Batteries: Today's Energy Solution

[Sigmetnow]

2016:
Tesla battery data shows path to over 500,000 miles on a single pack

The data clearly shows that for the first 50,000 miles (100,000 km), most Tesla battery packs will lose about 5% of their capacity, but after the 50,000-mile mark, the capacity levels off and it looks like it could be difficult to make a pack degrade by another 5%.

The trend line actually suggests that the average battery pack could go another 150,000 miles (200,000 miles total) before coming close to 90% capacity.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/

2018 update:
Tesla battery degradation at less than 10% after over 160,000 miles, according to latest data

Battery degradation is one of the biggest concerns for electric car owners and potential buyers, but data from Tesla battery packs have been very reassuring so far.

Now the latest data shows less than 10% degradation of the energy capacity after over 160,000 miles on Tesla’s battery packs.

A group of Tesla owners on the Dutch-Belgium Tesla Forum are gathering data from over 350 Tesla vehicles across the world and frequently updating it in a public Google file.

We have previously reported on the data, but they have since added many more vehicles and those vehicles have been driving a lot more – completing more battery cycles.

The data clearly shows that for the first 50,000 miles (100,000 km), most Tesla battery packs will lose about 5% of their capacity, but after the 50,000-mile mark, the capacity levels off and it looks like it could be difficult to make a pack degrade by another 5%.

The trend line currently suggests that the average battery pack could cycle through over 300,000 km (186,000) before coming close to 90% capacity.

https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/

Heavy users of supercharging tended to have the least degradation:

[Archimid]

And if that job were the same for every single owner, I would laud that approach.  But we know it is not.

Actually, it is the same for every owner. They can't discharge the batteries hard enough to damage the battery. They also can't charge the batteries at rates that would damage the battery.  Also the 100% SOC Tesla cars allow is not the true 100% SoC of the batteries. So costumer can charge at 100% everyday if they want, the batteries will still last 8 years and hundreds of thousands of miles. Also deep discharges will not reach the actual 0% SOC of the batteries.

It does not matter how the customer uses them, they can not break in a way that will damage the battery significantly. The limits of the batteries are software controlled. This is a solved problem, as long as the right battery is chosen.

Surely charging to max and discharging to min will make the battery lose a few percentage points more than a well cared for battery, but the same is true about ICE engines. Oil changes, air and oil filters, type of coolant, type of fuel, constant hard acceleration etc will damage ICE cars too.

After 250,000 miles, the Model S registers just 7 percent degradation and still charges to 230 miles.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1112465_tesla-model-s-durability-cars-with-250k-and-300k-miles-still-humming-along-happily

Of course many things can still damage the battery for example factory imperfections will always account for a fraction of a percentage point of all batteries failing. If the battery cooling system fails, then the batteries are in real danger of suffering permanent damage.  That can to ICE too when overheat and sometimes must replaced. However batteries are already good enough to last greater than 100k miles under any use case allowed by the car. 


~~I see sigmetnow beat me to the punch with a better argument, so I'll post this because I already typed it.

[Sigmetnow]

...
~~I see sigmetnow beat me to the punch with a better argument, so I'll post this because I already typed it.

  

I like your ICE comparison.  No machine has universal capability; all require some amount of care and understanding of their limitations.

[jacksmith4tx]

What the heck is a thermal battery? More important, what is the cost per kWh?, toxic?, recyclable?  and how long will they last? Something else to watch.

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/naidu-inaugurates-worlds-first-high-energy-storage-device201808061349370002/

Amaravati (Andhra Pradesh) [India], Aug 6 (ANI): Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister on Monday unveiled the world's first-ever high energy storage device in Amaravati.
The thermal battery, first-of-its-kind anywhere in the world, is a revolutionary and disruptive technology patented by Dr. Patrick Glynn in 2016 in India.
Manufactured by the Bharat Energy Storage Technology Private Limited (BEST), the first-of-its-kind cell is aimed at boosting up renewable sources of energy production, instead of non-renewable fossil fuel-based energy generation.
The BEST also aims to set up a Greenfield facility in Andhra Pradesh to manufacture these batteries. It is expected to invest Rs. 660 crores and create employment for 3,000 people within three years' time.
From a capacity of 1000 megawatts, the BEST would enhance the same to 10 gigawatts in the next six to seven years. Batteries suited for telecommunications, mini or microgrids and electric buses would be manufactured in the first phase.
Under the project, electric buses, produced in collaboration with Bilva Motors, a global consortium, could deliver an 800-kilometre range with a single charge, with the help of BEST's thermal cells. The cell can be customised to be charged in four or eight hours, depending on the source. It can also provide output ranging between 5Kwh and 1 Mwh.
The plant in Andhra Pradesh is expected to start its commercial operations by May 2019.(ANI)

[NeilT]

I like your ICE comparison.  No machine has universal capability; all require some amount of care and understanding of their limitations.

As someone who is capable of completely stripping and rebuilding an entire ICE, I like it too.

However the point about an ICE is that it does not cost half the price of the vehicle to replace.  This I know as we had to replace one in our Peugeot 806 at 99k miles.  Peugeot went 50:50 with us as it was 2 months outside of 2 years and still under their 100k warranty although out on years.

As a guy who now works in IT and used to write software, I also understand the software algorithms which protect the batteries.  I do recall that Tesla modded Tesla's which were trying to get away from a Hurricane (was it last year), to give them more range.  So, clearly, they don't allow deep discharge of the batteries.

My point of contention is that with only a few hundred thousand cars out there, against the 1 1/4 billion ICE vehicles in use in 2016, any statistics are early adopter enthusiast figures.  Once we get to mass market volumes we'll get the "bonehead" statistic starting to come in.  Where users regularly limp into a charging station on emergency power because they simply aren't organised enough to charge the damned thing up on even an infrequent basis.

