Why don't we think about battery storage for all sources of electricity on a utility scale instead of just...
$begingroup$
One of the repeating solutions that comes up when talking about renewable energy power generation and the intermittency of it is battery power storage.
This has got me thinking, it takes hours or days for gas and coal fire plants (and I assume other fossil fuel options) to fire up and so you essentially have to keep these going as power backups for renewables for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
This got me thinking, why isn't anyone talking about using energy storage for all sources? Specifically utility-scale solutions that can hold weeks or months of energy? I would think that such a solution could vastly reduce inefficiencies in all power generation as my understanding our traditional sources are quite wasteful and the energy is use it or lose it.
Maybe my understanding is wrong and quite frankly I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used (I assume it is dissipated into the environment in some way).
It just seems to me that we could reduce costs and combine energy generation sources and need less of all sources if we can store all the excess energy we don't immediately use.
Edit (additional info):
There is a lot of confusion about what I mean and intend here. First, the type of battery is not relevant to my thought process here. It could be pumped air/fluid/whatever storage as much as it could be Tesla's utility scale batteries. The point would be to store excess generated and potential energy more readily to reduce raw energy waste throughout the system.
My thought process is that fossil fuel plants don't simply turn it off and on. The oil/gas/coal keeps burning and turning a turbine, whether or not it is connected to a generator at the time or not. It takes time to turn it on and off and thus there is a lot of time that these fuels are burning and generating pollutants when they could just throw that energy that goes to the turbines which goes to the generator (if you let it) into a secondary storage that can be more readily accessible.
As my thinking continues, I suspect there is a ton of potential energy waste throughout our power generation systems. Whether it be those generators that could be generating (but would overload a system that is fully powered) or excess heat not being utilized or electricity that is (I am guessing) somehow dumped and not used.
If I am correct in my thought process then we could be storing that energy in some way, shape, or form instead of losing it. If we can store it and access it readily then we can reduce the need for so much power generation in the first place. I could be totally off base with some or all of my thinking though.
energy power-generation battery-storage
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
$endgroup$
|
show 13 more comments
$begingroup$
One of the repeating solutions that comes up when talking about renewable energy power generation and the intermittency of it is battery power storage.
This has got me thinking, it takes hours or days for gas and coal fire plants (and I assume other fossil fuel options) to fire up and so you essentially have to keep these going as power backups for renewables for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
This got me thinking, why isn't anyone talking about using energy storage for all sources? Specifically utility-scale solutions that can hold weeks or months of energy? I would think that such a solution could vastly reduce inefficiencies in all power generation as my understanding our traditional sources are quite wasteful and the energy is use it or lose it.
Maybe my understanding is wrong and quite frankly I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used (I assume it is dissipated into the environment in some way).
It just seems to me that we could reduce costs and combine energy generation sources and need less of all sources if we can store all the excess energy we don't immediately use.
Edit (additional info):
There is a lot of confusion about what I mean and intend here. First, the type of battery is not relevant to my thought process here. It could be pumped air/fluid/whatever storage as much as it could be Tesla's utility scale batteries. The point would be to store excess generated and potential energy more readily to reduce raw energy waste throughout the system.
My thought process is that fossil fuel plants don't simply turn it off and on. The oil/gas/coal keeps burning and turning a turbine, whether or not it is connected to a generator at the time or not. It takes time to turn it on and off and thus there is a lot of time that these fuels are burning and generating pollutants when they could just throw that energy that goes to the turbines which goes to the generator (if you let it) into a secondary storage that can be more readily accessible.
As my thinking continues, I suspect there is a ton of potential energy waste throughout our power generation systems. Whether it be those generators that could be generating (but would overload a system that is fully powered) or excess heat not being utilized or electricity that is (I am guessing) somehow dumped and not used.
If I am correct in my thought process then we could be storing that energy in some way, shape, or form instead of losing it. If we can store it and access it readily then we can reduce the need for so much power generation in the first place. I could be totally off base with some or all of my thinking though.
energy power-generation battery-storage
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Have you heard of a guy named Elon Musk?
$endgroup$
– John D
11 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
People have been thinking about this for decades. Why do you think they haven't? Add some basic energy calculations into your question and possible solutions: pumped storage, battery, inertial, etc. and do some costings and you might see why.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You made me think of charging some batteries for home use during off-peak tariffs and use them on-peak. But damn Elon Musk did it again...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
10 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
non-renewable energy sources (ie, fossil fuels) are already a long-term stable form of chemical energy storage. why burn a barrel of oil (chemical storage) in order to charge up a big battery (other form of chemical storage), when you can just burn the oil on demand for actual customer use?
