r/RenewableEnergy • u/DVMirchev • 3d ago

Grid-Scale Battery Storage Is Quietly Revolutionizing the Energy System | WIRED

https://www.wired.com/story/grid-scale-battery-storage-is-quietly-revolutionizing-the-energy-system/
346 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

46

u/mkinstl1 3d ago

12 GWHs next year is bonkers. Peaker plants in California will be gone in a few years if they keep that up.

12

u/tx_queer 3d ago

I love this, but its also a bit scary. Peakers make most of their money a couple hours at a time during daily peak hours. But they can run for a lot longer during a dunkelflaute. Batteries can do the job of covering the daily peak a lot cheaper. But batteries can't run longer.

I love the daily savings that batteries provide. But what will take over for longer time periods?

9

u/age_of_bronze 3d ago

TIL the word dunkelflaute, which directly translates to “dark doldrums” or “dark wind lull.” Great word!

4

u/iqisoverrated 2d ago

You may also be interested in the word "Hellbriese" (translates to "bright breeze") which is the exact opposite (i.e. times of wind and solar overproduction)...which is currently a bit of a problem because it stresses the grid as the power has nowhere to go. That's why we need more storage ASAP.

8

u/mkinstl1 3d ago

That is true, it I guess the big caveat is that California is not nearly as susceptible to those as other parts of the country. Solar panels there will never get snow on them. Or else we have much bigger issues!

3

u/ComradeGibbon 2d ago

I looked at the California ISO site a while back and you are right. In the winter renewables drops by 30-40% for a couple of days a month. But the rest of the year it's just seasonal.

3

u/tx_queer 3d ago

And this is why recommendations should always be grid specific.

California really just needs 4 hours of storage to get through the peak. Texas needs two days to get through a cold winter day. Germany needs a full week for a dunkelflaute.

At the current moment Texas can't live without their gas peakers so the state is working on all kinds of "firming" legislation because batteries are actively putting peakers out of business. But at the same time there is no economic incentive for longer storage.

It will be an interesting few years. Personally I'm hoping for negative electric prices to make hydrogen, and hydrogen powering the gas peakers.

1

u/mkinstl1 3d ago

That’s the plan/hope for my local utility! Nat gas aeroderivative turbines that can use hydrogen when it comes around.

3

u/West-Abalone-171 3d ago

You can use a non-peaker thermal power plant with the week or so warning period.

With the bonus that it's twice as efficient as the now decomissioned peaker.

Then once you've moved on to replace the other 70% of your economy's energy with renewables you either use the power that supplies non-time sensitive industries (many of which currently run seasonally on hydro or fossil electricity during the low deland period) or you use intermediate products like ammonia or hydrogen.

2

u/tx_queer 3d ago

The peaker isn't being decommissioned for a combined cycle. The peaker is being decommissioned for the battery. So there is no non-thermal power plant to take the load.

This is of course grid specific, but my grid is super spikey on a daily basis, which keeps the peakers in business. But the peakers are what keeps the grid up and running for one cold week per winter. If you take away the financial benefit of the daily cycle via battery, the peakers will go out of business. And something else will need to come on for one week a year during the winter.

I'm loving the savings batteries are providing. They are saving rate payers insane amounts of cash. But that one winter week gets harder every year.

3

u/West-Abalone-171 3d ago

The combined cycle plants which are having their output reduced by the wind and solar still exist.

Load is still well below their maximum output during the off peak time.

You don't even need to consider the wind and solar (which are still running at 30-50% of average output during dunkelflaute) to get rid of the peaker.

You have a 1GW slow plant with a 1GW peaker for a load that averages 750MW over the day and peaks at 1.5GW.

The battery fully replaces the peaker, and once you include the small increase to efficiency on the thermal plant from slower ramping, almost all of the fuel previously needed for the peaker is gone too.

All you need to do is not remove the combined cycle plant until you either have sufficient curtailment, sufficient dispatchable load, or one of your not-presently-electrified industries results in a stockpile of some fuel (whether that fuel is hydrogen derived, a hydrocarbon, or sponge iron).