That is going to change the figures and no amount of software is going to fix that.  Today EV users are hyper aware of range and charging stations.  That will reduce over time.

I read the chart where, out of 350 reports, one was 10% under in less than 200 days, one was nearly 14% under in less than 600 days.  In such a very low number of cars, these figures are significant.

Let's face facts, with the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 between 70 and 80 burst into flames.  Yet 2.5 million of them were sold.  It is a fact that relatively small numbers of negative reports, in this kind of technology, can have a very large impact.

No, I am not suggesting they will burst into flames.  (Just had to say that).

[crandles]

What the heck is a thermal battery? More important, what is the cost per kWh?, toxic?, recyclable?  and how long will they last? Something else to watch.

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/naidu-inaugurates-worlds-first-high-energy-storage-device201808061349370002/

Amaravati (Andhra Pradesh) [India], Aug 6 (ANI): Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister on Monday unveiled the world's first-ever high energy storage device in Amaravati.
The thermal battery, first-of-its-kind anywhere in the world, is a revolutionary and disruptive technology patented by Dr. Patrick Glynn in 2016 in India.
Manufactured by the Bharat Energy Storage Technology Private Limited (BEST), the first-of-its-kind cell is aimed at boosting up renewable sources of energy production, instead of non-renewable fossil fuel-based energy generation.
The BEST also aims to set up a Greenfield facility in Andhra Pradesh to manufacture these batteries. It is expected to invest Rs. 660 crores and create employment for 3,000 people within three years' time.
From a capacity of 1000 megawatts, the BEST would enhance the same to 10 gigawatts in the next six to seven years. Batteries suited for telecommunications, mini or microgrids and electric buses would be manufactured in the first phase.
Under the project, electric buses, produced in collaboration with Bilva Motors, a global consortium, could deliver an 800-kilometre range with a single charge, with the help of BEST's thermal cells. The cell can be customised to be charged in four or eight hours, depending on the source. It can also provide output ranging between 5Kwh and 1 Mwh.
The plant in Andhra Pradesh is expected to start its commercial operations by May 2019.(ANI)

Yeah.

1. Hailed as the perfect alternative to non-renewable energy sources, thermal energy is considered to be even better than solar energy. Solar batteries cannot be charged or utilised to their optimum potential after sunset or even when the skies are densely clouded.

Thermal energy-powered batteries overcome this disadvantage of solar energy.

Is it me or does this sound confused like as if it might be a scam?

[Sigmetnow]

NeilT wrote:  “I do recall that Tesla modded Tesla's which were trying to get away from a Hurricane (was it last year), to give them more range.  So, clearly, they don't allow deep discharge of the batteries.”

Tesla “added range” temporarily on batteries that that had been software locked to use only 80% of the battery (had been offered as a cheaper option) so they could evacuate Florida. 
The car will go into an energy-saving mode at very low battery charge; limiting speed, air conditioning, etc. — but it is entirely possible to discharge the battery to the point where very little function is left.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-irma-update-florida-extend-range-model-s-x-60-60d

STRANDED Tesla Model 3! What Happens When You Run Out of Battery?



There’s no reason to expect mass populations of EV drivers to be any better than ICE drivers, who:  ignore their fuel low warning light, over-estimate how much fuel is in their tank, and believe they have over 40 miles of range after the light has illuminated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3212222/More-800-000-drivers-year-run-fuel.html

[Archimid]

My point of contention is that with only a few hundred thousand cars out there, against the 1 1/4 billion ICE vehicles in use in 2016, any statistics are early adopter enthusiast figures.  Once we get to mass market volumes we'll get the "bonehead" statistic starting to come in.

And that's a good point of contention. I bet Elon Musk and the whole battery team wants to see that too.

I think the following video has been posted in this forum like 4 or 5 times now. It is downright the best video on batteries in general and batteries as applied to cars. The video is by Jeff Dahn.  Its a bit long, but it is well worth viewing.



I think the gist of Jeff Dahn's wonderful presentation is that to select the best battery for the application one must know exactly what happens to the battery at the deepest level and perform incredibly thorough testing. Even then, if a calendar function (as Bob Wallace called it) exist beyond what is known of the battery and what the tests show, then the batteries will fail.

So you are correct to worry. We will only truly know if the testing and research worked after millions of cars are on the road and many years pass. However chances are that testing and deep research will pay off, judging by first generation Model S.

Where users regularly limp into a charging station on emergency power because they simply aren't organised enough to charge the damned thing up on even an infrequent basis.

That happens to ICE owners too. I admit it is worse when it happens to EV owners because the car must be towed. However, this is completely avoidable with a bit of planing.

I read the chart where, out of 350 reports, one was 10% under in less than 200 days, one was nearly 14% under in less than 600 days.  In such a very low number of cars, these figures are significant.

Interesting, huh! Remember when I mentioned manufacturing defects? I think it is likely that both those cars had minute defects that caused early battery degradation.  If the proportion of 2 out of 350 holds  at scale, that might be within tolerance of the warranty program. Hopefully it improves.

[NeilT]

It is a "suck it and see" situation isn't it.

Tesla has done a very good job, so far, with the batteries.  Note I didn't mention the cars which have gone up in flames.  Those fall, firmly, into the manufacturing defect camp so not worth mentioning.

I'm bothered about a few things really.  One is perception.  Just enough issues with batteries which fail early, allied to the standard car manufacturer refusal to fix the issue, could lead to a very negative attitude. 

