered as AC, would decrease. See URL.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

Table 1A/State

Type

MW

CF

Production

NE grid load

NE grid load

 

 

 

 

 

2019, act.

2035, est.

%

MWh/y

 MWh/y

 MWh/y

MA

offshore

8460

40

29664144

 

 

RI

offshore

880

40

3085632

 

 

CT

offshore

4160

40

14586624

 

 

ME

onshore

751

28

1843314

 

 

MA

onshore

5

28

12272

 

 

Total

14256

49,191,987

115,500,000

140,000,000

 

Integrating and Transmission of Wind Electricity

 

The following two items would be required with high levels of wind electricity:

Overlay Grid: A high-voltage, direct-current, HVDC, overlay grid, from south of Martha’s Vineyard, MA, and from off the coasts of RI, CT and ME, to Quebec’s hydro plants, to transmit/distribute the outputs of the wind turbine systems.

The Quebec hydro plants would merely vary the water flow through the turbines to counteract the wind variations, just as Norway (98% hydro) does for Denmark.

 

The HVDC overlay grid would need to be constructed ahead of any outputs of offshore wind turbines being fed into the overlay grid, as was done in northern Germany.

 

The HVDC overlay grid would be connected at many points to existing HVAC grids. This would require augmentation/extension of existing HVAC transmission systems.

 

The turnkey capital cost would be at least $20 to $30 billion within New England, and plus another $10 to $15 billion within Quebec.

 

Storage: Capacity (battery, hydro reservoir, flywheel, etc.) to supply electricity during extended wind-lull periods, in case coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants were no longer be allowed to operate, due to climate-change fighting.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

Combined-Cycle, Gas-turbine Plants (CCGTs)

At present, the existing fleet of high-efficiency (up to 60%), low CO2/kWh, clean-burning (extremely low particulates/kWh), flexible (quick-starting/quick-responding), natural gas-fired, CCGTs are essential for serving electricity demand, especially for peaking, filling-in and balancing, i.e., filling in the “electricity gap” when:

 

1) Weather-dependent wind and solar are inadequate, such as during simultaneous wind/solar lulls, which occur throughout the year.

 

2) The existing plant capacity, MW, and quantities of stored energy (gas, oil, hydro reservoirs, batteries, etc.) are insufficient to maintain reliable, continuous, electricity service, i.e., to prevent rolling black-outs, as recently occurred in California.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf

 

This article describes in detail, the battery storage capacity and cost for different wind/solar scenarios.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

Consequences of California’s Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GSWA

 

Hopefully, California learned an expensive lesson, due to relying on weather-dependent, season-dependent, wind and solar electricity to such an extent, it decided to close down power plants, that produce reliable, not variable, not intermittent, low CO2, low-cost electricity, 24/7/365, regardless of weather or season.

 

Typically, California imports electricity from nearby states to cover any wind/solar electricity short-falls. This was not possible, because the US Southwest had a major, multi-day, heat wave. As a result, electricity imports to California were curtailed by the exporting states.

 

Prior to the heat wave, as a part of climate change fighting, California had unwisely closed down 15 of its 19 high-efficiency, low-CO2, gas power plants, on the Pacific coast. Those plants had not been kept in reserve, i.e., staffed, fueled and kept in good working order to immediately provide electricity, just in case of a major heat wave, with minimal wind.

 

The result was, California had multiple days with rolling black-outs, i.e., no air-conditioning during periods with temperatures up to 115F. Living conditions were made even worse by the smoke of large-scale forest fires.

Hydro Plant Reservoirs for Counteracting Wind/Solar Output Variations

Quebec’s hydro plants would merely vary water flows through hydro plants to counteract the wind/solar electricity variations, similar to Norway’s hydro plants varying their water flows to counteract German, Dutch and Danish wind/solar electricity variations.

 

Those countries have been in that mode for at least 20 years. NE is just getting started.

 

High RE/Capita Leads to High Household Electricity Prices

 

Germany and Denmark have the high levels of RE/capita, and as a result have the highest household electric rates in Europe, about 30 eurocent/kWh; the more wind and solar per capita, the higher the household electric rates.

Battery System Loss Percentage

 

Utility-scale battery systems usually are connected to the distribution grid, which typically operate at a utility's standard distribution system voltage of 12,470 Volt. Those are the lines along the side of the road.

https://greenmountainpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IRP-Trans...

 

This section determines the loss percentage of a battery system connected to a distribution grid.

 

The low-voltage output, as AC, of solar systems is measured for owner compensation purposes.