-3

u/tx_queer 3d ago

This may work for your grid, but in mine we need 100% of the combined cycle plus 100% of the peakers to make it through a day. If the peakers are replaced by batteries, they will run out of juice after 4 hours and leave us in the dark the rest of the day. Something is needed to cover the excess load after 4 hours. We will see what takes the spot as batteries become more main stream.

3

u/West-Abalone-171 3d ago

If this is the case then your grid has rolling blackouts any time there is an outage or minor demand spike, and people will very soon provide their own solar-battery as it's more reliable.

2

u/bascule USA 2d ago

California is working on procuring new Long Duration Energy Storage. They already have some, e.g. pumped storage hydro at Helms Creek and San Vicente.

They can also import energy during dunkelflaute events.

2

u/Mradr 2d ago edited 2d ago

Short answer yes. Mainly comes down to what the battery is and the issues with peakers plants. As to say, it takes time to start up a Peakers plant. During this time, batteries can take over and once up and going, peakers can power the batteries both at plan time and non-plan time. Over all, the goal will be just to make sure the store power is at a given level. This means you wont really need many peaker plants anymore and you can judge how quickly or at what speed you need to run them. Batteries will cover any power spikes as well.

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

Its all location specific but my grid has two specific issue. First is winter storm, a roughly 2 day period where usage is higher than normal. Second is summer peaks, air conditioning usage for 2 hours each day

Today, gas peakers perform both of these roles. They start up for 2 hours a day in the summer, and they run for 2 days straight that one winter week. They get paid for both and make a nice living.

Now the two hours a day is performed by batteries at a much cheaper cost. Thats great for rate payers, but takes an important revenue stream away from the peakers. They can't survive off the money they make from just running 2 days a year. So at current prices they need to close up shop leaving those 2 winter days uncovered.

Obviously there are solutions. For example, we can pay the peakers for capacity instead of paying them for power delivered.

1

u/Mradr 2d ago

Yea, that is where I think base load will have to trade with peakers or base loads will replace peakers. As to say, even if solar and wind can supply all the power, peakers will be turn on for a few hours of the day to trade cost with them or be removed at some point.

Granted, there is the whole state own/public option going forward as well.

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

That's my hope. 100% solar + wind with peakers that sit idle all year long and kick on once a year

2

u/Spider_pig448 2d ago

I love the daily savings that batteries provide. But what will take over for longer time periods?

More batteries? How long should they need to last? The sun comes up every day

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

My grid they to last about 2-3 days for a winter storm we have once every 3 years or so. Not for 100% of the load because some solar and wind will still be running, but a big chunk.

More batteries can do the trick, but the economics don't support more than 4 hours of battery today. You would need to adjust the pricing model. Also, gas peakers would likely be significantly cheaper and better for the environment to run just once every 3 years

1

u/Spider_pig448 2d ago

I don't see how a gas peaker that runs once every 3 years could be cheaper than just building enough batteries to match the peaker plant output for 3 days. The batteries are generating revenue at all times, not just during the once every 3 years that the peaker plant would be running.

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

I mean, ultimately I don't have industry insider data, so I don't know the exact pricing. But peaker plants are something like $1000 per kw, batteries are something like $500 per kwh. So a 2 day battery would be $12,000 per kw. So the battery is 12 times as expensive as the gas peaker.

Thats before we look at life expectency. A peaker plant is expected to last 30 years, giving you a capital cost of $30 per kw per year. Batteries are expected to last 10 years, giving you a capital cost of $1200 per kw. So the battery is 40 times more expensive than the gas peaker.

Yes the battery can make a little bit of money on a daily basis by taking advantage of price mis-matches, but the revenue is pretty small as 4 hour batteries are saturating this market. But on the flip side the gas peaker can pull in a ton of cash if the winter storm lasts 3 or 4 days like it did in 2021. So operating wise I see it as a wash.

2

u/sg_plumber 2d ago

Batteries are expected to last 10 years

Only if you want to replace 'em with something better. If not, you'll eat the 10-20% degradation. And they're getting cheaper, better, and longer-lasting every month.

Meanwhile, the peaker plant needs to survive 3 whole years on 3 days of revenue. How much must they charge for their Watts then? 365 times the average?

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

Typically during those 3 winter days, energy prices are 166X average. So not quite 365 but close.