Another is that you simply can't get away from the fact that these batteries have a maximum cycle life of no more than 1,500 cycles before significant degradation.  It has already been seen that the sheer power required from an EV means that once you reach 50% on the charge, the battery is, essentially, useless for an EV.  OK if you drive it 100 miles and charge it, every time, you get 1,500 cycles and a multiplier of 10 (as a part charge), then we are at 1.5million miles and, probably, 25 years or more.  That is the very best case.  Assuming the drivetrain lasts that long.  The worst, realistic, case is that it only has 500 cycles, it is fully cycled twice a week due to availability of charge points and it has to be replaced after 5 years.  It is not a case that the situation can be lived with, degraded EV batteries mean a vehicle which is virtually undriveable due to the loss of ability to deliver high amperages.

At this point the vehicle is worth less than the battery and even the exchange value of a partly depleted battery in the car, in PX is still not going to make the situation palatable.

Finally Tesla is a very conscientious company which is spending a LOT of money to ensure that EV battery life lasts a long as possible.  When EV goes mass market, that will change.  Who want's to buy a Vauxhall Astra EV punted out on the lowest budget with the least controls?

On the ++ side, the benefit of having a grid which can store up night time power in EV's and then use it again (assuming everyone plugs them in during the day), at peak times, for a premium to the EV user, is a real benefit to the energy infrastructure.

That, to me, is an opportunity going begging that the power companies should be looking at.

[Sigmetnow]

...

Where users regularly limp into a charging station on emergency power because they simply aren't organised enough to charge the damned thing up on even an infrequent basis.

That happens to ICE owners too. I admit it is worse when it happens to EV owners because the car must be towed. However, this is completely avoidable with a bit of planing.

Mobile charging service!  It exists, and of course will become more widespread as EVs become more prevalent.  Always a buck to be made off of poor planners!

https://electrek.co/2016/09/06/aaa-ev-emergency-charging-truck/

https://electrek.co/2018/07/26/nio-courting-tesla-owners-mobile-charging-stations-electric-vans/

[Sigmetnow]

Tesla Powerwall gets new ‘Storm Watch’ to auto detect storms and prepare by storing energy

Tesla says that it is for ‘selected regions’ and we know that Tesla has ‘about 11,000’ energy storage projects underway in Puerto Rico with Powerpacks to strengthen the local electric infrastructure and Powerwalls to help homeowners keep the lights on in case of another big outage, like the one following the two hurricanes that hit last year.

https://electrek.co/2018/08/07/tesla-powerwall-new-storm-watch/

[Sigmetnow]

The US is losing the high-stakes global battery war - The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/13/17675708/great-battery-war-steve-levine-powerhouse-book-interview

Being the first country to unlock the super battery could have a revolutionary impact on that economy.

Huge difference: it’ll change economies. Economies that have thrived off of the petroleum age won’t be thriving anymore. Those that are involved in the supply chain of batteries and the technologies they enable, that’s where the wealth will flow. The distribution of wealth and power could change.

(Cross-posted in Cars thread.)

[jacksmith4tx]

Sigmetnow,

It's impossible to separate the success of energy storage and the future of renewable energy.
I would go so far as to predict that if technology doesn't make a economically viable solution in the next 10 years we will resort to geoengineering the climate (sooner than we would have anyway).

I thought the A123 battery company could have been the RCA/Edison Electric of the 21st. century. It folded along with millions of $$ of subsidies, tax breaks and grants. A123 is a Chinese company now.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110703_battery-maker-a123-quietly-became-a-half-billion-dollar-company

I have a feeling that when AI advances to the point it can convince us we are facing a population collapse we will change our behavior.
We are tied to the whipping post(Almond Brothers) and the whipping will continue until morale improves.

[Sigmetnow]

Sigmetnow,

It's impossible to separate the success of energy storage and the future of renewable energy.
I would go so far as to predict that if technology doesn't make a economically viable solution in the next 10 years we will resort to geoengineering the climate (sooner than we would have anyway).
...

Given that, in many areas, building new renewable sources is cheaper than maintaining old fossil fuel sources, I would say renewables already are “economically viable.”  Solar, wind, and storage contracts continue to decrease in per-kW price.  The biggest obstacles now are political, not economic. 

[NeilT]

Given that, in many areas, building new renewable sources is cheaper than maintaining old fossil fuel sources, I would say renewables already are “economically viable.”  Solar, wind, and storage contracts continue to decrease in per-kW price.  The biggest obstacles now are political, not economic. 

Not really.

You only need to look at gridwatch in the UK to see the reality of that.  After a decade of "transition", we still have only 19% on renewables.  fully 68% is gas and nuclear.  Wind is 5% but  a few weeks ago it was 0%.  Solar is 5%.

Every time we go to stress points, we move back to coal.  Ferrybridge was a 2gw coal fired station.  The first transition was to 68mw biomas.  The second move will be 90mw biomas.

We have offshore wind growing like mad.  Wind farms growing all over the country, solar growth is about dead with the subsidies gone and new solar halving year on year.  With all of that, every time the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining we dive back into coal.

[Jim Hunt]

We have offshore wind growing like mad.  Wind farms growing all over the country, solar growth is about dead with the subsidies gone and new solar halving year on year.  With all of that, every time the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining we dive back into coal.

The once Great Britain certainly isn't SoCal.

However in extremis don't we turn up the gas? There's not much sun at the moment!

When I have a spare 5 minutes I'll see if I can dig up a winter one.

P.S. Added the Gridwatch readings from December 10th 2017 at the bottom.

[NeilT]

However in extremis don't we turn up the gas? There's not much sun at the moment!

We do but you will note that we turn up the coal too.  I note that  your gridwatch shows wind has jumped from around 1.5gw to 4.3gw in just a few days.  But storms are not that common in the summer, more common in the winter.

If you notice, on the Dec2017, we dialled up the gas but then switched on the coal and wind was running at 4.6gw but I doubt Solar was much at all.

