The Home-Based Battery Storage, a Fantasy of Non-Technical Woke Folks

According to a recent article published in The Conversation, installing millions of storage batteries distributed through the grid -- in homes, businesses, and local communities – coupled with wind and solar generation, can avoid investments in new transmission infrastructure.

.

But unless installing those batteries is accompanied by physically disconnecting from the grid, or consumers are willing to forgo reliable electricity, this claim is yet another example of electricity “magical thinking.”

.

.

Electricity customers, both residential and industrial, need to be aware of this home-based battery storage fantasy.

.

First, batteries store electricity; they don’t generate it.

But the move towards electrifying the U.S. motor vehicle fleet, along with electrifying space and water heating, will double electricity consumption.

Although some of the additional electricity needed may come from distributed sources such as rooftop solar, green energy advocates claim that most of the needed electricity will be generated at large-scale wind and solar facilities located far from cities and towns.

.

The article also claims, “[w]e could get by with fewer transmission lines if we store more solar and wind power for later.”

But delivering the additional electricity needed will require building new transmission lines, regardless of how much battery storage is installed in homes and in local communities.

Moreover, local distribution systems—the poles and wires running down streets—will also have to be upgraded to handle the additional loads.

Second, the costs of building sufficient battery capacity (to say nothing of the costs of additional wind and solar generation) to ensure homes and local communities do not suffer from extended blackouts will be prohibitive.

.

The numbers tell the story.

.

In the U.S., a typical residential household consumes around 10,800 kWh annually, or about 30 kWh per day. Of course, the amount varies depending on the size of home, the region of the country, and the season of the year. With electrified space and water heat, some regions of the country where electricity demand now peaks in summer will see demand peak in winter, while existing winter-peaking regions will see winter demand spike even further.

According to a U.S. Department of Energy model, a heat pump in a typical home will consume about 5,500 kWh annually.

That alone represents a 50% increase in electricity use.

Charging a typical EV adds another 4,300 kWh annually.

In total, those will add almost 10,000 kWh of consumption annually, roughly doubling current consumption to about 60 kWh per day, although the increase will be greatest in winter when heating loads peak.

.

Supplying the additional electricity while ensuring the same level of service reliability (i.e., no outages or limiting consumers’ access to electricity, because of insufficient supplies) will require enough battery storage to provide electricity at night and over multi-day periods when there is little wind and sun available to recharge those batteries.

Although the article recommends using consumers’ EVs to supply electricity, few consumers will likely wish to wake up to an uncharged EV and an inability to travel, especially if there is no stored electricity available to recharge their EVs.

.

Using the U.S. consumption averages, if existing local distribution systems can serve today’s average load of 30 kWh/day, then enough battery storage must be built to supply the remaining 30 kWh. and, more importantly, the peak power demand of electric heat pumps and EV chargers.

A typical Level 2 home EV charger, for example, can draw 20 kilowatts (kW). A heat pump can draw 7 kW.

.

The largest Tesla Powerwall, which is designed for home use, provides a maximum of 11.5 kW of power and 13.5 kWh of storage under ideal conditions. (When temperatures fall, so does battery capacity and efficiency.)

Hence, at least three Powerwall units would be required to provide a typical home with sufficient electricity to supplement existing grid capacity. For one million homes, that means three million Powerwall units providing a maximum of 40.5 million kWh (40,500 megawatt-hours) of battery storage.

At a cost of around $12,000 installed, that translates into a cost of $36,000 per home.

The U.S. has over 80 million single-family homes and over 130 million dwelling units.

Hence, 240 million Powerwall units would be required just for single-family homes, costing almost $3 trillion. .

.

By comparison, Tesla’s current manufacturing capacity is 700,000 units per year.

Thus, outfitting all single-family homes with them would require almost 350 years of Powerwall production. The minerals requirements would also be staggering and would require mining billions of tons of ore for the necessary lithium, copper, cobalt, and other metals.

.

In theory, an electric system could be designed to provide reliable service using wind, solar, and battery storage.

However, in reality, huge investments would still be required in new transmission and distribution lines, regardless of how many storage batteries are installed. It would also be ruinously expensive.

.

Ignoring physical and economic realities may be fashionable among non-technical people, but reality always wins in the long run.

.

The electric grid and its components form a complex system which most of us take for granted, which enable misleading claims regarding the simplicity of electrifying everything and powering it all almost exclusively with wind, solar, and batteries.

Electric utilities and planners can provide a public service by explaining why this scenario, given today’s technology, isn’t possible.

Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, and the president of Continental Economics.

Additional Information

.

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

.

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://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2022-03-21_15-28-46.png?itok=lxTa2SlF

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars

. 

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-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

. 

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 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 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.

. 

A Wind/Solar Lull Lasting One Day in Winter in New England

. 

If such a W/S lull occurs, batteries will make up the electricity shortfall

. 

We assume, decades from 2024, NE has installed, at great capital cost:

. 

60,000 MW of unreliable, variable solar, which produce an annual average of 8700 MW, at capacity factor = 0.145

60,000 MW of unreliable, variable, onshore and offshore wind, which produce an annual average of 21000 MW, at CF = 0.35

120,000 MW of W/S providing an annual average of 8700 + 21000 = 29700 MW throughout the year

. 

Fed to New England grid is 125 billion kWh/y, an average of power level of 14260 MW

That means the output of the 120,000 MW of W/S systems has an 29700/14260 = 108% overbuild, which requires curtailments.

