Massachusetts Wokaholics Hell-Bent on Buying 5,000 MW of Batteries Will Further Impoverish the State for Decades

Massachusetts Wokaholics Hell-Bent on Buying 5,000 MW of Batteries Will Further Impoverish the State for Decades

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/massachusetts-woke-fol...

by Willem Post

.

First of, that Massachusetts bill is total bull manure, because no offshore more windmills will be built on the East Coast, American Gulf, and West Coast, so these batteries are not needed

I am totally astounded at the lack of knowledge of educated people who write about battery systems.

Legislators, who act like babes in the woods looking for the Abominable Snowman, should have no voice regarding energy systems

The INSTALLED CAPACITY is defined as “MW/MWh, delivered as AC at battery system outlet voltage”, which is what you see in a field, plus you see a whole lot of other equipment to support a large battery installation.

.

Massachusetts Electricity

Massachusetts had a population of 7 million in 2023, that consumed 55.3 billion kWh/y, or an annual average of 6308 MWh/h

.

Battery System Turnkey Capital Cost and Power Supply Duration

Most recently installed battery systems are 4-hour systems, per US EIA, which means Massachusetts will be buying 5,000 MW/20,000 MWh

We assume this capacity will be in 100 locations, each 50 MW/200 MWh

The turnkey capital cost for each location will be about 200,000 kWh x $600/kWh = $120 million, or $12 billion at all locations, 2024 pricing 

The actual visual capacity is greater, because Tesla uses derating factors to account for internal losses related to connecting many modules.

Those 100 battery systems would provide at most about (20,000 x 0.6) / 6308 = 1.9 hours of power to the Massachusetts grid, in case we relied 100% on wind and solar, and a major wind/solar lull would occur, which could last 5 to 7 days.

As They Say, the Devil is in the Details

Question 1: After the first lull has ended, and the wind/solar system output is sufficient to meet demand, what capacity of extra wind/solar systems would be needed to refill the battery systems within, say two or three days? 

Question 2: A multi-day lull is sometimes followed by another multi-day lull a few days later, as shown by weather data. Additional battery systems would be needed to provide power to the Massachusetts grid during that second lull.

.

APPENDIX 2

Below Article

I wrote the below article at least 5 years ago, BASED ON EIA ANNUAL SURVEY REPORTS OF ACTUAL BATTERY SYSTEMS.

Subsequently, the reports had their format changed so they became obscure/less useful.

I called the EIA about it but never got an answer.

With Trump in, I hope the stone-wallers/obfuscaters will be fired

.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

.

Battery System Limitations

Tesla recommends you do not discharge to less than 20% full and not charge to more than 80% full, to achieve 15 year life, that means 0.6 of installed capacity is the maximum you can use on a daily basis, and 24/7/365 service; that service is one-hell-of-a-lot-more severe than of an EV used a few hours per day.

Battery System Loss, A-to-Z basis 
The article shows about 100 x 0.17125/0.14555 = 17.7%, plus 2 - 4% = 20 - 22% (see Note) more electricity needs to be drawn from the HV grid as AC to charge the battery systems to about 80% full (preferably many days before any wind/solar lull starts), than is fed to the HV grid as AC, by discharge from the battery system to about 20% full; that loss percentage increases with aging.

NOTE: Other losses are 1) thermal management (HVAC) of batteries and enclosures, 2) control and monitoring, 3) site lighting, O&M, surveillance. Those losses, usually not mentioned, add about 2 – 4% to the system losses; more in cold and hot climates.

.

Here are the major loss factors:

.

1) AC electricity from distribution, or high-voltage grid, via step-down transformer to battery voltage, loss about 1%
2) Through front-end power electronics from AC to DC
3) Charge added to battery
4) Discharge from battery
5) Through back-end power electronics to DC, which is digitized to a sine wave, with same phase and 60-cycle frequency as the grid
6) AC electricity to distribution or HV grid, via step-up transformer, loss about a 1%
. 
Round-trip loss about 20 - 22%, greater losses with battery system aging. See URL
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-inverters-work.html 

That means you need to draw at least 125 MWh as AC from the HV grid to have about 100 MWh delivered to the HV grid as AC, for a 20% loss; when new, the loss is less, when older, the loss is more, so 20% is an average.

Almost all battery systems have about 10% throughput or less, per EIA.
Four-hour battery systems used for midday solar peak shaving, with the electricity used during late- afternoon/early-evening peak hours, have at most a 40% throughput.

The above is a primer
More to follow

.

Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually is not made public, but for this system it was.

Neoen, in western Australia, has just turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia. 

Ultimately, it will be a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing.

Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh

.

Example of Turnkey Cost of Large-Scale, Megapack Battery System, 2023 pricing
The system consists of 50 Megapack 2, rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, 4-h energy delivery
Power = 50 Megapacks x 0.979 MW x 0.926, Tesla design factor = 45.3 MW
Energy = 50 Megapacks x 3.916 MWh x 0.929, Tesla design factor = 181.9 MWh
Estimate of supply by Tesla, $90 million, or $495/kWh. See URL
Estimate of supply by Others, $14.5 million, or $80/kWh
All-in, turnkey cost about $575/kWh; 2023 pricing
https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design

.

.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-c...
. 
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
. 
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. The excluded costs add at least 15 c/kWh.

.

COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down w/s outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh. 
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries

.

Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, which occur every day in California and other sunny states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-res...
. 
Regarding any project, the bank and Owner have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you draw about 125 units from the HV grid to deliver about 100 units to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.

.

NOTE: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.
. 
NOTE: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates.

.

BATTERIES IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT A ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL FOR A MERE $456 BILLION
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england

.

Currently, the variable output of wind and solar is counteracted by fossil-fired, CO2-emitting, quick-reacting power plants. Some people want to replace such power plants with large-scale battery systems to reduce CO2 emissions. This article presents an analysis that shows, using such batteries systems for counteracting, and storing electricity, even for one day, has a very high owning and operating cost, even with 50% subsidies.
. 
NE has variable weather conditions, with frequent periods of very little wind, even offshore, and very little sun, which means wind and solar power, already highly variable 24/7/365, is frequently minimal, throughout the year.
This analysis shows the cost of battery systems, if they are used to store electricity for a W/S-lull lasting one day. 
In this analysis, we ignore hydro, for simplicity.
. 
As part of our analysis, we assume, at some future date:
.
– CO2-emitting power plants will be shut down, such as fossil fuel, wood burning, refuse burning, etc.
– Nuclear plants, once shut down, will not be replaced
– Existing hydro plants, about 7% of NE annual generation, will remain.
– Wind and solar installed capacity, MW, will be sufficient to provide 100% of average daily demand each day of the year.
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix

.

NOTE: This analysis uses average values, for simplicity. A more exact analysis would use hourly or 15-minute values. Whereas it would be more difficult to understand by non-technical people, the outcome would be nearly the same.

Open top URL to read much more