We were pretty much maxed with gas, I expect if wind had dropped to minimum we would have been maxed out on Gas.

But the point is that Gas is not renewable either.  With the amount of input into our grid that renewables are giving, even with the major infrastructure we have put in place and are continuing to, I can't see anyway to avoid new Nuclear.  Nuclear doesn't need batteries, it's always on.

[Jim Hunt]

Aha! If that's your point then I agree with you:

http://www.v2g.co.uk/2012/07/renewable-energy-is-the-work-of-generations-of-engineers/

Getting our power from the Sahara doesn't seem politically plausible at present. In which case isn't it a shame that Alvin's baby still isn't in production even after 50+ years?

https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th

[etienne]

The article by Vaclav Smil is very interesting, but there have been many improvements since 2012. He has a good point that energy transition takes time and requires a lot of efforts. Transition has two reasons, one is climate change, the other is peak oil. If fracking could save us of peak oil, which I doubt, it would make climate change even worse.
Energy is so weird because it is cheap enough to make efficiency gain difficult to finance, but expensive enough for you to feel it when you pay the bill. Technology is crazy because energy saving technologies also uses energy, so you never save as much as expected, without talking of Jevons’ paradox. it would be great if efficiency would create energy savings instead of bigger screens,
To come back to the topic, nuclear runs all the time, but the load is not constant. Batteries and storage are needed and need to improve, even without renewables.

[Sigmetnow]

GERMANY’S CAR INDUSTRY CAN’T BUILD ITS OWN BATTERY CELLS
Angela Merkel gets impatient with VW, Daimler and BMW

Until 2015, Daimler operated a battery cell factory in Kamenz, Saxony. The original plan was to win other German car manufacturers as partners. Together, they could have produced in quantities large enough to make the business profitable. But it didn’t work out. Partly because, at that time, German brands didn’t have attractive electric cars in their portfolio. Why would they have needed battery cells?

Production quantities stayed low, costs remained high — and in late 2014, Daimler announced it would close the factory. “We have come to the conclusion that a car manufacturer does not have to produce the cells itself,” Daimler executive Harald Kröger at the time told Der Spiegel. After that, not much happened for a couple of years, except for Angela Merkel becoming nervous.
...
This spring, Bosch, Germany’s biggest and most important supplier of car components, completely scrapped its ambitious plans to build a cell factory. The second-largest supplier, Continental, doesn’t completely rule out entering the production of battery cells, but hasn’t made any announcements about it, either. Nor have the car manufacturers themselves.

Some months ago, Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche took the position that with today’s technology, it doesn’t make sense for a German manufacturer to build battery cells. “We know what we’re talking about,” Zetsche said, referring to the unsuccessful project in Saxony.
...
The remaining glimmer of hope for Angela Merkel is a consortium formed by 19 companies and research organizations under a Frankfurt-based holding named TerraE. Its goal is to start production of lithium-ion battery cells by the end of 2019. But it will take until 2028 to deliver the full targeted production capacity of 34 gigawatt hours. ...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/15/17685634/germany-car-industry-battery-cells

[Jim Hunt]

To come back to the topic, nuclear runs all the time, but the load is not constant. Batteries and storage are needed and need to improve, even without renewables.

Quite so Etienne!

[Jim Hunt]

There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew.

Go nuclear or go extinct?

Mike Conley & Timothy Maloney versus Mark Jacobson:

[etienne]

There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew.

Sorry, but it is not the taxi driver who decided to have an ICE vehicle. Even in a democratic system, all crew members are not equal when decisions have to be taken. Furthermore there are people who behave like if they were passengers on spaceship earth.
I made my comments about the video in the Renewable energy thread. I hope we will have more choices than cooked or irradiated.

[NeilT]

True Etienne, but they do have a VOTE and they could use it.

My experience is that at least 50% of the people I talk to, even if they acknowledge climate change as an issue, don't believe it is one of their priorities for voting.

On another note, one to watch is Tilos, in the news this week.  As they attempt to go off grid with solar and wind and a Sodium Nickel chloride battery farm of 2.4MWh.

[Sigmetnow]

City Of Los Angeles Wants To Turn Hoover Dam Into World’s Largest Pumped Energy Storage Facility

According to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has a better idea. It wants to build a pumping station about 20 miles downstream from Hoover Dam, recapture some of the water, and pump it back into Lake Mead where it can be used to generate more electricity once again. The proposed plan would cost about $3 billion.

The problem is that California has so much renewable energy available now, thanks in large measure to aggressive state mandated policies, that much of its is “constrained.” That’s utility industry speak for having to give it away or simply let it go to waste. In some cases, utilities in California actually pay other utility companies to take the excess electricity off their hands.

Why Not Use Battery Storage?

Why not store it all in some of Elon Musk’s grid scale batteries? Simply put, pumped hydroelectric storage is cheaper than battery storage, at least for now. Lazard, the financial advisory and asset management firm, estimates utility scale lithium-ion batteries cost 26 cents per kilowatt-hour compared with 15 cents for pumped hydro storage.

“Hoover Dam is ideal for this,” Kelly Sanders, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California tells the New York Times. “It’s a gigantic plant. We don’t have anything on the horizon as far as batteries of that magnitude.” ...

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/26/city-of-los-angeles-wants-to-turn-hoover-dam-into-worlds-largest-pumped-energy-storage-facility/

[oren]

Good idea. The dam is already there and Lake Mead can hold much more water, so it's a relatively cheap PuHS solution. I'm just not sure if there's enough water 20 mile downstream to pump back up, and what it might do to people/ag currently dependent on that flow.