The voltage is stepped up to the distribution grid voltage, a loss of about 1%.

The electricity travels to a battery system, a loss of about 1%

Those two losses were ignored in the below A-to-Z analysis.

Here is the A-to-Z sequence of conditions, for analysis purposes:

Electricity draw from the distribution grid is assumed at 100 kWh, as AC

Meter 1 is located between the distribution grid and step-down transformer

The step-down transformer is assumed to have a 1% loss.

AC/DC conversion and battery charging losses are assumed at 5%

The battery is assumed to have an initial charge of 10 kWh, about 10% of capacity

The discharge is assumed between 90% and 10% of battery capacity, i.e., a maximum discharge of 80%.

DC/AC conversion and battery discharging losses are assumed at 5%

The step-up transformer is assumed to have a 1% loss.

Meter 2 is located between the distribution grid and the step-up transformer

 

See table 1.

A key finding of the analysis is the A-to-Z battery system loss without aging, Year 1 column, and the slightly greater loss with aging, Year 15 column. Either way, the A-to-Z loss is greater than 20%.

 

That means, if batteries would be used to counteract the variations of solar and wind (instead of CCGT plants), about 20% of any solar or wind electricity passing through the batteries is lost.

 

The Year 15 column shows the aged output of solar systems.

After aging of the solar systems at 0.5%/y, production would be less and DUCK-curves would be smaller, i.e., less electricity would be drawn from the grid to eliminate the DUCK-curves.

 

Year 1 system loss is 21.71%

Year 15 system loss is 21.87%, due to aging of the solar systems at 0.5%/y, and aging of the battery system at 10% over 15 years. See note.

 

The solar aging factor is 0.928 at end of Year 15. See table 2

That means only 0.928 *100 = 92.76 kWh would be drawn from the grid via Meter 1, to eliminate the DUCK-curve.

NOTE: These articles display battery aging degradation for EVs, which likely would be similar for utility-scale battery systems.

The assumed battery system aging loss of 10% for 15 years, in this analysis, appears to be correct.

 

https://electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/

https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/

See degradation image of Tesla Model 3 battery; % loss vs kilometers driven.

 

NOTE: As battery systems age, they cannot hold as much charge, and they have more resistance to charging and discharging, i.e., the system has less storage capacity, MWh, and becomes less efficient, i.e., an 80% maximum discharge in Year 1 would be more electricity, MWh, than an 80% discharge in Year 15.

NOTE: Charging a battery above 90%, and discharging below 10%:

 

1) Requires more AC electricity supply per kWh of DC in the battery.

2) Plus damages the battery

3) Plus reduces useful service life of the battery.

 

NOTE: Usually, battery systems are housed in insulated, temperature/humidity-controlled enclosures for optimum battery efficiency.

Table 1/Battery System Loss

Year 1

Year 15

Solar system degradation, 0.5%/y

1.00

0.928

kWh

kWh

Drawn from distr. grid via meter 1

100.00

92.76

Step-down transformer loss, %

1.00

1.00

99.00

91.83

AC/DC conversion and charging loss, %

5.00

AC/DC conversion and charging loss, %

5.50

Charged into battery, DC

94.05

86.78

Battery state of charge before charging, DC

10.00

10.00

Battery state of charge after charging, DC

104.05

96.78

Available for discharge, %

80.00

80.00

Discharged from battery, DC

83.24

77.42

DC/AC conversion and discharging loss, %

5.00

5.50

Battery discharge, delivered as AC

79.08

73.16

Step-up transformer loss, %

1.00

1.00

Fed to distr. grid via meter 2

78.29

72.43

Loss = 100*(1-Meter 2/Meter 1), %

21.71

21.91

 

Aging Factor of Solar Systems

Solar systems age at about 0.5%/y, i.e., production is 0.5% less year after year.

In Year 15, solar systems produce 0.928 of the production in Year 1. See table 2.

 

Table 2/Solar system aging

End of year

1

1

0.995

0.995

0.990

0.995

0.985

0.995

0.980

0.995

5

0.975

0.995

0.970

0.995

0.966

0.995

0.961

0.995

0.956

0.995

10

0.951

0.995

0.946

0.995

0.942

0.995

0.937

0.995

0.932

0.995

15

0.928

0.995

0.923

0.995

Turnkey Capital Cost of Battery Systems

 

The installed solar system capacity is assumed at 1000 MW DC, for analysis purposes.