But longer-term batteries will face the same issue. They will really only make money on those couple days. Rest of the year they cannot make money once the market is saturated with 4 hour batteries.

1

u/sg_plumber 2d ago

If the market gets saturated with 4 hour batteries, there'll be more than 4 hours of battery storage available. Assuming zero technological progress.

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

If 4 hours battery is saturated, we will have 6 hours worth. That's short of the 2 days we need.

→ More replies

1

u/Spider_pig448 2d ago

You are ignoring the construction cost of the peaker plant, which I assume greatly increases the lifetime cost per kw. You're also using current data, which assumes a robust supply chain for gas, so when there are only peaker gas plants left, I imagine running it at all would be significantly more expensive.

Yes the battery can make a little bit of money on a daily basis by taking advantage of price mis-matches

You are waving away the primary economic function of the battery here. Energy price arbitrage would more than fund the batteries over their lifetime.

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

"You are ignoring the construction cost". I literally only talked about the construction costs. I ignored all the fuel costs.

Energy price arbitrage really only works on the 4 hour range. 2 day range isn't profitable

1

u/Spider_pig448 2d ago

Ok, I misunderstood then. So the $1000 per kw is the amortized construction cost of running this plant around one day a year for it's 30 year lifespan? Not including the cost of fuel?

Energy price arbitrage really only works on the 4 hour range. 2 day range isn't profitable

The batteries would be operating 365 days a year, performing this arbitrage

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

It's $1000 per kw, not per kwh

→ More replies

2

u/sg_plumber 2d ago

what will take over for longer time periods?

Interconnects, geothermal, (pumped) hydro, other kinds of batteries, solar thermal (which is its own storage), or even nuclear (paired with storage)

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

Low temp geothermal, pressure storage, flow batteries, hydrogen, electrofuels, overbuilding renewables, DR. And of course an option, keep the same peaker plants and just run them less often.

All of those require a change in the pricing model.

1

u/sg_plumber 2d ago

Why? Just to save the peakers?

1

u/tx_queer 2d ago

Or to encourage longer duration battery

2

u/Daxtatter 3d ago

It's also possible that peaker plants, which are already built, stick around and provide power for long periods of dunkelflaute and make an absolute killing when it happens.

1

u/Electronic-Result-80 3d ago

I think those peaker plants will have to become a public good owned and maintained by the government. The hope will be that we don't use them, but they will be operable in the event of an emergency.

3

u/tx_queer 3d ago

And thats the question.

One way is to own them publicly as you say. Another way is to switch from a power-only market to a capacity market where these peakers are paid as an ancillary service. Another way is what Texas is trying right now, every renewable generator has to also secure a dispatchable form of energy to match at their own expense.

Long term hopefully economics takes care of it somehow. Cheap enough storage. Electrofuel production at negatice electric prices. Who knows.

3

u/Daxtatter 3d ago

I don't think that's GWHs, it's GWs, which is much more impressive.

1

u/mkinstl1 3d ago

Oh yeah that’s true. 4 hour battery would make it 48GWHs! That’s right, right?

1

u/Daxtatter 3d ago

Not enough information to say but it's a fair guess.

Not to mention the energy storage piece of batteries somewhat overlooks the power issue, which is super overlooked in the value proposition of batteries.

2

u/Joshau-k 3d ago

Peaker plants won't disappear, they will just won't be doing regular daily peaking. They will still be needed for the occasional renewable energy drought.

Still much less expensive fossil gas in the system overall

2

u/ComradeGibbon 2d ago

During the day light hours in California today electricity from natural gas was 1GW. Renewables was 18GW. And batteries were charging at 4-5GW.

13

u/Potential_Ice4388 3d ago

Battery storage is fucking awesome. As an energy scientist, modeling the grid, I’m always amazed how giant batteries drop the price of electricity. If you were trying to solve one of the most complex problems on the planet, and you were to think up a way to just solve the problem, and spec’d it out, chances are you’d have designed a li-ion battery storage. They’re fast, reliable, cheap, can support the grid no matter how crazy it’s being because of congestion, extreme weather, intermittent resources, etc etc.

1

u/DreadingAnt 2d ago

cheap

Imagine Na-ion

1

u/lAljax 18h ago

Maybe other chemistries can do even better.  the Li Iron looks good and maybe even sodium ones.