[TerryM]

IIRC Hoover dam has only been providing peak energy for some time now. Lake Mead is a lousy place to store water because of the very high evaporation rate.


Terry

[BenB]

You only need to look at gridwatch in the UK to see the reality of that.  After a decade of "transition", we still have only 19% on renewables.  fully 68% is gas and nuclear.  Wind is 5% but  a few weeks ago it was 0%.  Solar is 5%.

Every time we go to stress points, we move back to coal.  Ferrybridge was a 2gw coal fired station.  The first transition was to 68mw biomas.  The second move will be 90mw biomas.

We have offshore wind growing like mad.  Wind farms growing all over the country, solar growth is about dead with the subsidies gone and new solar halving year on year.  With all of that, every time the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining we dive back into coal.

UK electricity generation:

Coal in August: 0.6%. July: 0.7%. June: 0.9%.

The idea that we use coal to cover lulls in the wind in summer is simply not supported by the numbers. Actually we use much more coal in winter, when wind generation is much higher, because demand is also higher. In other words, coal is occasionally used to meet spikes in demand, and not primarily shortfalls in wind generation. Even so, coal is just ~5% year-to-date, down from a peak of ~43% in 2012. Wind, by comparison, is over 15%.

[Sigmetnow]

As of year-end 2017:

Tesla’s Gigafactory 1 in Nevada has now become the biggest battery factory in the world with an output of 20 GWh per year and growing.

Now a new audit of the factory shows that Tesla is still on pace to comply with its obligations with the state for the factory as it now employs over 3,000 workers.

https://electrek.co/2018/08/21/tesla-gigafactory-1-3000-workers/

[NeilT]

The idea that we use coal to cover lulls in the wind in summer is simply not supported by the numbers. Actually we use much more coal in winter

Exactly.

However Offgen is now saying that EV's are beginning to provide daytime stress points.  Which, today, we will have to cover with Coal.

In the winter it is an entirely different picture.  Wind may be up but Solar is down.  Energy usage peaks and we're right back to Coal again.

Wind is all very well and good when it blows. But if you need it at night and the wind is still, how are we going to charge all those EV's?

Coal or Nuclear?  Because it most certainly won't be Wind or Solar.

It is the lack of joined up thinking which annoys me.  Batteries are great and will really help to balance out the whole renewables landscape.  But batteries are finite and if the wind doesn't blow for a week during high demand (not conjecture, it really happens), then the battery stabilisation we are talking about will not cover the gap.

[wili]

Here in the cold north, we sometimes have snow events that shut down nearly all businesses, schools, etc... sometimes for days.

I think we similarly have to start living within the limits imposed on us by energy availability. The world doesn't end if we have to slow or shut down most functions of society for a day or even for a few.

We just have to get used to the idea of living within limits, rather than the fantasy of endless power that the ready availability of fossil-death-fuels lead us to believe in.

[oren]

NeilT, the answers to your question are: batteries for the daily cycle, hydro (reservoirs should have 10-day water supply for full generation at all times, to serve as grid backup for intermittent renewables), natgas plants ("peakers" but not exactly in today's meaning of the term), and what wili said (worse comes to worst we give up some activities).

[NeilT]

NeilT, the answers to your question are: batteries for the daily cycle, hydro (reservoirs should have 10-day water supply for full generation at all times, to serve as grid backup for intermittent renewables), natgas plants ("peakers" but not exactly in today's meaning of the term), and what wili said (worse comes to worst we give up some activities).

Oren, in one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, (excepting Scotland which is very sparsely populated), with a limit on hydro (no new mainstream hydro for forever now because the environmentalists won't contemplate the loss of a lesser spotted midge), with a grid that already has over 40% fast acting natgas plants, we are out of easy options.  Batteries will only go so far and the UK uses far too much energy to simply say "we'll cut back".

Our other options, assuming we don't use the 300 odd years of coal we have under our country, is Nuclear, HDR geothermal or wave/tidal.

We have started on the Nuclear.  The others?  Nope, we're putting up more wind.  Which means that when wind is effectively at 0% we just have a MUCH bigger gap.  We are heavily investing in Biomass, but, as I posted, we're replacing GW/h of coal with KW/h of Biomass.

The UK has nearly 70 million people living on a landmass which is 1/3 the size of Texas.  Worse, fully 1/3 of that only has 6 million people living on it.  So we have 20% of the population of the US living on nearly 1/4 of the state of Texas.

Does that explain the population density, energy density and lack of available land???

Simple answers for North America  are not answers AT ALL for the UK.

[etienne]

It is the lack of joined up thinking which annoys me.  Batteries are great and will really help to balance out the whole renewables landscape.  But batteries are finite and if the wind doesn't blow for a week during high demand (not conjecture, it really happens), then the battery stabilisation we are talking about will not cover the gap.

I agree, batteries can do stabilisation over a 24h cycle, but I can't imagine using batteries for long term storage during the next years. Nobody knows about the future, but right now batteries are great for peaks and bottoms shaving so that production systems can work at a better efficiency level.
I repeat myself, but I fell that long term storage has to be more dense, like a liquid or solid fuel. The dream would be a carbon capture that would allow the production of a liquid fuel, but hydrogen is also a nice concept.

[oren]

Oren, in one of the most densely populated countries in the EU, (excepting Scotland which is very sparsely populated), with a limit on hydro (no new mainstream hydro for forever now because the environmentalists won't contemplate the loss of a lesser spotted midge), with a grid that already has over 40% fast acting natgas plants, we are out of easy options.  Batteries will only go so far and the UK uses far too much energy to simply say "we'll cut back".

Our other options, assuming we don't use the 300 odd years of coal we have under our country, is Nuclear, HDR geothermal or wave/tidal.