 

If 1000 MW DC of solar systems were installed, on a sunny day, about 704.6 MWh would be delivered to the distribution grids as AC, by the new battery systems. 

 

As the solar systems age, less MWh would be produced.

This is a plus, because the battery systems age as well.

 

If battery aging is 10% in 15 years, the 750 MWh design capacity in Year 1 would become 675 MWh in Year 15, but the excess solar output of 900.0 MWh (table 3) would become 835.2 MW, due to aging of the solar systems.

 

Prudence requires choosing Year 1 battery capacity at 750 MW to ensure having only a 675 – 652.2 = 23 MW margin in Year 15.

 

The New England turnkey capital cost of the utility-scale, site specific, custom-designed, battery systems is assumed at $1000/MWh, delivered as AC

 

Table 3/Turnkey Capital Cost

Drawn from grid

Fed to grid

Year 1

Year 15

Hour

Other sources

Solar

Excess

Excess

MW

MW

MW

MW

9

500

500

0

10

500

600

100

11

500

700

200

12

500

800

300

13

500

700

200

14

500

600

100

15

500

500

0

Total, MWh

3500

4400

900

900

Solar systems aging factor

1

0.928

Drawn from distribution grid, MWh as AC

900

835.2

Efficiency, %. See table 10

21.71

21.91

Fed to distribution grid, MWh, as AC

704.6

652.2

.

Battery design capacity, MWh, delivered as AC

750

750

Battery systems aging factor

1

0.9

Aged battery capacity, MWh, delivered as AC

750

675

Capital cost, $/kWh

1000

1000

Capital cost, $million

750

750

Absorbing Solar DUCK-Curves

 

This section describes passing electricity through the battery system for 1000 MW DC of solar systems tied to distribution grids.

 

Battery systems would be needed to absorb the DUCK-curves of the solar systems, if CCGT plants were shut down.

 

If the DUCK-curve exceeds demand, the excess would normally be offset by gas-fired CCGT plants reducing their outputs.

However, if climate fighters shut down these plants (as they did in California), the excess needs to be absorbed by battery systems at midday, for use during peak hours (late-afternoon/early-evening), when solar has gone to sleep until about mid-morning the next day.

Dumping the excess into the high voltage grid is not an option, unless approved by ISO-NE, the NE grid operator.

 

Sunny Day in Summer

Solar output, on a sunny day in summer, would be about 800 MW at about 12 o’clock.

Demand is assumed constant at 500 MW from 9 am to 3 pm.

Drawn from the distribution grid in Year 1, to eliminate the DUCK-curve, would be about 900 MWh. See table 3

 

Sunny Day in Winter

Solar output, on a sunny day in winter, would be about 600 MW at about 12 o’clock.

Demand is assumed constant at 500 MW from 10 am to 2 pm.

Drawn from the distribution grid in Year 1, to eliminate the DUCK-curve, would be about 450 MWh

 

The DUCK-curve would be much smaller, i.e., the battery systems would be significantly underutilized in winter, and on cloudy days throughout the year, and when panels are covered with snow and ice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Vermont

Battery System Sources of Revenues and Losses

 

This section summarizes the various revenues and losses of having battery systems perform various functions on the New England electric grid.

 

The main functions are:

 

1) Arbitrage, aka buying low, selling high, is assumed to occur on 102 days.

This mode is assumed to occur at greater than 0.8 capacity factors, to maximize gains.

 

2) RNS + FCM charges reduction, which occur on 13 days. See below explanation.

This mode is assumed to occur at greater than 0.8 capacity factors, to maximize reductions

 

3) DUCK-curve reduction is assumed to occur on 250 days

This mode is assumed to occur during middays.

 

In sunny, southern California, DUCK-curves would be very large/1000 MW DC of solar panels, almost every day of the year. The huge battery systems would be very busy.

 

In cloudy, snowy New England, DUCK-curves would be much smaller/1000 MW DC of solar panels. They would be minimal on cloudy days and when panels are all or partially covered with snow and ice.

 

Amortizing Battery Systems: Amortizing the turnkey capital cost of a battery system would provide a quick answer regarding a major annual cost and daily cost. All other costs are minor by comparison.

 

Amortizing the $750 million turnkey capital cost of the battery systems, at 3.5% for 15 years, would require payments of $64.34 million/y, or 0.176 million/day. That is the cost of a hypothetical bank loan.

 

In the real-world, private investors likely would earn much greater returns on capital; utilities are allowed about 9%/y.

