Comments - ANALYSIS OF A 6-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL DURING SUMMER IN NEW ENGLAND - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-28T09:27:50Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A164419&xn_auth=noThe Hornsdale Power Reserve b…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-04-09:4401701:Comment:1648452019-04-09T07:11:27.357ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>The Hornsdale Power Reserve battery system also serves to:<br></br><br></br></p>
<p>- Mitigate the effects of load-shedding blackouts and<br></br>- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.</p>
<p>- In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about 56 million Euros, about US$ 66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of…</p>
<p>The Hornsdale Power Reserve battery system also serves to:<br/><br/></p>
<p>- Mitigate the effects of load-shedding blackouts and<br/>- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.</p>
<p>- In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about 56 million Euros, about US$ 66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of the system on a 10-acre site.<br/><br/><a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a" target="_blank">https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a</a>...<br/><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm</a></p>
<p><a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-true-cost-of-tesla-big-battery-and-its-government-contract-66888/" target="_blank">https://reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-true-cost-of-tesla-big-battery-and-its-government-contract-66888/</a></p> The Tesla Powerpack 2 system…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-04-06:4401701:Comment:1650042019-04-06T22:09:03.306ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><em>The Tesla Powerpack 2 system in Australia, the largest in the world, has a rated capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh; delivered as AC should be added, if known. The battery system feeds AC electricity to the high voltage grid or absorbs electricity from the grid to:<br></br><br></br>- Smoothen the variable output of the nearby 315 MW French-owned wind turbine system to minimize it “upsetting” the high voltage grid. Synchronous-condenser systems perform a similar function.<br></br>- Prevent load-shedding…</em></p>
<p><em>The Tesla Powerpack 2 system in Australia, the largest in the world, has a rated capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh; delivered as AC should be added, if known. The battery system feeds AC electricity to the high voltage grid or absorbs electricity from the grid to:<br/><br/>- Smoothen the variable output of the nearby 315 MW French-owned wind turbine system to minimize it “upsetting” the high voltage grid. Synchronous-condenser systems perform a similar function.<br/>- Prevent load-shedding blackouts and<br/>- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about 56 million Euros, about US$ 66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of the system on a 10-acre site.<br/><br/><a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-australia-just-weeks-old-is-already-responding-to-outages-in-record-time/">https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a...</a><br/><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-true-cost-of-tesla-big-battery-and-its-government-contract-66888/" target="_blank">https://reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-true-cost-of-tesla-big-battery-and-its-government-contract-66888/</a></em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em>It serves to stabilize/smooth the variable output of a nearby French wind turbine plant, and to perform regulation of the grid. Its capacity is at least 50 times too small for any significant electricity shifting from one period to a later period.</em></p> TLAM
Thank you for pointing t…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-04-06:4401701:Comment:1647002019-04-06T13:35:22.047ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>TLAM</p>
<p>Thank you for pointing that out.</p>
<p>I made the following comment on What is Up with That.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Rud,<br></br>You are quite correct to specify batteries as 100 MW/129 MWh. One without the other makes no sense.<br></br>Prices of batteries is one thing, turnkey capital cost is another.<br></br>Musk had to airship to Australia the entire Tesla supply by plane to make tight schedules.<br></br>Various capital costs were bandied about.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The Tesla Powerpack 2 system in…</p>
<p>TLAM</p>
<p>Thank you for pointing that out.</p>
<p>I made the following comment on What is Up with That.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Rud,<br/>You are quite correct to specify batteries as 100 MW/129 MWh. One without the other makes no sense.<br/>Prices of batteries is one thing, turnkey capital cost is another.<br/>Musk had to airship to Australia the entire Tesla supply by plane to make tight schedules.<br/>Various capital costs were bandied about.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The Tesla Powerpack 2 system in Australia, the largest in the world, has a rated capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh (delivered as AC should be added, if that is known). The battery system feeds AC electricity to the high voltage grid or absorbs electricity from the grid to:<br/> <br/>- Smoothen the variable output of the nearby 315 MW French-owned wind turbine system to minimize it “upsetting” the high voltage grid. Synchronous-condenser systems perform a similar function.<br/>- Prevent load-shedding blackouts and<br/>- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.</p>
<p><br/>In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about US $66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of the system on a 10-acre site.<br/> <br/><a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-australia-just-weeks-old-is-already-responding-to-outages-in-record-time/" target="_blank">https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-australia-just-weeks-old-is-already-responding-to-outages-in-record-time/</a><br/><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>The FP&L system will be 409 MW/900 MWh, i.e., 900/129 = 6.98 larger than Hornsdale (delivered as AC should be added, if that is known).</p>
