Energy storage is growing in Maine, and utilities want to own it. Opponents are pushing back.
Energy storage at grid scale is a complete joke and pick pocketing of taxpayers and ratepayers. Concocting feckless grid scale storage in a futile attempt to compensate for wind's intermittency and unreliability is nothing more than having to tell a second lie to cover the first lie.
This bogus storage is brought to you by the same type of rent seeking huckster guilting you on carbon for drinking coffee or exhaling - all for the sake of "the planet". But they don't like to talk about the myriad of problems caused by the production and disposal of batteries.
January 29, 2024
Stephen Singer Press Herald
EXCERPTS
Battery storage that holds and releases solar and wind power when the sun won’t shine and a breeze doesn’t stir is drawing increased investment from developers as Maine tries to reach its clean energy goals.
The question of who can own energy storage is now before state regulators.
Central Maine Power and Versant Power have asked the Public Utilities Commission for permission to own battery storage, something that hasn’t been possible since the Legislature deregulated the utilities more than 25 years ago.
Critics are pushing back and urging regulators to reject the requests by the state’s two main utilities, which operate the transmission and distribution of electricity, and allow competitive energy storage markets to function undisturbed.
“Competition will be critical to fully leveraging the benefits and continued advances of energy storage technology for Maine ratepayers in the coming decades,” Competitive Energy Services, a Portland consulting business, told the PUC.
CMP’s request to the PUC is broad.
“Utilities should be permitted to own, have a financial interest in or otherwise control energy storage systems in order to perform its obligations as a transmission and distribution utility in an effective, prudent and efficient manner,” it said.
Utility investment in energy storage improves reliability and resiliency for customers and the grid, advances state policy goals and benefits customers with lower project costs due to CMP’s size and reach, it said.
Versant said utility ownership and operation of storage will be the “best and most cost-effective” way to operate the grid and benefit customers. It said it does not produce its own storage systems and in most cases would work with third parties, often competitively.
Legislation enacted last year directs the PUC to solicit comments on whether investor-owned utilities may own or have a financial interest in energy storage and if so........................................
..........................“Energy storage has capabilities and benefits that are different than, and far more flexible, than generation,” Versant said.
Critics disagree. The local Sierra Club chapter said in its filing with regulators that “energy storage systems of the type addressed by the PUC … are energy generation systems when needed for additional grid power, subject to recharge when not needed for that purpose.”.........................
.................Competitive Energy Services said it would be “prudent for the utility to directly control and operate” energy storage systems in “carefully prescribed” cases.
However, CES said energy storage is not needed to meet Maine’s renewable energy goals or ensure reliable operation of the state’s electricity supply mix. Instead, smart grid technology and targeted expansions of transmission will hit those targets, it said.
The energy storage market is drawing private investment, and state-sponsored development of energy storage systems is a waste of ratepayer money, CES said. In the meantime, it said, regulators should tell utilities that “further meddling and nonsense in this area will not be tolerated.”
https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/29/energy-storage-is-growing-an...
*************************************
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views: 68
Comment
-
Comment by Penny Gray on February 3, 2024 at 5:09pm
-
I couldn't read the full article but I assume they're talking battery storage and that truly is a pipe dream. Notice how they never do the math when discussing battery storage. Thank you, Willem Post, for filling in the blanks. On another note, Trump's speech was great.
-
-
Utilities want to own battery systems, because they provide 50% subsidies, including tax credits and depreciation write offs
-
Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on January 30, 2024 at 2:04pm
-
Trump's 10 Step Plan
If you did not see his speech on this, scroll to the 1 hour and eight minute mark and be sure to have popcorn. This speech had to have shaken up the creatures from the ooze at the swamp bottom.
-
-
Art,
Large-scale battery systems have heating and cooling systems to keep them at optimum temperatures, about 70 F
They are never too cold or too hot
-
Comment by Dan McKay on January 29, 2024 at 3:40pm
-
batteries wear out, water does not
-
Comment by Long Islander on January 29, 2024 at 1:42pm
-
The Daniel Johnson Dam at Art Brigade's link in the comments below looks pretty willing and able to moi.
-
-
BATTERIES IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT A ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL?
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
EXCERPT
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, at some future date, NE has installed:
60000 MW of solar, which produce an annual average of 8700 MWh/h, at capacity factor = 0.145
60000 MW of onshore and offshore wind, which produce an annual average of 21000 MWh/h, at CF = 0.35
During a W/S lull, we assume the production will be only 10% of these values during winter, which frequently has days with very little wind, and snow on most panels
We assume the average electricity fed to the grid is 21000 MW on a January day, and during that entire day the average W/S output fed to the grid is 0.1 x (21000 + 8700) = 2970 MW.
W/S electricity shortfall is 24 x (21000 - 2970) = 432720 MWh
Batteries are rated as providing a level of power for a period of time, or MW/MWh, delivered as AC
Our required battery capacity is (21000 - 2970) MW/(432720 MWh/0.49)
There are some system design factors that reduce rated capacity, 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 electricity is 0.6 of rated capacity.We assume the battery is 75% full, at start of lull, and is drawn down to 25% full, in 24 hours, i.e., 0.5 of rated capacity is drawn out of the battery, if we are lucky.
But that 0.5 “in battery” must be reduced by 1%, due to step-up transformer loss, i.e., 0.49 is fed to HV grid
NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve, in Australia. They had to add Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and decided to add more Megapacks to increase the rating of the system. In the article, the Hornsdale graph of operating conditions confirms:
1) The about 20% round-trip loss, explained below
2) The output reduction, due to rapid aging
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
That means, of the electricity taken from the HV grid, about 10% is lost to recharge the battery to desired levels, then, upon discharge, another 10% is lost, before feeding to the HV grid.