Even if the turnkey capital cost were artificially reduced by, say 50%, by means of cash grants, tax credits and accelerated write-offs and deduction of interest on borrowed money, a 9%/y return would be a major hurdle to achieve viable economics of battery systems..

 

Comments on table 3A

 

The daily amortizing cost was allocated to each of the above three functions.

ALL other costs, such as O&M, were ignored in this analysis.

With subsidies, the amortizing cost would be reduced for the owner

 

However, no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101.

The costs would merely be shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers, and added to various debts, based on political deliberations, i.e., a smoke and mirrors charade.

See table 3A

https://www.myamortizationchart.com 

Table 3A/Throughput

Days

Throughput

Throughput

CF

Cost allocation

MWh/y

MWh/d

$million

Solar production to distr. grid

1271070

 

DUCK-curve reduction

127107

 

Loss %

21.71

 

Left over solar to distr. grid

 

99512

 

 

 

 

Fed to distr. grid

 

 

 

 

 

Arbitrage

102

60000

588

0.835

17.98

RNS + FCM

13

7647

588

0.835

2.29

DUCK-curve

250

99512

398

0.565

44.07

365

167159

458

0.650

 

Fed to distr. grid. See table 3

704.6

 

Amortizing cost

 

 

 

 

64.34

Battery Systems Capacity Factors

 

The battery systems can operate at a maximum draw of 900 MWh AC from the distribution grid and deliver a maximum of 704.7 AC to the distribution grid. However, such operation likely would not lead to long life, i.e., 15 years.

 

The battery systems should operate at 90% x 900 = 810 MWh AC and at 10% x 704.6 = 70 MWh AC, a discharge of 740 MW AC, to ensure longer life.

 

During arbitrage and RNS + FCM modes, the average CF = 0.835, which means the battery systems are over-stressed.

During DUCK-curve mode, the average CF = 0.565, which means the battery systems are not overstressed

    

Table 3A shows the battery systems annual average CF = 0.65, when performing the above three services.

This value is below the maximum allowed value of 0.80.

A longer life can be achieved by not over-stressing the battery.

 

Table 3B/Capacity factors

MWh in, AC

900

365

328500

Loss

21.71

MWh out, AC

704.7

365

257216

167159

Operating CF

0.650

Allowable CF

0.800

1) Loss from Arbitrage  

 

The battery systems, when not dealing with larger DUCK-curves, could be charged during late night-time, when wholesale rates average about 4 c/kWh, and discharged during peak hours (late-afternoon/early-evening), when rates average about 8 c/kWh.

However, the arbitrage financial gain would be small, because of electricity losses of about 20%.

 

If 60000 MWh/y, would be drawn from the distribution grid:

 

The charging cost would be 60000 x 4 c/kWh = $2,400,000

The discharging revenue would be 0.7829 x 60000 x 8 c/kWh = $3,757,920

Financial gain would be $1.36 million/y.

If the battery systems would be available for 102 days of the year, the allocated amortizing cost would be $17.98 million/y.

Loss from arbitrage would be 16.62 million/y.

 

Table 4/Loss from arbitrage

Drawn from distribution grid, MWh/y

60000

60000

Battery efficiency factor

1

0.7829

Charging cost, c/kWh

4

8

Charging cost, $/y

2400000

Discharging revenue, $/y

3757920

Arbitrage gain, $million/y

1.36

Arbitrage days

102

Amortizing allocation, $million/day

0.176

Amortizing allocation, $million/y

17.98

Loss from arbitrage

16.62

2) Gain from RNS and FCM Reduction

 

ISO-NE imposes charges on New England utilities for regional network services, RNS, and for forward capacity market, FCM.

RNS charges are based on a utility’s peak demand of each month; 12 readings by ISO-NE

FCM charges are based on a utility’s peak demand of each year; 1 reading by ISO-NE

 

The 750 MWh battery system could deliver 704.6 MWh to the distribution grid (see table 3)

 

The batteries would reduce the 704.6 MWh to 551.6 MWh.

 

Assume the utility could estimate the hour when peak demand would occur, then 551.6 MW of NE grid load reduction would occur.

 

Instead of a peak load of 900 MW, the load during late-afternoon/early-evening, as “seen” by ISO-NE, would become 900 – 551.6 = 384.4 MW.

 

The 384.4 MW would become the basis for ISO-NE to determine RNS and FCM charges for a utility.

 

If these charges would total $100 million/y with 900 MW peak load, i.e., without batteries, they would become, with batteries, about 384.4/900 x 100 = $38.71 million/y.

 

The allocated amortizing cost would be $2.29 million/y.