We have started on the Nuclear.  The others?  Nope, we're putting up more wind.  Which means that when wind is effectively at 0% we just have a MUCH bigger gap.  We are heavily investing in Biomass, but, as I posted, we're replacing GW/h of coal with KW/h of Biomass.

The UK has nearly 70 million people living on a landmass which is 1/3 the size of Texas.  Worse, fully 1/3 of that only has 6 million people living on it.  So we have 20% of the population of the US living on nearly 1/4 of the state of Texas.

Does that explain the population density, energy density and lack of available land???

Simple answers for North America  are not answers AT ALL for the UK.

Thanks for the detailed response. My "answers" were indeed quite simplistic.
A couple of more questions:
What about large grid interconnections to the rest of Europe, taking advantage of larger geographical dispersion? Do they exist? Is it feasible to massively increase them, instead of building other expensive infrastructure such as nuclear?
And do the statistics indeed support a several day period of zero wind, both onshore and offshore, and zero solar at the same time, while energy demand is high? It sounds a bit improbable to the armchair layman, hence why I am asking.

[NeilT]

Thanks for the detailed response. My "answers" were indeed quite simplistic.
A couple of more questions:
What about large grid interconnections to the rest of Europe, taking advantage of larger geographical dispersion? Do they exist? Is it feasible to massively increase them, instead of building other expensive infrastructure such as nuclear?
And do the statistics indeed support a several day period of zero wind, both onshore and offshore, and zero solar at the same time, while energy demand is high? It sounds a bit improbable to the armchair layman, hence why I am asking.

Oren, when you look a the Gridwatch page, it has both current and historical data.  When you get to the annual stuff you can see winter times with virtually no wind or solar.

You can also see the UK has 4 links 2 to the EU (France and Netherlands), and 2 to Ireland.  Each of 2GW max.  A minimum 22 miles of water makes it quite problematical to send extremely high tension, high amperage, power over to the UK.  Most of those links are DC so not suitable for high GW links.

The thing is that when the UK is stressed, France, Belgium and Holland are also stressed to around 90%. So when we suck in power over the cables it is predominantly coal power.  We're better off using our own coal.

[sidd]

Re: links are DC so not suitable for high GW links

?

A lot of big transmission going in now is DC. I am aware of large xmission in China and S. America. What makes DC unsuitable for high power ? For underwater it is preferred due to capacitive loading od undersea AC

sidd

[gerontocrat]

Re: links are DC so not suitable for high GW links

?

A lot of big transmission going in now is DC. I am aware of large xmission in China and S. America. What makes DC unsuitable for high power ? For underwater it is preferred due to capacitive loading od undersea AC

sidd

I thought DC was better for high power transmission than AC, and was being chosen for the new Europe wide grid for long-distance transmission from renewable energy sources (e.g. wind power in Scotland's Highlands) to population centres.


Did Topsy The Elephant die in vain? Read on, really interesting.......

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142741-tesla-turns-in-his-grave-is-it-finally-time-to-switch-from-ac-to-dc

Tesla turns in his grave: Is it finally time to switch from AC to DC?

AC power transmission losses are greater than DC losses. That is hardly an industry secret.

So why do we use AC?  it is most efficiently produced in this form by three-phase-alternators at the power station’s turbines. If you then want to transmit power any significant distance from the point of generation, you need to step up the voltage quite a bit just to get something worthwhile on the other end. If, for example, you are starting with 20 volts and are dropping one volt every mile because of the resistance of the wire alone, 20 miles out you will have next to nothing.

Transforming to higher voltages is simple for AC, you use a transformer — but for DC, it typically means using motor-generator sets or other fancy elaborations. When you then manage to get some power transmitted, your biggest customer might very well be a large motor that compresses, pumps, or other moves stuff, and runs on — you guessed it — AC power. The three-phase AC induction motor, first envisioned by Tesla, is far and away the most efficient way to convert electricity into mechanical power. DC motors, until recent times, required graphite brushes for commutation which severely restrict maximum RPM, reliability, and lifespan.

To transmit power, voltage is king. The same power transmitted at a higher voltage requires less current — in fact a whole lot less current — and therefore less of that expensive copper, or aluminum as the case may be in high voltage wires. Less metal will make cables lighter and thinner. Support towers can therefore be shorter since current-laden wire won’t lengthen and couple to the ground when unable to sufficiently disperse its heat. To transmit the same power as DC, an AC system will need to operate with a higher peak voltage, since most of the time the level is below that of an equivalent DC system. During the portion of the cycle when the AC is at lower voltages, efficiency is lost because, as above, voltage is king.

There is a limit though, to how high of a voltage your system would still see benefit. Above 100 kilovolts or so, corona loss, due to the high voltage ionizing air molecules begins to occur. These days, high DC voltage levels can be attained more easily with new technology employing small, high-frequency switching converters. A traditional bugbear for early DC transmission efforts included lightning strikes and other insults which would wreak havoc if not quickly isolated. New switches to handle these situations have recently been developed.

Some new projects, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China (pictured right), and undersea transmission lines and longer spans in the western US are now planning to use DC transmission. The question is how far will this new trend go?

