Renewable Energy Storage -- What's Real?

[Ampster]

I'm still saying they can (I never said they would) increase congestion. I think you should reread my posts and ask for clarification if you're confused.

I am not confused about how the grid works. You are correct that anything is possible. The examples I have given demonstrate that no one would set up solar and batteries in a way that you suggest so that they would create congestion on the grid.
I spent all day yesterday at a symposium about local energy. There was an example given in one of the panel talks about a solar and battery installation at Fresno School District. The impact these installations had on the grid was positive. PG & E was able to defer millions of dollars of planned upgrades as a result.

 

[Ampster]

You are correct that anything is possible.

Although I might add, since the California energy crisis in 2001 there are additional checks and balances so that scenerio is not likely. No one would be permitted to place solar and batteries where the energy produced could not be distributed efficiiently.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I am not confused about how the grid works. You are correct that anything is possible. The examples I have given demonstrate that no one would set up solar and batteries in a way that you suggest so that they would create congestion on the grid.
I spent all day yesterday at a symposium about local energy. There was an example given in one of the panel talks about a solar and battery installation at Fresno School District. The impact these installations had on the grid was positive. PG & E was able to defer millions of dollars of planned upgrades as a result.

I think we're talking about the same thing. The point of my first post is that utilities wouldn't let owners make money by exporting electricity to the grid as a whole from their battery packs if it increased congestion/costs for them, especially on-peak. It's similar to utilities limiting the size of PV installations to your current use, or reasonable estimates of future use.

Renewable Energy Storage -- What's Real?

 

[Ampster]

The point of my first post is that utilities wouldn't let owners make money by exporting electricity to the grid as a whole from their battery packs if it increased congestion/costs for them, especially on-peak

Since most people on this thread have demonstrated that distributed battery storage would NOT create congestion your point it moot. What we have been talking about is your obsession with talking about congestion.Your misunderstanding about how storage prevents congestion has dominated this part of the thread. You simply do not want to acknowledge that congestion created by battery storage is not an issue in California. In fact there is a regulatory push to stimulate more storage in California.The issue that the original poster started this thread with is intermittancy. That is the one of the real issues facing Califonia.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Since most people on this thread have demonstrated that distributed battery storage would NOT create congestion your point it moot. What we have been talking about is your obsession with talking about congestion.Your misunderstanding about how storage prevents congestion has dominated this part of the thread. You simply do not want to acknowledge that congestion created by battery storage is not an issue in California. In fact there is a regulatory push to stimulate more storage in California.The issue that the original poster started this thread with is intermittancy. That is the one of the real issues facing Califonia.

Oh for Pete's sake... Please go back and reread my posts. You apparently do not understand what I'm trying to communicate.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

If I dump a gallon of gasoline on a burning car it'll burn faster, but I'm much more likely to put that gallon of gasoline in my car and use it for transportation.

Why would output from batteries be a net addition to congestion? Their entire existence is predicated on stabilizing variable supply and creating efficiency. In theory yes, if you charge a battery bank at night and then somehow force-dump it onto the grid on the following sunny afternoon there would be an oversupply issue. Why would anyone ever do that?

I guess you could be saying that people will want to save a few bucks by charging at night and selling at peak? Any issue like that will be worked out in the market in 2 seconds. It's all going to be decentralized and price will be based on demand. We will WANT people thinking like that before long, it just won't look anything like what's in your mind.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

It already is worked out on the market, at least in CA, insofar as Utilities won't let customers overbuild PV/export off-peak energy on-peak to make a few bucks. They'll let customers build enough PV to offset their current use, or a reasonable projection of their future use, and install battery backup, but that's it. My point, way back on page 2, is that one of the reasons they won't allow customers to overbuild/export could be to manage congestion.

Ideally, there would be some sort of free-market mechanism to balance congestion, but at the moment there isn't anything I'm aware of, and I'm guessing that's one of the reasons CA utilities won't let customers overbuild PV/install batteries to export off-peak energy on-peak. We can get there eventually, but the grid was built based on regulated electric utilities, which has not and may not line up well with new regulations and/or technology.

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.5020/full/

 

[Ampster]

My point, way back on page 2, is that one of the reasons they won't allow customers to overbuild/export could be to manage congestion.

That may be your theory but the actual reason is based on revenue but you will never get them to admit it. Your assumption does not make any sense. You have totally ignored examples given above where congestion has been relieved by batteries.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

That may be your theory but the actual reason is based on revenue but you will never get them to admit it. Your assumption does not make any sense. You have totally ignored examples given above where congestion has been relieved by batteries.

My point was never that congestion can't be relieved by batteries. Again, please reread my posts. Thank you.

 

[Ampster]

If you're just storing energy from off-peak, which has to be transmitted, and sending it back to the grid on-peak as "PV", that'll just increase congestion.

This is your statement that myself and others have disputed. In subsequent posts you have attempted to change assumpyions or describe unrealistic scenerios to prove that your statement COULD be true. Fortunately I don't need to convince you that your statement is not correct. All other posts and comments have come to the same conclusion.