Gain from RNS + FCM reduction would be $36.42 million/y

 

NOTE: The above could be achieved, if only one richer New England state would install $750 million of battery systems.

If all six states did this, ISO-NE would merely increase the rates, because its costs to operate the New England grid would not have decreased.

 

NOTE: ISO-NE costs likely would have increased, because of the cost of increased grid augmentation/extension to connect wind and solar systems, and the payments to owners of CCGT plants to perform a part of the counteracting of wind and solar output variations, especially during extreme conditions, such as 5 to 7-day wind/solar lulls that occur throughout the year in New England.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

Table 5/ Gain from RNS + FCM reduction

 

Drawn from distribution grids, MWh

704.6

Battery efficiency

0.7829

Fed to distr. grid, MWh

551.6

Demand before batteries, as "seen" by ISO-NE

900

Demand after batteries, as "seen" by ISO-NE

348.4

RNS + FCM, before batteries, $million/y

100.0

RNS + FCM, after batteries, $million/y

38.71

Measurement days/y

13

Amortizing allocation, $million/day

0.18

Amortizing allocation, $million/y

2.29

Gain from RNS + FCM reduction, $million/y

36.42

 

3) Loss from DUCK-curve Elimination

 

The electricity production of 1000 MW DC of solar systems would be 1000 x 8766 x 0.145 = 1271070 MWh/y

Assume 10% passes through the battery systems, or 127070 MWh/y

Battery loss is 21.71%

Electricity loss is 27595 MWh/y

Vermont net-metered solar fed to the battery systems costs about 20 c/kWh

Cost of battery loss would be $5.52 million/y

Table 6 shows the results for 250 days.

The allocated amortizing cost would be $44.07 million/y.

Loss from DUCK-curve elimination would be $49.59 million/y

 

Table 6/Loss from DUCK-curve elimination

 

Solar system capacity, MW DC

1000

Capacity factor

0.145

Hours/y

8766

Production, MWh/y

1271070

Throughput from DUCK-curves, %

10

Throughput from DUCK-curves, MWh/y

127107

Battery loss, %, see table 1

21.71

Electricity loss, MWh/y

27595

If net-metered solar fed to batteries, c/kWh

20

Loss from DUCK-curve elimination, $million/y

5.52

Amortizing allocation, days/y

250

Amortizing cost, $million/d

0.18

Amortizing loss, $/y

44.07

Loss from DUCK-curve elimination

49.59

 

Summary of Gains and Losses

Table 7 shows, RNS and FCM reduction is profitable, because the allocated amortizing cost is $2.29 million/y, to provide a gain of $31.05 million/y.

However, that situation would be true, if the other two functions were operating as well, to allow allocating amortizing cost to those functions. But those functions would not operate, because they would operate at a loss!!

Owners of solar systems would have to be charged at least $49.59 million/y, or $49.59 million/127107 MWh (throughput) = 39 c/kWh, for "taming" their DUCK-curves. That would be off-the-charts uneconomical, i.e., not viable.

 

Table 7/Summary of gains and losses

 $million

Loss from arbitrage

-16.62

Gain from RNS and FCM reduction

31.07

Loss of DUCK-curve elimination

-49.59

Summary of gains and losses

-35.14

Battery throughput

167159

Battery operating cost, ($35.14 million/167,159,000)

21.0

NOTE: The 21.0 c/kWh excludes all other costs, such as O&M, etc.

 

NOTE: The cost should be compared to this alternative.

At present, New England utilities are buying electricity from owners of existing low-cost, near-zero-CO2 nuclear plants, and low-cost, low-CO2, very-clean-burning (compared to coal and wood) CCGT plants, for about 5 c/kWh, equivalent to the NE annual average wholesale price, starting in 2009.

 

NOTE: The turnkey capital cost of 1000 MW DC of field-mounted solar systems is about $3.5 billion, at current prices, which likely will not significantly decrease in the future. 

NOTE: The solar systems would require about $750 million of battery systems to eliminate the DUCK-curves, and perform other tasks. See table 3.

 

NOTE: A part of the capital amortization and other costs, such as O&M, should be charged to solar system owners, because they (and wind turbine system owners) are the disturbers of the distribution grids.

 

NOTE: The EIA graph, based on surveys of battery system users, shows slowly decreasing costs after 2018, that appear to approach a minimum of $450/kWh, delivered as AC, by about 2025.

It appears, the range of values likely would become $900/kWh to 450/kWh in 2025.