$endgroup$
– Chris Fernandez
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used." There is no such thing. Generators only generate energy to the extent that there is a load connected. They have provisions to prevent excess speed if the load goes away, but they can spin without generating more that their own normal losses. An exception is some wind turbines and perhaps water turbines (smaller than utility scale) that require a dump load tor prevent overspeed. Other questions here explain your misconception in more detail.
$endgroup$
– Charles Cowie
10 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
$begingroup$
One of the repeating solutions that comes up when talking about renewable energy power generation and the intermittency of it is battery power storage.
This has got me thinking, it takes hours or days for gas and coal fire plants (and I assume other fossil fuel options) to fire up and so you essentially have to keep these going as power backups for renewables for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
This got me thinking, why isn't anyone talking about using energy storage for all sources? Specifically utility-scale solutions that can hold weeks or months of energy? I would think that such a solution could vastly reduce inefficiencies in all power generation as my understanding our traditional sources are quite wasteful and the energy is use it or lose it.
Maybe my understanding is wrong and quite frankly I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used (I assume it is dissipated into the environment in some way).
It just seems to me that we could reduce costs and combine energy generation sources and need less of all sources if we can store all the excess energy we don't immediately use.
Edit (additional info):
There is a lot of confusion about what I mean and intend here. First, the type of battery is not relevant to my thought process here. It could be pumped air/fluid/whatever storage as much as it could be Tesla's utility scale batteries. The point would be to store excess generated and potential energy more readily to reduce raw energy waste throughout the system.
My thought process is that fossil fuel plants don't simply turn it off and on. The oil/gas/coal keeps burning and turning a turbine, whether or not it is connected to a generator at the time or not. It takes time to turn it on and off and thus there is a lot of time that these fuels are burning and generating pollutants when they could just throw that energy that goes to the turbines which goes to the generator (if you let it) into a secondary storage that can be more readily accessible.
As my thinking continues, I suspect there is a ton of potential energy waste throughout our power generation systems. Whether it be those generators that could be generating (but would overload a system that is fully powered) or excess heat not being utilized or electricity that is (I am guessing) somehow dumped and not used.
If I am correct in my thought process then we could be storing that energy in some way, shape, or form instead of losing it. If we can store it and access it readily then we can reduce the need for so much power generation in the first place. I could be totally off base with some or all of my thinking though.
energy power-generation battery-storage
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
$endgroup$
One of the repeating solutions that comes up when talking about renewable energy power generation and the intermittency of it is battery power storage.
This has got me thinking, it takes hours or days for gas and coal fire plants (and I assume other fossil fuel options) to fire up and so you essentially have to keep these going as power backups for renewables for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
This got me thinking, why isn't anyone talking about using energy storage for all sources? Specifically utility-scale solutions that can hold weeks or months of energy? I would think that such a solution could vastly reduce inefficiencies in all power generation as my understanding our traditional sources are quite wasteful and the energy is use it or lose it.
Maybe my understanding is wrong and quite frankly I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used (I assume it is dissipated into the environment in some way).
It just seems to me that we could reduce costs and combine energy generation sources and need less of all sources if we can store all the excess energy we don't immediately use.
Edit (additional info):
There is a lot of confusion about what I mean and intend here. First, the type of battery is not relevant to my thought process here. It could be pumped air/fluid/whatever storage as much as it could be Tesla's utility scale batteries. The point would be to store excess generated and potential energy more readily to reduce raw energy waste throughout the system.
My thought process is that fossil fuel plants don't simply turn it off and on. The oil/gas/coal keeps burning and turning a turbine, whether or not it is connected to a generator at the time or not. It takes time to turn it on and off and thus there is a lot of time that these fuels are burning and generating pollutants when they could just throw that energy that goes to the turbines which goes to the generator (if you let it) into a secondary storage that can be more readily accessible.
As my thinking continues, I suspect there is a ton of potential energy waste throughout our power generation systems. Whether it be those generators that could be generating (but would overload a system that is fully powered) or excess heat not being utilized or electricity that is (I am guessing) somehow dumped and not used.
If I am correct in my thought process then we could be storing that energy in some way, shape, or form instead of losing it. If we can store it and access it readily then we can reduce the need for so much power generation in the first place. I could be totally off base with some or all of my thinking though.
energy power-generation battery-storage
energy power-generation battery-storage
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
edited 1 hour ago
Patrick
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
asked 11 hours ago
PatrickPatrick
13317
13317
3
$begingroup$
Have you heard of a guy named Elon Musk?
$endgroup$
– John D
11 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
People have been thinking about this for decades. Why do you think they haven't? Add some basic energy calculations into your question and possible solutions: pumped storage, battery, inertial, etc. and do some costings and you might see why.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You made me think of charging some batteries for home use during off-peak tariffs and use them on-peak. But damn Elon Musk did it again...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
10 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
non-renewable energy sources (ie, fossil fuels) are already a long-term stable form of chemical energy storage. why burn a barrel of oil (chemical storage) in order to charge up a big battery (other form of chemical storage), when you can just burn the oil on demand for actual customer use?