 

[Ampster]

. It probably isn't possible, but my feeling is it could increase congestion

Here you even admit that it is not possible. So why beat this dead horse? What is the purpose of describing a scenerio which proves your point when there is no economic or practical reason anyone would implement batteries in that scenerio?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Battery storage in an open market is quite clearly the solution to what is being referred to as "congestion" in this thread. The reason utilities are putting up roadblocks to excessive solar and batteries of any size is that this new dynamic destroys their revenue stream. This should be fairly obvious.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

This is your statement that myself and others have disputed. In subsequent posts you have attempted to change assumpyions or describe unrealistic scenerios to prove that your statement COULD be true. Fortunately I don't need to convince you that your statement is not correct. All other posts and comments have come to the same conclusion.

I agree, and I've walked back from saying that will increase congestion to saying that could increase congestion after the replies from nwdiver and AntronX. This is where my position has been for at least your past 4(?) comments.

Here you even admit that it is not possible. So why beat this dead horse? What is the purpose of describing a scenerio which proves your point when there is no economic or practical reason anyone would implement batteries in that scenerio?

The "It" in that isn't congestion, it's utilities allowing consumers to export energy to other parts of the grid. Again, please reread my posts and feel free to PM/ask me if you have any questions.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Battery storage in an open market is quite clearly the solution to what is being referred to as "congestion" in this thread. The reason utilities are putting up roadblocks to excessive solar and batteries of any size is that this new dynamic destroys their revenue stream. This should be fairly obvious.

That's likely one reason, I'm guessing the biggest one. My point is that anther reason could be the physical characteristics of the grid. If a utility were to allow customers to sell energy on-peak to other parts of the grid, it could reduce congestion, not do much to congestion, or increase congestion. What it does depends on the layout/capacity of the grid, the location of generators, and the location of the customers who are now exporting a lot of energy on-peak. A utility could minimize congestion by preventing customers from exporting energy on-peak in parts of the grid that are relatively congested, but if they don't do that, congestion could increase.

The use of transmission capacity, which is what I was using incorrectly as a synonym for congestion on page 2(in the sentence Ampster quoted), will always increase if customers export off-peak energy they stored as on-peak energy because of the losses associated with off-peak transmission, storage, and on-peak transmission compared to only on-peak transmission. Congestion may or may not increase, depending on the grid, location of demand, location of generators, and location of customers who are now exporting energy to the grid.

 

[Ampster]

I agree, and I've walked back from saying that will increase congestion to saying that could increase congestion after the replies from nwdiver and AntronX. This is where my position has been for at least your past 4(?) comments.


The "It" in that isn't congestion, it's utilities allowing consumers to export energy to other parts of the grid. Again, please reread my posts and feel free to PM/ask me if you have any questions.

Perhaps the word congestion is where there is confusion. Can we stipulate that current only flows from the source of generation to the load? Afterall that is how physics describes it. An example exists in Irvine where a consumer (Irvine Company) installed seveal Powerpacks and entered into an arrangement with SCE to dispatch energy and to shave load when SCE sends a signal. No solar is attached to this and clearly this arrangement is using off peak power to charge the batteries and feeding the transformers when peaker plants would otherwise be powered up. If you want to take this conversation in a different direction and talk about why the IOUs would resist self generation then go ahead. Just put your hypothetical in the context of why the CEC is incentivizing self generation through SGIP. Why would they do that if there was any chance that it COULD create congestion?

 

[AntronX]

...If a utility were to allow customers to sell energy on-peak to other parts of the grid...

That right there is false belief that bring much confusion to you. You are still thinking that electricity behaves physically like virtual data packets on the internet, that electric current has a destination address. Are you an IT person by any chance?
You don't get to physically "send" your power to other parts of the grid.

 

[miimura]

You don't get to physically "send" your power to other parts of the grid.

My neighbors' houses, which are served by the same utility transformer as my house, are other parts of the grid. They are also the most likely destination for my surplus generation. From my perspective, standing inside my house, "the grid" starts on the other side of my utility meter.

The utility is effectively selling them my energy and giving me credit through net metering. Most of the time, the amount of infrastructure involved in this is very small due to the distance. That is why I personally feel that net metering, at its currently low penetration, is a good and reasonable system.

Of course, I don't get to control where it goes, it just goes to the nearest load.

 

[AntronX]

I meant to far away parts of the grid via distant transmission routes that already suffer from congestion.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

That right there is false belief that bring much confusion to you. You are still thinking that electricity behaves physically like virtual data packets on the internet, that electric current has a destination address. Are you an IT person by any chance?
You don't get to physically "send" your power to other parts of the grid.

I don't think I'm actually sending power to other parts of the grid in the same way I'm pinging a specific box on a network. My understanding of congestion is that it's a function of how much of a particular transmission line we're using, but that could be wrong.

Lets say we go from a situation (based on my earlier example) where all three of the series transmission lines are always below their maximum capacity servicing those two loads, to a situation where one of those lines is sometimes at maximum capacity. Are you saying that even if one transmission line is sometimes at it's maximum capacity instead of always below it's maximum capacity, that the congestion hasn't increased?

 

[AntronX]

Lets say we go from a situation (based on my earlier example) where all three of the series transmission lines are always below their maximum capacity servicing those two loads, to a situation where one of those lines is sometimes at maximum capacity. Are you saying that even if one transmission line is sometimes at it's maximum capacity instead of always below it's maximum capacity, that the congestion hasn't increased?

I fail to see how this example is relevant at all.