[TerryM]

Hydro Quebec - which uses both HVAC & HVDC to draw power from a far north as James Bay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec%27s_electricity_transmission_system#High_voltage_direct_current_(HVDC)_450_kV

It's a beautiful drive, especially for those who can read french.
Monoglotonly yours
Terry

[oren]

NeilT thanks again for the added data.
I decided to quantify the behavior of UK wind generation. I downloaded the data from bmreports.com (the source for GridWatch). The site is not very friendly, and for some reason does not contain solar statistics, but for my purposes it was good enough.
As I am assuming grid batteries for smoothing at least 24 hours of generation, I summed the half-hour increments in the data into whole day averages. As I am also assuming zero solar contribution, I only summed the winter months (Oct 1st 2017-Mar 27th 2018). I then averaged over longer time periods to simulate larger grid storage. The results were interesting:
* Over half-hour periods, the maximum wind generation was 10.94 GW, while the minimum was 0.2 GW. Extremely intermittent.
* The maximum daily average for wind generation was 10.15 GW.  The minimum daily average was 0.65 GW.
* The minimum 2-day average was 1.17 GW.
* The minimum 4-day average was 1.92 GW.
* The minimum 5-day average was 2.27 GW.
* The minimum 7-day average was 3.02 GW. The maximum 7-day average was 7.68 GW. Not very intermittent IMHO.

I think this helps to quantify the effectiveness of adding grid batteries. Averaging over time helps reduce wind intermittency significantly. While the cost of 7-day grid storage may be very high, the cost of nuclear stations is not cheap either. I think the data does not rule out wind+storage as a cost-effective solution. More data especially with regards to pricing of the various solutions is certainly needed. More data is also required about the behavior in other years.

Adding a few more unquantified thoughts:
* New wind generation may be less intermittent than older installations thanks to higher turbine heights, and a more offshore mix.
* Solar power may also add a non-negligible contribution even in winter.
* Consumers may shift some demand if more variable pricing is introduced. People may decide to skip charging their EVs for several days during dead-wind price spikes - this could shave off some percentage of total demand. High-load factories could decide to curtail activities when the forecasts call for such price spikes over several days.
* Pumped-up hydro may expand (to current hydro reservoirs with no existing pumped capability) when more variable pricing is introduced.
* I wonder what is the current forecasting skill of predicting wind power generation several days in advance. This will be an interesting area of future research and could help with pricing mechanisms.

[oren]

And here's a somewhat messy chart to help visualize the intermittency.
Note: all data points sum the days preceding that point, so the lines in the chart may appear slightly shifted.

[etienne]

Very interesting graph. The issue with battery storage is that you can't put the inverters to sleep when there is no demand because you want it to be always available. So if you do long term storage, you get really bad efficiency data. On an IBC system 15 kWh system with PV panels, I need around 100W just to be available, so if I load the battery twice during the day (one at night and once with the sun during the day), this is about 0.08% of the loaded power, but if there is no sun and I don't load at night because I don't have a dual prices on electricity, I still need the 2.4 kWh, but since the only service provided by the battery is availability, I only have costs without incomes. Well, pumping hydro certainly also has many costs just to stay full or empty.

[Rob Dekker]

Thank you oren, that is a very interesting graph.

Of course, grid energy storage would only be required once renewables reach near 100 % of instant demand. I don't think the UK is quite there yet, although they may be getting close for some days. Even if peak wind capacity is larger than national demand, the UK can still export electricity to mainland Europe via the HVDC grid.

Also there are renewables like biomass and hydro and geothermal that can be switched on "on demand" to mitigate the intermittency of wind and solar.

So I think that "grid storage" will become more important, but only if renewables approach grid capacity limits.

Here in California we have a bit less intermittency than in the UK. Solar provides a pretty predictable supply, which is highest (about 10 GW on this typical August day) when demand is high (mid-day in summer when the AC's switch on). See first attached image.

Battery storage is still pretty limited, and is mostly used to accommodate shortages and overproduction on the 15 min time scale (second image).

Finally, solar is doing a great job here in reducing fossil-fuel generated electricity during the day (although we are still a looong way off from covering 100% of demand), but there is this big peak at 8 pm which could be mitigated by some increased (battery grid) energy storage (see third image).

Of course, if we would have 24 hour of grid energy storage available, that would flatten out the graph a lot more, reducing stress on the remaining (fossil fuel) energy sources.

That's why here in California there is a lot of talk about increasing battery grid energy storage as we expand renewables.

All images from CA-ISO here :
http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

[etienne]

I worked with Bob Wallace on the CAISO data and I found that the most difficult time to meet demand with renewable was in September when days where getting shorter, but AC demand was still very high. Same thing in Luxembourg, the hours in summer before a thunderstorm still require a lot of power for AC, but the sun is already hidden by the clouds.
For the thunderstorm issue, batteries are fine, but for shorter days in September, alternative sources are needed.

[Rob Dekker]

Thank you Etienne.
I've not followed this thread much, and made only a few posts, so do you have a link to that discussion with Bob Wallace ? I'd be most interested.

Also, CA grid battery storage is right now some 100-200 MWh IIRC, which fills in some gaps at the 15 min time frame. It will be a long time before energy storage can address energy supply and demand issues at the "month" level (September).

Not to mention that at peak solar production (10 GW at this point), demand is still almost a factor 3 higher. So we still have a lot of solar installations to do before energy storage beyond a day becomes an issue at all.

[NeilT]

Re: links are DC so not suitable for high GW links

?

A lot of big transmission going in now is DC. I am aware of large xmission in China and S. America. What makes DC unsuitable for high power ? For underwater it is preferred due to capacitive loading od undersea AC

sidd

Yeah I'm a bit out of date on that.  very high voltage DC seems to be fine.  However those cables under the channel are not, they are older, lower voltage cables.

However the other point I noted was valid.  It is not just the UK reverting to coal.  It is almost the entire EU.  When the UK needs extra power so does the rest of the EU.  So we suck in someone else's coal fired power.  Not the result we were looking for really...

If the UK needs power via cable then Iceland is a far better option as their power is clean.  Just two problems.

1. A very long way
2. No cables and they are expensive..

[NeilT]

Of course, grid energy storage would only be required once renewables reach near 100 % of instant demand. I don't think the UK is quite there yet, although they may be getting close for some days. Even if peak wind capacity is larger than national demand, the UK can still export electricity to mainland Europe via the HVDC grid.