$endgroup$
– Chris Fernandez
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used." There is no such thing. Generators only generate energy to the extent that there is a load connected. They have provisions to prevent excess speed if the load goes away, but they can spin without generating more that their own normal losses. An exception is some wind turbines and perhaps water turbines (smaller than utility scale) that require a dump load tor prevent overspeed. Other questions here explain your misconception in more detail.
$endgroup$
– Charles Cowie
10 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
3
$begingroup$
Have you heard of a guy named Elon Musk?
$endgroup$
– John D
11 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
People have been thinking about this for decades. Why do you think they haven't? Add some basic energy calculations into your question and possible solutions: pumped storage, battery, inertial, etc. and do some costings and you might see why.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You made me think of charging some batteries for home use during off-peak tariffs and use them on-peak. But damn Elon Musk did it again...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
10 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
non-renewable energy sources (ie, fossil fuels) are already a long-term stable form of chemical energy storage. why burn a barrel of oil (chemical storage) in order to charge up a big battery (other form of chemical storage), when you can just burn the oil on demand for actual customer use?
$endgroup$
– Chris Fernandez
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used." There is no such thing. Generators only generate energy to the extent that there is a load connected. They have provisions to prevent excess speed if the load goes away, but they can spin without generating more that their own normal losses. An exception is some wind turbines and perhaps water turbines (smaller than utility scale) that require a dump load tor prevent overspeed. Other questions here explain your misconception in more detail.
$endgroup$
– Charles Cowie
10 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Have you heard of a guy named Elon Musk?
$endgroup$
– John D
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Have you heard of a guy named Elon Musk?
$endgroup$
– John D
11 hours ago
12
12
$begingroup$
People have been thinking about this for decades. Why do you think they haven't? Add some basic energy calculations into your question and possible solutions: pumped storage, battery, inertial, etc. and do some costings and you might see why.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
People have been thinking about this for decades. Why do you think they haven't? Add some basic energy calculations into your question and possible solutions: pumped storage, battery, inertial, etc. and do some costings and you might see why.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
You made me think of charging some batteries for home use during off-peak tariffs and use them on-peak. But damn Elon Musk did it again...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
You made me think of charging some batteries for home use during off-peak tariffs and use them on-peak. But damn Elon Musk did it again...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
10 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
non-renewable energy sources (ie, fossil fuels) are already a long-term stable form of chemical energy storage. why burn a barrel of oil (chemical storage) in order to charge up a big battery (other form of chemical storage), when you can just burn the oil on demand for actual customer use?
$endgroup$
– Chris Fernandez
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
non-renewable energy sources (ie, fossil fuels) are already a long-term stable form of chemical energy storage. why burn a barrel of oil (chemical storage) in order to charge up a big battery (other form of chemical storage), when you can just burn the oil on demand for actual customer use?
$endgroup$
– Chris Fernandez
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used." There is no such thing. Generators only generate energy to the extent that there is a load connected. They have provisions to prevent excess speed if the load goes away, but they can spin without generating more that their own normal losses. An exception is some wind turbines and perhaps water turbines (smaller than utility scale) that require a dump load tor prevent overspeed. Other questions here explain your misconception in more detail.
$endgroup$
– Charles Cowie
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
"I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used." There is no such thing. Generators only generate energy to the extent that there is a load connected. They have provisions to prevent excess speed if the load goes away, but they can spin without generating more that their own normal losses. An exception is some wind turbines and perhaps water turbines (smaller than utility scale) that require a dump load tor prevent overspeed. Other questions here explain your misconception in more detail.
$endgroup$
– Charles Cowie
10 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am not sure exactly what you are expecting as an answer, but storage has already started to be used to supplement all energy sources. Utility-connected battery banks have already proved superior to any alternative peaker plant.
This report on the Australian 129MWh Tesla battery installation's first year of operation could shed some light on it. In just one year it has pretty much recouped more than 75% of its costs.
Conclusions from the report include that the battery system has contributed to the withdraw of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), decreased the South Australian regulation FCAS price by 75%, helped connect South Australia to the National Electricity Market, among various other contributions.
That means that 35MW of fossil-fuel-powered peaker plants can be removed from the market. Given its near instantaneous response to demand, it also means that utility energy markets might start pricing speed of response differently, which will further benefit these types of storage.
Just adding enough storage capacity to sustain the grid while a fossil-fuel plant is being wound-up, is enough to provide some CO2 savings. Extrapolating from the Australia installation, savings could be at the very least on the order of 30% of the installed battery capacity.
Replacing peaker plants is an explicit market focus for Tesla, which as of this writing has installed more than 1GWh of utility-connected battery banks worldwide.