<p>In 2020, the TURNKEY capital cost of the batteries will be about 900,000 kWh x $450/kWh = $360 million, to be amortized over 15 years.<br/>In 2020, the turnkey cost of the new CCGT plants will be about 1778 MW x $1.25 million/MW = $2223 million, to be amortized over 35 to 40 years.<br/>In 2020, the turnkey cost of the new solar plants will be about 74.5 MW x 2 x $2.5 million/MW = $372.5 million, to be amortized over 25 years.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"It will have 409 MW and be able to produce 900 MWh of energy from FPL’s adjacent Manatee solar farm and another (of equal size) to be built nearby. It will provide clean, cost effective electricity."</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) The battery will NOT be able to PRODUCE anything. It only charges, stores and discharges.<br/>2) Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC to high voltage AC basis, i.e., it CONSUMES a lot of electricity.<br/>3) Parish’s existing, 50-y old, inefficient plants, 1618 MW, will be demolished. On the cleared site will be the new batteries.<br/>4) New, 55%-efficient, gas-fired CCGT plants, 1778 MW, will be built at Lake Okeechobee. THEIR OUTPUT WILL MORE THAN REPLACE THE DEMOLISHED PLANTS.<br/>5) The Manatee solar farm, and the nearby one, now under construction, are 74.5 MW each, area required about 1043 acres, at 7 acre/MW. <br/>6) Production of both solar plants = 74.5 MW x 2 x 8766 h/y x 0.19, capacity factor = 248,165 MWh per YEAR. <br/>7) The output of the solar plants will be minimal at 8 AM, maximal at noon-time, and minimal about 5 PM.<br/>8) During mid-day, electricity is fed into the battery at the ALLOWED battery feed in rate, and no higher. <br/>9) During evening, electricity is discharged from the battery at the ALLOWED discharge rate and no higher.</p>
<p>10) Whereas, the capacity is 900 MWh (delivered as AC should be added, if that is known), their maximum charge likely will be at most 60% of that, i.e., 540 MWh. That means 540 MWh/0.96 = 563 MWh enters the battery as DC from the solar plants. Their maximum discharge likely will be at most 540 x 0.96 = 518.4 MWh as DC, or 492 MWh as low voltage AC, or 483 MWh as high voltage AC.</p>
<p>11) It is glaringly obvious, the battery coupled to solar plants has major losses.</p> Speaking of batteries, here's…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-04-05:4401701:Comment:1648322019-04-05T23:19:59.259ZThinklike A. Mountainhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/ThinklikeAMountain
<p>Speaking of batteries, here's an article I just came across.</p>
<h1 class="entry-title">Grid Scale Battery Nonsense 2019</h1>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-2019/" target="_blank">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-2019/</a></p>
<p>Speaking of batteries, here's an article I just came across.</p>
<h1 class="entry-title">Grid Scale Battery Nonsense 2019</h1>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-2019/" target="_blank">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-2019/</a></p> They likely graduated, but no…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-04-04:4401701:Comment:1644782019-04-04T15:01:11.636ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>They likely graduated, but not in energy systems analysis.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In fact, nearly all of them NEVER analyzed any energy systems, and likely could not compare one versus another.</p>
<p></p>
<p>They rely on self-serving, pre-selected lobbying groups to plead their cases for subsidies/favorable treatment in front of committees, that are loaded with do-gooding folks eager to please their constituents and get re-elected.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Here is a brief write up on heat pumps, which have…</p>
<p>They likely graduated, but not in energy systems analysis.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In fact, nearly all of them NEVER analyzed any energy systems, and likely could not compare one versus another.</p>
<p></p>
<p>They rely on self-serving, pre-selected lobbying groups to plead their cases for subsidies/favorable treatment in front of committees, that are loaded with do-gooding folks eager to please their constituents and get re-elected.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Here is a brief write up on heat pumps, which have been hyped top the hills, but are useless in energy hog houses.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Vermont Mix House</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>“Vermont mix houses” (a mix of older and newer houses) are energy hogs. They would have a high peak heating demand during colder winter days, which makes them <strong>unsuitable </strong>for heat pumps. In this article a “Vermont mix house” is assumed to be a 2000 sq ft house requiring about 64000 Btu/h at -20F outdoors and 65F indoors.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>At 0F and below, the hourly cost of heating a “Vermont mix house” with heat pumps + fuel oil back-up system is higher than with <strong>only </strong>a fuel oil back-up system. See table 2A</p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>Heat pumps used in a “Vermont mix house” would <strong>displace only about 32% </strong>of the fossil Btus, which would provide <strong>inadequate </strong>energy cost savings and CO2 emissions reduction. See table 3</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Highly Insulated/Highly Sealed House</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>“</strong>HI/HS houses” likely would have R20 basements, R40 walls, R60 roofs, R7 triple pane windows, R8 insulated doors, and less than 1.0 ACH @ 50 Pascal. See below Blower Door Test. They would have a low peak heating demand during colder winter days, which makes them <strong>suitable </strong>for heat pumps. In this article an “HI/HS house” is assumed to be a 2000 sq ft house requiring about 17045 Btu/h at -20F outdoors and 65F indoors.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>At 0F and below, the hourly cost of heating an “HI/HS house” with <strong>only </strong>heat pumps is higher than with <strong>only </strong>a fuel oil back-up system.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Heat pumps used in an “HI/HS house” would <strong>displace 100% </strong>of the fossil Btus, which would provide <strong>adequate </strong>energy cost savings and CO2 emissions reduction. See table 3</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Such houses likely would have a propane-fired stove (thermostat-operated/no electricity), but not a much more expensive fuel oil system, in case of a power failure. See table 2B and Appendix</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Blower Door Test</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>A blower door test is performed to determine the air in-leakage rate of a house, in air changes per hour, ACH, at a negative pressure of 50 Pascal. A door with an integral blower is mounted in an existing door opening. The blower sucks air from the house until the pressure in the house is 50 Pascal below ambient. The air in-leakage rate is measured in cubic foot per hour. The total volume of the house, including attic and basement, is calculated in cubic foot. Air in-leakage rate/house volume = ACH.