The values would be near the high end of the range in New England.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45596

NOTE: Various financial services entities, such as Bloomberg and Lazard, issue reports that project lower battery system costs/kWh as AC, than the EIA, likely to hype their financial services business interests. It would be best to ignore those reports.

 

Table 8/Battery system turnkey cost

Range

Average

Year

 $/kWh as AC

 $/kWh as AC

2015

 2500 to 1750

 2152

2016

 2800 to 750

 1250

2017

 1500 to 700

 800

2018

 1250 to 500

 625

2025

 900 to 450

 500

 

APPENDIX 1

 

ECONOMICS OF UTILITY-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS FOR DUCK-CURVES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-utility-s...

 

THE VAGARIES OF SOLAR IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

COST SHIFTING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME REGARDING WIND AND SOLAR

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

BURNING WOOD IS NOT RENEWABLE BY A LONG SHOT

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

NEW ENGLAND IS THE LEAST FAVORABLE FOR PV SOLAR, except areas near rainy Seattle

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-is-the-leas...

 

WORLD AND US TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

 

VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

VERMONT IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET REGARDING FOOLISH ENERGY SYSTEMS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hel...

 

THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT A DECADES-LONG BURDEN ON VERMONT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

VERMONT SOLAR MARKET PATHWAYS REPORT BASED ON OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-solar-market-pa...

 

THE PROPER BASIS FOR CALCULATING CO2 OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

 

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-compa...

 

VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF ASHPs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK REPORT TO REDUCE CO2 IN VERMONT

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/response-to-energy-acti...

 

FORTRESS VERMONT, A MULTI-BILLION BOONDOGGLE FOISTED ONTO RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mult...

 

Views: 613

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 6, 2020 at 11:48am

TRUMP: ‘They Cheated And They Rigged Our Presidential Election But We Will Still Win It’

https://www.infowars.com/posts/trump-they-cheated-and-they-rigged-o...

Comment by Kenneth Capron on December 1, 2020 at 1:26am

Here in the Portland area we are lucky to have a potential storage option for solar energy. Using a frozen air energy storage system with the empty oil storage tank farms in SoPo, we can easily convert daytime solar generation into night time energy generation.

You couldn't pay me enough to use batteries - they are unreliable, dangerous and a recycling nightmare.

Comment by Lynn Oleum on November 30, 2020 at 5:34pm

A few days' storage is not nearly enough. Various analyses have concluded that 400-800 watt hours' storage per average watt of wind+solar capacity are necessary to provide firm power (99.97% available is the industry definition). These calculations were done for average years. When the next supervolcano erupts, as Tambora did in 1815, and gave the Earth a "year without a summer," even 800 watt hours' storage will not be nearly enough.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on November 30, 2020 at 3:30am

"There are times that God calls upon men to act with great heroism"

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-29-situation-update-nov-29th-30...

Lt. General Michael Flynn in his first interview following his pardon on November 25:

1. China is behind the election fraud

2. Trump's chances of being sworn in as president on a 1-10 scale is 10.

3. The "Kraken" released by Sidney Powell is the nickname of the 305th battalion, a military intelligence battalion.

4. This battalion has now seized servers which tabulated and altered votes in our election; the servers seized were located in Germany

5. When asked in the interview if the raid to seize the servers went without incident, he replied it was WITH incident and that he believed American troops were killed

6. He advised that the raid on the servers in Germany took place in a CIA facility

The interview is on video at the following weblinks:

https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/wvw-tv-exclusive-lt-gener...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFyUBwAMoA

Comment by Willem Post on November 19, 2020 at 5:11am

Kenneth,

Here is some additional information.

APPENDIX 1

ECONOMICS OF UTILITY-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS FOR DUCK-CURVES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-utility-s...

 

APPENDIX 2

THE VAGARIES OF SOLAR IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

APPENDIX 3

COST SHIFTING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME REGARDING WIND AND SOLAR

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

APPENDIX 4

BURNING WOOD IS NOT RENEWABLE BY A LONG SHOT

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

APPENDIX 5

NEW ENGLAND IS THE LEAST FAVORABLE FOR PV SOLAR, except areas near rainy Seattle

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-is-the-leas...

 

Comment by Kenneth Capron on November 19, 2020 at 12:28am

So you are saying that solar is inherently inefficient?
Now if you factor in the energy used in construction of panels, purifying the silicon et al, AND the energy used in recycling the silicon, the returns diminish rapidly.

Right now, an form of battery storage is going to be inefficient. Size = cost.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service