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Taking, at random, Overland Park, Kansas, as an example:
- Population 191,278 (2017).
- Area 195 km2.
- Annual energy demand (per capita) 13,500 kWh = 37 kWh/day. World Bank.
- City demand = 191278 x 37 = 7 x 106 kWh/day = 7 x 109 Wh/day = 3600 x 7 x 109 = 25.5 TJ/day.
For pumped storage the formula for energy stored is $ E = mgDelta h $. Assuming we could create a pair of lakes with a Δh of 100 m somewhere nearby then we would need to move $ m = frac{E}{m Delta h} = frac {25.5T}{9.81 times 100} = 25.5 $ million tonnes of water to the upper lake to store one day's worth of energy. That's 25.5 Mm3 in volume.
Making a lake the size of Overland Park we would fill it to a depth of $ frac {25.5M}{195 times 1000 times 1000} = 130 text m $ which is deeper than the 100 m we suggested raising the lake to.
The point is that the energy requirements are huge and any storage system would have to be equally huge. You can find battery energy densities on Wikipedia.
Last time I looked online battery storage was a little below US$200/kWh. That requires an investment of 37 x $200 $7400 just for you and $1,415,457,200 for your city for a one-day battery backup.
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because it's terribly expensive. The idea is there. Many ideas to store energy are in the cartons (spinning wheels, artificial lakes, weight lifts...) but none are commercially viable or enough efficient.
Or as Tesla's pilot project in Australia (see answer from Edgar Brown), it's not realistic on a global scale.
Batteries don't work eternally. After a few years you have to replace them. Raw material are scarce. Environment hazards. etc.
That being said, laboratories search for more efficient batteries. Fluoride batteries look promising. Unfortunately as always, these marvellous discoveries don't go beyond the newspaper report. 10 years later we are still with Li-ion.
Let's hope one day we get them.
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Co-generation and large UPS people have worked through most of the available alternatives. Batteries are the second worst way to store excess electrical energy (only capacitors are worse). In round numbers, the batteries to power the Empire State Building for one week would be the size of Central Park (all of Central Park) and 50 feet high.
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Part of your basic premise is false: gas turbines can go from zero to full power in a matter of minutes. They've been used to provide peaking power for decades, since it's rare for power demand to vary so rapidly that they can't handle it. Because traditional generation capacity can be changed so quickly, there's no need to store electricity on more than a trivial scale.
The reason we're looking at battery storage (and flywheel storage, and pumped-hydropower storage, and a whole lot of other things) for renewables is that they can't be used to generate power on demand. If the grid operator sees that the Superbowl halftime show is coming up, they can instruct a gas turbine or two to start up to deal with everyone microwaving their snacks at the same time. But they can't turn the Sun on at night, or order the winds to blow harder. Hence the need for large-scale storage of renewable power.
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f422143%2fwhy-dont-we-think-about-battery-storage-for-all-sources-of-electricity-on-a-uti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am not sure exactly what you are expecting as an answer, but storage has already started to be used to supplement all energy sources. Utility-connected battery banks have already proved superior to any alternative peaker plant.
This report on the Australian 129MWh Tesla battery installation's first year of operation could shed some light on it. In just one year it has pretty much recouped more than 75% of its costs.
Conclusions from the report include that the battery system has contributed to the withdraw of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), decreased the South Australian regulation FCAS price by 75%, helped connect South Australia to the National Electricity Market, among various other contributions.
That means that 35MW of fossil-fuel-powered peaker plants can be removed from the market. Given its near instantaneous response to demand, it also means that utility energy markets might start pricing speed of response differently, which will further benefit these types of storage.
Just adding enough storage capacity to sustain the grid while a fossil-fuel plant is being wound-up, is enough to provide some CO2 savings. Extrapolating from the Australia installation, savings could be at the very least on the order of 30% of the installed battery capacity.
Replacing peaker plants is an explicit market focus for Tesla, which as of this writing has installed more than 1GWh of utility-connected battery banks worldwide.
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I am not sure exactly what you are expecting as an answer, but storage has already started to be used to supplement all energy sources. Utility-connected battery banks have already proved superior to any alternative peaker plant.
This report on the Australian 129MWh Tesla battery installation's first year of operation could shed some light on it. In just one year it has pretty much recouped more than 75% of its costs.
Conclusions from the report include that the battery system has contributed to the withdraw of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), decreased the South Australian regulation FCAS price by 75%, helped connect South Australia to the National Electricity Market, among various other contributions.
That means that 35MW of fossil-fuel-powered peaker plants can be removed from the market. Given its near instantaneous response to demand, it also means that utility energy markets might start pricing speed of response differently, which will further benefit these types of storage.