This article is a good source of information
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
Capital Cost: All-in, turnkey capital cost of Tesla, Megapack-based system = 432720/0.49 x 1000 kWh/MWh x $575/delivered kWh as AC, 2023 pricing = $508 billion
Double that amount, if the W/S lull lasts two days.
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 $2.5 to $3.6 trillion, just for 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
If that were still the case, the battery cost would be about $508 x 250/575 = $221 billion, for a one day lull
During 2021, 2022, 2023, Tesla, Megapack-based, battery-system turnkey costs have been increasing to about $575/delivered kWh
Because of continuing high inflation, high interest rates, high materials, energy and labor prices, etc., battery costs likely will not decrease for some years.
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
The recurring replacement cost, about every 15 years, will bankrupt New England
Recharging the Batteries: There must be enough W/S capacity, MW, plus favorable wind and solar conditions, to recharge the batteries to about 75% full, in 3 days, in anticipation of a second lull, which could happen a few days after the first lull.
The battery charging occurs, while the battery performs 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 assume weather conditions have significantly improved to increase the W/S output from 2970 MW (during the lull) to 30000 MW (immediately after the lull), which is 9000 MW in excess of the 21000 MW demand.
W/S electricity available from HV grid for charging is (30000 - 9000) MW x 72 h x 0.35 lifetime CF = 226800 MWh, which loads 0.9 x 226800 = 204120 into the battery, which provides 0.9 x 204120 = 183708 MWh to the HV grid
Even with our optimistic assumption of “3 windy/sunny days after the lull”, the MWh fed to HV grid is significantly less than the required 432720 MWh to recharge the battery
That means at least 432720/183708 = 2.4 times the 120,000 MW of W/S systems is required to recharge the battery in “3 windy/sunny days”, after a one-day lull
Most rational people have to come to the conclusion, the wind/solar/battery/EV, etc., route will lead to bankruptcy.
A much better approach would be, continue using our God-given abundance of fossil fuels, enjoy the beneficial aspects of increased CO2 (increased flora and fauna), while building more nuclear plants, which reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
NOTE: US leads call to triple nuclear power at COP28.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
-
Comment by Art Brigades on January 29, 2024 at 12:24pm
-
Big battery. Holds a charge even in the cold.
-
-
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
EXCERPT
Turnkey Capital Cost of Tesla-Megapack Battery Systems
Tesla is the world’s largest provider of lithium-ion battery systems, that include front-end power electronics, batteries, back-end power electronics, heating and cooling systems for batteries and enclosures
Megapack ratings, MW/MWh, increased from 2021, to 2022, to 2023
Megapack pricing varies due to market conditions
2021 pricing for a 10 Megapack system, 4-h delivery, with installation, about $10 million, or $328/kWh
2022 pricing for a 10 Megapack system, 4-h delivery, with installation, about $16 million, or $412/kWh
2023 pricing for a 10 Megapack system, 4-h delivery, with installation, about $19 million, or $487/kWh
Tesla Megapacks had a 487/328 = 48.5% price increase from 2021 to 2023
Connecting the Megapacks into a system incurs losses, which are represented by the “Tesla design factor”
After applying the factor, the above $/kWh is increased! See URLs and below examples.
https://electrek.co/2022/03/21/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-backlog-extends/
https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design
1) Example of Turnkey Cost of Large-Scale, Megapack Battery System, 2022 pricing
PG&E, a California utility, placed a battery system in operation at Moss Landing in April 2022
The system consists of 256 Megapacks, rated 182.5 MW/730 MWh, 4-h energy delivery.
Power = 256 Megapacks x 0.770 MW x 0.926, Tesla design factor = 182.5 MW
Energy = 256 Megapacks x 3.070 MWh x 0.929, Tesla design factor = 730 MWh
We assume $1.1 million/Megapack, because of large number of units
Estimated supply by Tesla, 256 Megapacks x $1.1 million = $282 million, or $386/kWh
Estimated supply by Ohers, $62/kWh
All-in, turnkey cost about $448/kWh; 2022 pricing
The primary purpose of this battery system is to absorb midday solar output bulges, and deliver about 80% of it during the peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening.
Any costs associated with battery systems are charged to ratepayers, taxpayers and added to government debt, i.e., not charged to Owners of solar systems, the grid disturbers.
https://www.10news.com/news/national/pg-es-tesla-megapack-battery-in-san-francisco-now-operational
2) 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.
NOTE: The 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 agingNOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
COMMENY ON CALCULATION
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investmentIf you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculationsRemember, 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.
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, which is a load of crap.
NOTE 1: 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 2: 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.
NOTE 3: If a 24-h system is desired, each parallel train would have 10 units x 4 h/unit x 0.6, Tesla limit = 24 hours
Ten, 4-h Megapacks, in series, would be required!!Above example would have 50 x 6 = 300 Megapacks.
Tesla design factors would apply. See articleNOTE 4: World cobalt production was 142,000 and 170,000 metric ton, in 2020 and 2021, respectively, of which the Democratic Republic of the Congo was 120,000 metric ton in 2021
https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-02-02/Global-cobalt-production-hits-record-in-2021-as-mined-cobalt-output-in-DR-Congo-jumps-22-4.html
-
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!
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/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
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