Reality is a harsh mistress.  Go look at the annual graphs for Gridwatch.  UK demand never really drops below 20GWh, at any point, in summer.  In winter it is much higher, closer to 30GWh.

The installed capacity of Solar in the UK is 20GWh. Great you say, but the average efficiency of wind is 30% over the entire country.  So 6.5GWh.  What is the wind input right now?  6.9GWh.

Just look at the gridwatch annual charts.  Look at the CCGT and Nuclear signatures.  To remove that would require an investment in Wind power, 8 times the size of the one which has already been put in place to even try to balance out Nuclear and CCGT.  Even then, when the wind doesn't blow that installed capacity is worth nothing.

The UK has one of the highest installed capacities of wind power of anywhere in the EU.  It helps.  But it is not the silver bullet.

Deep in winter, you can see that solar was virtually nothing, the wind was not blowing and the UK was diving back into coal.

Batteries are not going to change that.

[etienne]

I've not followed this thread much, and made only a few posts, so do you have a link to that discussion with Bob Wallace ? I'd be most interested.

Bob had another objective and brought his conclusions in this topic :https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2304.0.html  or Policy and Solutions/Build, Baby, Build. In Fact Overbuild.
He made the point that overbuilding was better than storage to increase the renewable coverage.
Too much power is easy to curtail, but if you don't have the power, batteries won't help.

Furthermore, if you have a lot of curtailments, this could make a business case for hydrogen production or carbon capture to fuel type of projects.

Using the data, I found that the Fall was the most difficult time of the year regarding renewable coverage, and I thought that it could be because AC is more needed in the Fall than in the Spring on days with a similar amount of sun (September 10th and April 1th have a similar daytime). Well, here I use concepts that are not well defined and other definitions might bring different conclusions. During the Winter, heating is done probably mainly with heating oil or natural gas, so renewable coverage on colder days is easier than when AC is needed.

[Rob Dekker]

Of course, grid energy storage would only be required once renewables reach near 100 % of instant demand. I don't think the UK is quite there yet, although they may be getting close for some days. Even if peak wind capacity is larger than national demand, the UK can still export electricity to mainland Europe via the HVDC grid.

Reality is a harsh mistress.  Go look at the annual graphs for Gridwatch.  UK demand never really drops below 20GWh, at any point, in summer.  In winter it is much higher, closer to 30GWh.

The installed capacity of Solar in the UK is 20GWh.

Thanks for that 'gridwatch' site. Very interesting.
Regarding your numbers : I think you mean "wind" rather than "Solar" for the installed capacity, and I think you mean 20GW instead of 20GWh.

That given (20 GW minimum consumption and 20 GW wind capacity), right now you would not need any grid storage in the UK, but you are getting close.
If wind expands further and exceeds demand at some days, what are you going to do with the excess energy ?

The most obvious solution would be to store it (in grid battery packs) for later use.

Overall, I think the UK is doing pretty good in reducing the carbon footprint of its grid.
The first picture I attached is an overview of yesterday's demand and supply.
It shows pretty clearly that two non-fossil fuel sources (nuclear and wind) provided the bulk of energy during most of day.

If anything, you could expand with solar,  since there is still quite a bit of room for that to grow without hitting the 'capacity' limit where you would have to dump energy.

Deep in winter, you can see that solar was virtually nothing, the wind was not blowing and the UK was diving back into coal.

Batteries are not going to change that.

That's very true.
Batteries are not going to help in ironing out the winter/summer energy demand curve.
But grid batteries will be very helpful in ironing out supply and demand difference over a day or so.

Oren gave a GREAT overview of that in his graph above.

Also supporting that idea (of having some form of grid storage) is in the second (year overview) graph I attached.

If you take the daily average of UK supply and demand graph, you will see that if you have some sort of energy storage over a 'day' timeframe, 'wind' could expand a lot more, and take away from the CCGT (natural gas) production portion that is still taking up most of the UK's 'average' energy portfolio most days of the year (and reduce the need for coal as well).

[Rob Dekker]

I've not followed this thread much, and made only a few posts, so do you have a link to that discussion with Bob Wallace ? I'd be most interested.

Bob had another objective and brought his conclusions in this topic :https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2304.0.html  or Policy and Solutions/Build, Baby, Build. In Fact Overbuild.
He made the point that overbuilding was better than storage to increase the renewable coverage.

Thanks for that link.
I think overbuild will be managed by market pricing and grid battery storage WILL play a role when overbuild happens.

Here is why :

Once installed capacity for wind and solar exceeds minimum demand, the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between solar/wind producers and utility companies will change.
Something like a clause that the utility will not pay for excess kWh's produced during a time of overproduction. Or some pricing scheme that will scale with demand (and potentially would drop below zero).

Because after all, utilities will not want to pay for overproduced energy that they can't sell.
So based on such PPAs, solar/wind producers will decide if installing more capacity makes sense or not.

Companies that provide grid battery producers could also play in this game of market pricing.
The utilities could decide to compensate over-production at a really low price, at which battery companies could purchase that excess energy, and sell it later when demand is high (and with that price).

Bob Wallace mentions EV's as the grid 'battery', but it doesn't have to be just EVs. Could be ANY company that can store electricity for later.

If PPAs are arranged properly (with by-the-minute pricing) there will almost certainly be a role for (grid) battery storage, either by EVs or separate grid-storage battery systems. And they will profit from that.

Personally, I prefer a minute-by-minute wholesale pricing scheme where price is high when demand is high, and price is low when demand is low. That will cause the market (producers and battery storage systems) to decide when and how much to produce or absorb.

That would be the best solution, because just wasting energy is just that. A waste.