Just adding enough storage capacity to sustain the grid while a fossil-fuel plant is being wound-up, is enough to provide some CO2 savings. Extrapolating from the Australia installation, savings could be at the very least on the order of 30% of the installed battery capacity.
Replacing peaker plants is an explicit market focus for Tesla, which as of this writing has installed more than 1GWh of utility-connected battery banks worldwide.
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I am not sure exactly what you are expecting as an answer, but storage has already started to be used to supplement all energy sources. Utility-connected battery banks have already proved superior to any alternative peaker plant.
This report on the Australian 129MWh Tesla battery installation's first year of operation could shed some light on it. In just one year it has pretty much recouped more than 75% of its costs.
Conclusions from the report include that the battery system has contributed to the withdraw of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), decreased the South Australian regulation FCAS price by 75%, helped connect South Australia to the National Electricity Market, among various other contributions.
That means that 35MW of fossil-fuel-powered peaker plants can be removed from the market. Given its near instantaneous response to demand, it also means that utility energy markets might start pricing speed of response differently, which will further benefit these types of storage.
Just adding enough storage capacity to sustain the grid while a fossil-fuel plant is being wound-up, is enough to provide some CO2 savings. Extrapolating from the Australia installation, savings could be at the very least on the order of 30% of the installed battery capacity.
Replacing peaker plants is an explicit market focus for Tesla, which as of this writing has installed more than 1GWh of utility-connected battery banks worldwide.
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
$endgroup$
I am not sure exactly what you are expecting as an answer, but storage has already started to be used to supplement all energy sources. Utility-connected battery banks have already proved superior to any alternative peaker plant.
This report on the Australian 129MWh Tesla battery installation's first year of operation could shed some light on it. In just one year it has pretty much recouped more than 75% of its costs.
Conclusions from the report include that the battery system has contributed to the withdraw of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), decreased the South Australian regulation FCAS price by 75%, helped connect South Australia to the National Electricity Market, among various other contributions.
That means that 35MW of fossil-fuel-powered peaker plants can be removed from the market. Given its near instantaneous response to demand, it also means that utility energy markets might start pricing speed of response differently, which will further benefit these types of storage.
Just adding enough storage capacity to sustain the grid while a fossil-fuel plant is being wound-up, is enough to provide some CO2 savings. Extrapolating from the Australia installation, savings could be at the very least on the order of 30% of the installed battery capacity.
Replacing peaker plants is an explicit market focus for Tesla, which as of this writing has installed more than 1GWh of utility-connected battery banks worldwide.
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
answered 9 hours ago
Edgar BrownEdgar Brown
5,0022729
5,0022729
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's awsome but as with the cars... problems arise when you want to mass produce for the entire world. One pilot project is fine. Using it everywhere and building thousands of them is another thing.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled a 2000km trip always starts with the first step. This is a 129MWh project out of 1GWh installed, by a single supplier, as of mid 2018. They have competition, which were already claiming more than 500MWh as of mid 2018. And, with just 2% of the grid capacity this single project had taken over more than 50% of the local peaking plant market.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I do hope one day such type of storage will be everywhere. yet I'm pessimistic because of the issues the electric car industry is facing. And how it will operate in the long run. how many MWh will remain in 10 years?
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled according to Tesla, they guarantee their home batteries systems will have at least 70% of capacity within its 10-year warranty period. The biggest problems they currently have is availability, as they have to balance their home/commercial battery systems with their car battery production.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fredled having too much demand in a market, is only a problem for you if your competitors jump in ahead of you. But it is never a problem for the market. Quite the opposite, this means that more and more battery production capacity, research, and development will take place due to the econimics. This also means that less and less conventional power plants will be built, as they have to plan for a 20yr profitability curve to recoup their costs. Those plans don't look too good if a battery system can enter the market in 10yrs.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Taking, at random, Overland Park, Kansas, as an example:
- Population 191,278 (2017).
- Area 195 km2.
- Annual energy demand (per capita) 13,500 kWh = 37 kWh/day. World Bank.
- City demand = 191278 x 37 = 7 x 106 kWh/day = 7 x 109 Wh/day = 3600 x 7 x 109 = 25.5 TJ/day.
For pumped storage the formula for energy stored is $ E = mgDelta h $. Assuming we could create a pair of lakes with a Δh of 100 m somewhere nearby then we would need to move $ m = frac{E}{m Delta h} = frac {25.5T}{9.81 times 100} = 25.5 $ million tonnes of water to the upper lake to store one day's worth of energy. That's 25.5 Mm3 in volume.
Making a lake the size of Overland Park we would fill it to a depth of $ frac {25.5M}{195 times 1000 times 1000} = 130 text m $ which is deeper than the 100 m we suggested raising the lake to.