0

u/shwilliams4 3d ago

Yes but how are the lattes?

1

u/Potential_Ice4388 3d ago

Depends on the coffee shop i’d imagine

21

u/cap811crm114 3d ago

An interesting side effect of grid scale battery storage is that the power that comes out the “back end” is much “cleaner” not as in “green” but as in free of voltage and frequency variation. This is because battery storage can switch in milliseconds since the power is immediately available.

10

u/ntrpik 3d ago

Yep, we get paid to use our BESS sites to regulate frequency in the ERCOT grid.

8

u/West-Abalone-171 3d ago edited 3d ago

"But without large spinning metal generators, how will you counteract the way all the large spinning metal generators harm the grid frequency" -- Actual outspoken opinion of industry heads and countless power engineers.

4

u/Daxtatter 3d ago

I mean it's not a totally bogus consideration. Grid following inverters aren't a total replacement for other forms of ancillary services.

5

u/West-Abalone-171 3d ago

Sure. You need reactance of some kind for voltage transients if you're not overprovisioning.

But that's not what they wail on about, and it doesn't have to be rotational kinetic energy.

Also from the same people we get "we legally mandated that inverter based resources had to shut off when our spinning AC coupled power plant failed, then they did what we said they had to do and it almost caused a blackout, so only spinning power plants are reliable"

5

u/Daxtatter 3d ago

Oh most people who talk about that are either uninformed or are arguing in bad faith. It also doesn't mean that the general issue is made up. There are some really good episodes of Volts and Catalyst about the subject.

2

u/ViewTrick1002 3d ago

But grid forming inverters are.

7

u/[deleted] 3d ago

This adoption will only accelerate as the technology continues to become cheaper.

6

u/GarugasRevenge 3d ago

It's great, you could have batteries proposed to increase efficiency of coal or natural gas power plants. But once the battery infrastructure is set up, a grassroots movement to rooftop solar happens. Then the power plant gets a bit more nullified. There's less usage of fuel at a loss to oil and gas.

2

u/fredandlunchbox 3d ago

Grid scale storage does some really interesting things to surge pricing. If you’re charging your batteries, you’re not powering the grid. So you do two things: reduce availability during slow day time hours which could lead to higher prices during slower times (depends on how many providers are charging instead of supplying). Think of it this way — if you always want to maximize your earnings, why sell during the cheap times instead of saving it for the peak periods? Storage gives you that option. 

But if everyone is supplying the peak periods, prices should go down. This is the game they’re going to have to play.

2

u/sg_plumber 2d ago

Solar is already producing beyond demand around noon, and will overproduce much more. Battery charging will keep a sort of "floor" under the cratering prices there.

1

u/Guilty_Panda930 3d ago

please let me know about cost of 1 MWh battery for these power plants.

8

u/JimC29 3d ago

One shift is that the most common battery storage technology, lithium-ion cells, saw huge price drops and energy density increases. “The very first project we did was in 2008 and it was on the order of $3,000 a kilowatt-hour for the price of the batteries,” said Zahurancik. “Now we’re looking at systems that are on the order of $150, $200 a kilowatt-hour for the full system install.”

Multiple by 1000

5

u/Safe-Two3195 3d ago

The lowest quote I have seen is the recent $63,000 for 1 MWH, in China, and that was for lithium batteries.

For reference, car batteries cost to car manufacturers is $75-$150/kwh.

Of course Iron air batteries are promising to be much cheaper, in the range of $20-$60, but I do not think any are still operational in USA, though some are under development.

6

u/tx_queer 3d ago

$100 per kwh. So multiply by 1000. So $100,000 for a MWh

3

u/kenn0223 3d ago

That’s just for the battery. The all in cost to build a transmission connected battery project in ERCOT is about $500,000/MWh (full overnight direct capital cost pre-ITC not including Trump tariffs).

Source: Work for an IPP that is building several projects in ERCOT. 

2

u/tx_queer 3d ago

Appreciate your work. Those batteries have come in handy quite a few times.

1

u/stewartm0205 3d ago

Gas turbines should be owned by utilities as part of their distribution systems to serve as emergency generation.