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Peak Space Heating Demands of Various Houses </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Typical space heating demands of 2000 ft2, freestanding houses are shown in table 5. It is abundantly clear only "HI/HS houses" are suitable for 100% heating with air source heat pumps. All the rest of the houses are unsuitable. The peak heating demands are too high.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All of this has been known for about 20 years, so it should not be a surprise to find owners who installed heat pumps in their typical, energy-hog houses to reduce their energy bills, end up having no or minimal <strong>energy </strong>cost savings, as was found by this Vermont Department of Public Service study.</p>
<p><a href="https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/Reports/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf" target="_blank">https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/Reports/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Passivhaus, the Gold Standard: </strong>Passivhaus, 2000 ft2, heating demand 10 W/m2 x 186 m2 = 1.86 kW, or 6,348 Btu/h, or <strong>3.2 Btu/ft2/h. </strong>A 2 kW, thermostatically controlled, electric heater in the air supply duct system <strong>could </strong>be the heating system!! The Passivhaus standard dates from the mid 1980s.</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Table 5/Vermont</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Area</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Heating Demand</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Peak Demand</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Air Leakage</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">ACH</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>House type</p>
</td>
<td><p> </p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Btu/ft2/h</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Btu/h</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Ft3/minute</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">@ 50 pascal</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Typical older house</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>45 – 55</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>80,000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>2133</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">8.0, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Newer house, last 20 years</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>20 – 25</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>48,000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>1040</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">3.9, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>“Vermont mix house”</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>33 - 40</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>64,000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>1587</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">6.0, or higher</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>“HI/HS house”, last 10 years</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>8.5</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>17,045</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>650</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1.5, max</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>“HI/HS house”, last 10 years</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1232</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>8.5</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>10,500</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>400</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1.5, max</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Passivhaus</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>3.2</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p><span> </span>6,348</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>160</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">0.6, max</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>VT-DPS Survey of Owners with Heat Pumps</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>The VT-DPS survey showed heat pumps are operated only a few hours at 0F and below, i.e., almost all owners are relying on <strong>only</strong> their back-up systems on cold days. See figure 14 of URL</p>
<p><a href="https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/Reports/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf" target="_blank">https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/Reports/Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf</a></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>The <strong>surveyed</strong> Vermont houses with heat pumps likely are slightly better insulated and sealed than the “Vermont mix” house, i.e., they would have greater than 32% of fossil Btu displacement.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The CEP projects about 80% to 90% fossil Btu displacement by 2050, which clearly is an impossibility without building thousands of NEW HI/HS buildings per year all over Vermont to <strong>replace </strong>energy-hog buildings, PLUS “deep retrofitting” almost all of the remaining buildings. See Appendix.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Here are some heat pump articles</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims-about-cold-climate-heat-pumps-for" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims-about-cold-climate-heat-pumps-for</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding-heat-pumps-in-vermont-and-maine</a></p>
<p><span><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-oversold-by-efficiency-vermont-and-ev-approved" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-oversold-by-efficiency-vermont-and-ev-approved</a></span></p> Kinda makes me wonder if any…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-04-03:4401701:Comment:1646292019-04-03T21:59:19.481ZPenny Grayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/PennyGray
<p>Kinda makes me wonder if any of the folks steering the renewables boat graduated from high school.</p>
<p>Kinda makes me wonder if any of the folks steering the renewables boat graduated from high school.</p>