The point is that the energy requirements are huge and any storage system would have to be equally huge. You can find battery energy densities on Wikipedia.
Last time I looked online battery storage was a little below US$200/kWh. That requires an investment of 37 x $200 $7400 just for you and $1,415,457,200 for your city for a one-day battery backup.
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Taking, at random, Overland Park, Kansas, as an example:
- Population 191,278 (2017).
- Area 195 km2.
- Annual energy demand (per capita) 13,500 kWh = 37 kWh/day. World Bank.
- City demand = 191278 x 37 = 7 x 106 kWh/day = 7 x 109 Wh/day = 3600 x 7 x 109 = 25.5 TJ/day.
For pumped storage the formula for energy stored is $ E = mgDelta h $. Assuming we could create a pair of lakes with a Δh of 100 m somewhere nearby then we would need to move $ m = frac{E}{m Delta h} = frac {25.5T}{9.81 times 100} = 25.5 $ million tonnes of water to the upper lake to store one day's worth of energy. That's 25.5 Mm3 in volume.
Making a lake the size of Overland Park we would fill it to a depth of $ frac {25.5M}{195 times 1000 times 1000} = 130 text m $ which is deeper than the 100 m we suggested raising the lake to.
The point is that the energy requirements are huge and any storage system would have to be equally huge. You can find battery energy densities on Wikipedia.
Last time I looked online battery storage was a little below US$200/kWh. That requires an investment of 37 x $200 $7400 just for you and $1,415,457,200 for your city for a one-day battery backup.
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Taking, at random, Overland Park, Kansas, as an example:
- Population 191,278 (2017).
- Area 195 km2.
- Annual energy demand (per capita) 13,500 kWh = 37 kWh/day. World Bank.
- City demand = 191278 x 37 = 7 x 106 kWh/day = 7 x 109 Wh/day = 3600 x 7 x 109 = 25.5 TJ/day.
For pumped storage the formula for energy stored is $ E = mgDelta h $. Assuming we could create a pair of lakes with a Δh of 100 m somewhere nearby then we would need to move $ m = frac{E}{m Delta h} = frac {25.5T}{9.81 times 100} = 25.5 $ million tonnes of water to the upper lake to store one day's worth of energy. That's 25.5 Mm3 in volume.
Making a lake the size of Overland Park we would fill it to a depth of $ frac {25.5M}{195 times 1000 times 1000} = 130 text m $ which is deeper than the 100 m we suggested raising the lake to.
The point is that the energy requirements are huge and any storage system would have to be equally huge. You can find battery energy densities on Wikipedia.
Last time I looked online battery storage was a little below US$200/kWh. That requires an investment of 37 x $200 $7400 just for you and $1,415,457,200 for your city for a one-day battery backup.
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
$endgroup$
Taking, at random, Overland Park, Kansas, as an example:
- Population 191,278 (2017).
- Area 195 km2.
- Annual energy demand (per capita) 13,500 kWh = 37 kWh/day. World Bank.
- City demand = 191278 x 37 = 7 x 106 kWh/day = 7 x 109 Wh/day = 3600 x 7 x 109 = 25.5 TJ/day.
For pumped storage the formula for energy stored is $ E = mgDelta h $. Assuming we could create a pair of lakes with a Δh of 100 m somewhere nearby then we would need to move $ m = frac{E}{m Delta h} = frac {25.5T}{9.81 times 100} = 25.5 $ million tonnes of water to the upper lake to store one day's worth of energy. That's 25.5 Mm3 in volume.
Making a lake the size of Overland Park we would fill it to a depth of $ frac {25.5M}{195 times 1000 times 1000} = 130 text m $ which is deeper than the 100 m we suggested raising the lake to.
The point is that the energy requirements are huge and any storage system would have to be equally huge. You can find battery energy densities on Wikipedia.
Last time I looked online battery storage was a little below US$200/kWh. That requires an investment of 37 x $200 $7400 just for you and $1,415,457,200 for your city for a one-day battery backup.
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
answered 10 hours ago
TransistorTransistor
84.1k783180
84.1k783180
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also the average price for the consumer is 0.12$/kWh ( US Average ). So on cloudy windless days they should expect their electricity bill to go up by a factor of 1666 (At least).
$endgroup$
– a1s2d3f4
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here's a list of the existing pumped storage installations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Dinorwig, in Wales (the only one I'm familiar with) has a storage capacity of 11GWh or 4TJ - good for about 6 hours output.
$endgroup$
– Phil G
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Pumped storage has the lowest energy density of anything in current use -- around 1 kJ per kilogram per 100 meters. Even notoriously-inefficient lead-acid batteries have around 170 times the density, while lithium-ion batteries are around a thousand times more efficient.