This analysis shows, the 108% W/S overbuild likely is not adequate to recharge batteries after a one-day lull

. 

We assume,

. 

- During a W/S lull, the production will be only 10% of these values during winter, which frequently has days with very little wind, and snow on most panels

- Average electricity fed to the grid is 21000 MW (about 8% more than user demand due to grid losses), on a January day

- Average W/S output fed to the grid is 0.1 x (21000 + 8700) = 2,970 MW

- W/S power shortfall is 21000 - 2970 = 18,030 MW  

- W/S energy shortfall is 24 x (21000 - 2970) = 432,720 MWh

. 

Batteries are rated to provide a level of power for a period of time, or MW/MWh, delivered as AC

Our battery rating is at least 18030 MW / (432720 MWh/0.6), delivered as AC

. 

There are Tesla design factors that reduce rating, but we will ignore them, for simplicity.

Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full, and not discharging to less than 20% full
That means the recommended maximum delivered energy, MWh, is 0.6 of rating.

. 

We assume the battery is 75% full, at start of lull, and is drawn down to 15% full, in 24 hours, i.e., 0.6 of energy is drawn out of the battery, as AC, if we are lucky.

But that withdrawal must be reduced by 9%, due to battery loss, DC/AC loss, step-up transformer loss

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

. 

NOTE: 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...

. 

Battery System Loss: 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 have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.

 .

Capital Cost: All-in, turnkey capital cost of Tesla, Megapack-based system = 432720 / (0.6 x 0.92) x 1000 kWh/MWh x $575/delivered kWh as AC, 2023 pricing = $456 billion.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

Double that amount, if the W/S lull lasts two days.

. 

In addition, the Megapacks must be arranged to provide at least 18,030 MW, for the power shortfall, as above calculated

. 

W/S lulls of 5 to 7 days are not uncommon in New England, throughout the year

Dealing with such multi-day lulls will require batteries costing about $2,279 billion to $3,190 billion, just for New England!

. 

Remember, these battery systems last only about 15 years, and age at about 1.5%/y during that time, if properly operated. Aging increases the loss percent, and reduces the delivered electricity quantity. This analysis ignored aging 

. 

The recurring replacement cost, about every 15 years, would bankrupt New England

. 

Those capital costs can be reduced by extreme “demand management”, including rolling blackouts and complete blackouts, often practiced in Third World countries.

Imports from nearby states is not an option, as those states face similar wind/solar/battery challenges.

. 

NOTE: Until about 2020, various people claimed future utility-grade battery system costs will be as low as $250/delivered kWh

During 2021, 2022, 2023, Tesla, Megapack-based, battery-system turnkey costs have been increasing to about $575/delivered kWh

. 

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.

.

Recharging the Batteries 

.

There must be enough W/S capacity, MW, plus favorable wind and solar conditions for several days, to recharge the batteries to about 75% full, in anticipation of a second lull, which could happen a few days after the first lull.

. 

During charging, the W/S systems have two tasks: 1) to produce 21000 MW to serve the assumed demand, 2) to produce 9000 MW to charge the batteries, while they perform normal battery services, such as:

. 

1) Counteracting the W/S-up/down output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 

2) Providing electricity during low-W/S periods (such as minor lulls), and during high-W/S periods, when wind turbine rotors are feathered and locked.

. 

We optimistically assume “3 windy/sunny days immediately after the lull” (fingers crossed) to increase the W/S output from an average of 2970 MW (during the lull) to a 3-day average of 30000 MW (the annual average is 29700 MW), which is 9000 MW in excess of the assumed 21000 MW demand.

.

W/S electricity available from HV grid for charging is 9000 MW x 72 h = 648000 MWh, which loads 0.9 x 648000 = 583200 into the battery, which provides 0.9 x 583200 = 524,880 MWh to the HV grid

. 

This analysis ignored these two losses:

Loss for W/S system self-use, about 1 - 2% of annual production, measured at a user meter, times 1.08 for HV and distribution grid losses

Loss from W/S systems to user meter, via HV and distribution grids, about 8% of annual production

.

With our optimistic assumption of “3 windy/sunny days immediately after the lull”, the MWh fed to HV grid is 21% greater than the W/S shortfall of 432,720 MWh

. 

However, if losses are applied, and if the assumed “3 windy/sunny days” were less robust, significant additional W/S systems and grid reinforcement/extension will be required, i.e., the current 108% W/S overbuild likely is not adequate

.

After having the above realities explained to them, most rational people likely would come to the conclusion, the wind/solar/battery/EV, heat pump, etc., route will lead to bankruptcy.

.

.

Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions by US-EIA

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to exist on the grid.

.

With increased W/S percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny.

.

Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 15 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies

.

The LCOE adders, for below items 2 through 5, are minimal until about 8% W/S on the grid, and become exponentially greater, with increased W/S on the grid

..

The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

.

Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

 

High Costs/kWh of Offshore Wind

Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems, and forcing utilities to pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind systems, is suicidal economic insanity.

. 

Excluded costs, at a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level: 

.

1) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers, about 2 c/kWh

2) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh 

3) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked, to provide the electricity not produced by W/S systems, to meet demand, about 2 c/kWh.

4) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced, about 1 c/kWh

5) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries, about 2 c/kWh. See image.

.