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed mathematics. Though, as I have more recently stated, I am less concerned with the type of energy storage as I am reducing raw potential energy waste (something I had not clarified when you wrote this). It does sound like pumped storage would not be a viable option here (makes me wonder why it works anywhere). But that doesn't mean other options wouldn't be better.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because it's terribly expensive. The idea is there. Many ideas to store energy are in the cartons (spinning wheels, artificial lakes, weight lifts...) but none are commercially viable or enough efficient.
Or as Tesla's pilot project in Australia (see answer from Edgar Brown), it's not realistic on a global scale.
Batteries don't work eternally. After a few years you have to replace them. Raw material are scarce. Environment hazards. etc.
That being said, laboratories search for more efficient batteries. Fluoride batteries look promising. Unfortunately as always, these marvellous discoveries don't go beyond the newspaper report. 10 years later we are still with Li-ion.
Let's hope one day we get them.
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because it's terribly expensive. The idea is there. Many ideas to store energy are in the cartons (spinning wheels, artificial lakes, weight lifts...) but none are commercially viable or enough efficient.
Or as Tesla's pilot project in Australia (see answer from Edgar Brown), it's not realistic on a global scale.
Batteries don't work eternally. After a few years you have to replace them. Raw material are scarce. Environment hazards. etc.
That being said, laboratories search for more efficient batteries. Fluoride batteries look promising. Unfortunately as always, these marvellous discoveries don't go beyond the newspaper report. 10 years later we are still with Li-ion.
Let's hope one day we get them.
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because it's terribly expensive. The idea is there. Many ideas to store energy are in the cartons (spinning wheels, artificial lakes, weight lifts...) but none are commercially viable or enough efficient.
Or as Tesla's pilot project in Australia (see answer from Edgar Brown), it's not realistic on a global scale.
Batteries don't work eternally. After a few years you have to replace them. Raw material are scarce. Environment hazards. etc.
That being said, laboratories search for more efficient batteries. Fluoride batteries look promising. Unfortunately as always, these marvellous discoveries don't go beyond the newspaper report. 10 years later we are still with Li-ion.
Let's hope one day we get them.
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
$endgroup$
Because it's terribly expensive. The idea is there. Many ideas to store energy are in the cartons (spinning wheels, artificial lakes, weight lifts...) but none are commercially viable or enough efficient.
Or as Tesla's pilot project in Australia (see answer from Edgar Brown), it's not realistic on a global scale.
Batteries don't work eternally. After a few years you have to replace them. Raw material are scarce. Environment hazards. etc.
That being said, laboratories search for more efficient batteries. Fluoride batteries look promising. Unfortunately as always, these marvellous discoveries don't go beyond the newspaper report. 10 years later we are still with Li-ion.
Let's hope one day we get them.
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
answered 6 hours ago
FredledFredled
55019
55019
4
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nothing works eternally. Gas turbines need to be replaced every 20yrs, the total lifetime of a power plant is 30-40yrs. At least battery systems, with their briefcase-sized battery packs and modestly-sized units, are modular and easy to expand and upgrade. The Australia "experiment" is bound to recoup its costs to its owner within just 3yrs (it already has for Australian society, if you consider the savings of the 90% price drop it imposed in the peaker-plant power market). Compare that to the typical cost recuperation of a conventional plant that exceeds 20yrs. Expense is not the problem.
$endgroup$
– Edgar Brown
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Co-generation and large UPS people have worked through most of the available alternatives. Batteries are the second worst way to store excess electrical energy (only capacitors are worse). In round numbers, the batteries to power the Empire State Building for one week would be the size of Central Park (all of Central Park) and 50 feet high.
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Co-generation and large UPS people have worked through most of the available alternatives. Batteries are the second worst way to store excess electrical energy (only capacitors are worse). In round numbers, the batteries to power the Empire State Building for one week would be the size of Central Park (all of Central Park) and 50 feet high.
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Co-generation and large UPS people have worked through most of the available alternatives. Batteries are the second worst way to store excess electrical energy (only capacitors are worse). In round numbers, the batteries to power the Empire State Building for one week would be the size of Central Park (all of Central Park) and 50 feet high.
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
$endgroup$
Co-generation and large UPS people have worked through most of the available alternatives. Batteries are the second worst way to store excess electrical energy (only capacitors are worse). In round numbers, the batteries to power the Empire State Building for one week would be the size of Central Park (all of Central Park) and 50 feet high.
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
answered 9 hours ago
AnalogKidAnalogKid
2,36037
2,36037
3
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now that just ain't true. The Empire State uses 55 million kWh/year or 151,000 kWh per day. A big car battery is about 1 kWh. The ESB has 208,000 square meters of floor space. So it could be powered for a day by putting one battery in each square metre of each floor. Inconvenient but there would still be room to walk around.
$endgroup$
– tomnexus
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, AnalogKid just means that these battery storage would be huge by size. How huge exactely is not important.
$endgroup$
– Fredled
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That seems unlikely to need that much space. Given the abilities of existing utility scale batteries and the amount they serve.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Part of your basic premise is false: gas turbines can go from zero to full power in a matter of minutes. They've been used to provide peaking power for decades, since it's rare for power demand to vary so rapidly that they can't handle it. Because traditional generation capacity can be changed so quickly, there's no need to store electricity on more than a trivial scale.
The reason we're looking at battery storage (and flywheel storage, and pumped-hydropower storage, and a whole lot of other things) for renewables is that they can't be used to generate power on demand. If the grid operator sees that the Superbowl halftime show is coming up, they can instruct a gas turbine or two to start up to deal with everyone microwaving their snacks at the same time. But they can't turn the Sun on at night, or order the winds to blow harder. Hence the need for large-scale storage of renewable power.
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Part of your basic premise is false: gas turbines can go from zero to full power in a matter of minutes. They've been used to provide peaking power for decades, since it's rare for power demand to vary so rapidly that they can't handle it. Because traditional generation capacity can be changed so quickly, there's no need to store electricity on more than a trivial scale.
The reason we're looking at battery storage (and flywheel storage, and pumped-hydropower storage, and a whole lot of other things) for renewables is that they can't be used to generate power on demand. If the grid operator sees that the Superbowl halftime show is coming up, they can instruct a gas turbine or two to start up to deal with everyone microwaving their snacks at the same time. But they can't turn the Sun on at night, or order the winds to blow harder. Hence the need for large-scale storage of renewable power.
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Part of your basic premise is false: gas turbines can go from zero to full power in a matter of minutes. They've been used to provide peaking power for decades, since it's rare for power demand to vary so rapidly that they can't handle it. Because traditional generation capacity can be changed so quickly, there's no need to store electricity on more than a trivial scale.
The reason we're looking at battery storage (and flywheel storage, and pumped-hydropower storage, and a whole lot of other things) for renewables is that they can't be used to generate power on demand. If the grid operator sees that the Superbowl halftime show is coming up, they can instruct a gas turbine or two to start up to deal with everyone microwaving their snacks at the same time. But they can't turn the Sun on at night, or order the winds to blow harder. Hence the need for large-scale storage of renewable power.
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
$endgroup$
Part of your basic premise is false: gas turbines can go from zero to full power in a matter of minutes. They've been used to provide peaking power for decades, since it's rare for power demand to vary so rapidly that they can't handle it. Because traditional generation capacity can be changed so quickly, there's no need to store electricity on more than a trivial scale.
The reason we're looking at battery storage (and flywheel storage, and pumped-hydropower storage, and a whole lot of other things) for renewables is that they can't be used to generate power on demand. If the grid operator sees that the Superbowl halftime show is coming up, they can instruct a gas turbine or two to start up to deal with everyone microwaving their snacks at the same time. But they can't turn the Sun on at night, or order the winds to blow harder. Hence the need for large-scale storage of renewable power.
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
answered 1 hour ago
MarkMark
509310
509310
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I understand the need for renewables. The inconsistency is the obvious reasoning for it. I did not know that gas turbines could be up within minutes. I always hear about these long startup times for fossil fuel energy sources. They have to heat up the medium to produce steam to turn the turbine. The heating takes time. So it seemed to me that the problem is that the intermediate time it is burning the fuel, but not generating electricity. Or it overproduces and has to either spin down, disengage from the generator or dump the energy.
$endgroup$
– Patrick
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f422143%2fwhy-dont-we-think-about-battery-storage-for-all-sources-of-electricity-on-a-uti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
Have you heard of a guy named Elon Musk?
$endgroup$
– John D
11 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
People have been thinking about this for decades. Why do you think they haven't? Add some basic energy calculations into your question and possible solutions: pumped storage, battery, inertial, etc. and do some costings and you might see why.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You made me think of charging some batteries for home use during off-peak tariffs and use them on-peak. But damn Elon Musk did it again...
$endgroup$
– Eugene Sh.
10 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
non-renewable energy sources (ie, fossil fuels) are already a long-term stable form of chemical energy storage. why burn a barrel of oil (chemical storage) in order to charge up a big battery (other form of chemical storage), when you can just burn the oil on demand for actual customer use?
$endgroup$
– Chris Fernandez
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"I am not sure what happens with excess energy that doesn't get used." There is no such thing. Generators only generate energy to the extent that there is a load connected. They have provisions to prevent excess speed if the load goes away, but they can spin without generating more that their own normal losses. An exception is some wind turbines and perhaps water turbines (smaller than utility scale) that require a dump load tor prevent overspeed. Other questions here explain your misconception in more detail.
$endgroup$
– Charles Cowie
10 hours ago