Europe’s largest transmission-connected BESS begins ‘world first’ reactive power services contract.

Energy Storge News ^ | Feb 13,223 | Andy Colthorpe

[M. Dodge Thomas]

A battery storage system in the UK has begun delivery of reactive power services to the grid in what has been claimed as a world first contract of its kind.

Developer-investor Zenobe Energy also said that its 100MW/107MWh battery energy storage system (BESS) in Capenhurst, Chester, is currently the largest battery project directly connected to the transmission grid anywhere in Europe...

The BESS will reduce the amount of curtailment of renewable energy, particularly wind, in the Mersey region of north-west England where it is located, as well as reducing the amount of gas-fired generation needed to balance the supply and demand of electricity.

Zenobe noted that in December alone, UK transmission system operator (TSO) National Grid spent £82 million (US$99.1 million) in payments to generators which were curtailed due to their produced energy exceeding network hosting capacity.

Zenobe said that over the first 15 years of the Capenhurst 100MW BESS’ operation, it alone should reduce curtailment to the extent that it will save the TSO £58 million.

This figure was arrived at by calculating the £16 million difference in cost between the long-term reactive power contract versus existing reactive power solutions, with those existing solutions meaning fossil fuel plants, typically combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants, aka peaker plants.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

What's interesting about this is that justification for substituting BESS for conventional "peaker" alternatives is purely economic: the cost of such storage has fallen to the point where the return on investment in curtailment avoided is superior to ALL the alternatives.

This is a "canary in the coal mine" for the future of stationary combined cycle gas turbine generation.

Curtailment reduction is one of the lowest-hanging fruits in terms of BESS superiority on a purely economic basis.

So BESS displacement of peakers to reduce curtailment is a "wedge" case: it's economically superior even at current costs.

The result is a preview of the upcoming death spiral for stationary thermal power plants: if BESS reduces the required peaker base by even a few percent, utilization at the peakers declines which reduces revenue, which reduces profitability or increases prices, which in turn makes BESS even more attractive.

And that's just the start: with projected costs for three critical technologies - Wind, Solar and Storage (WSB) - projected to decline a further 50-70% by the end of the decade, while the costs for all other alternatives are expected to rise, WSB is going to start rapidly displacing existing thermal power - it will be like BESS substitution s, only on steroids.

And no, intermittency is not going to be the limit - that problem is soluble at an attractive cost with WSB overcapacity - the major limitation is how rapidly WSB or (some combination methods for energy storage in addition to conventional batteries) can be deployed.

But politically it's going to be a very ugly fight as the incumbents attempt to regulate their way out of displacement.

____________

For the tech minded, there is a basic introduction to the concept of reactive power here:

https://energyinnovationproject.com/understanding-the-basics-of-reactive-power/

[EEGator]

I will look into this, as others here will too.

Primary thoughts with respect to alternative energy and UK is bovine scat.
When I hear hoof beats, I don’t look for Zebras…

[ronnie raygun]

Another words this will be great and work extraordinarily well when consumption is down to zero, no more gas stoves, oil to heat your homes, wood stoves to keep warm, electric cars to be monitored and charged only when you are told to and candles

[EEGator]

You will own nothing and be happy…

[PIF]

to bad there isn’t enough raw material or time to make the hopium pipe “dream” come true.

New geological study proves that the green energy movement is impossible to achieve - American Thinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/02/new_geological_study_proves_that_the_green_energy_movement_is_impossible_to_achieve.html

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“Wind, Solar and Storage (WSB) are projected to decline a further 50-70% by the end of the decade”

That is absolutely preposterous and downright laughable. I held my tongue and didn’t use “stupid,” though I was really tempted.

Do you REALLY believe that? What are you counting on? 1,500 foot high, 20 MW wind turbines?

[Tell It Right]

Here are my thoughts, as someone who likes decentralized solar in a free market world (install it for yourself if you want it), but think it's always wasteful money for undependable power in the utility world. This article supports my assertion.

Here's how I calculate their cost per kWh of storage. They paid $99.1 million for 107MWh. That comes out to $926,168 per MWh. To put it in kWh to make it comparable to home solar storage, divide by 1,000 and that's $926/kWh. Which is crazy expensive.

My home solar battery stack, including the racks and cables and such, cost a hair under $28K for a hair over 92kWh. That's $304/kWh. I paid a THIRD of the price they paid, and that was with my prices artificially inflated from the dumb solar tax credits.

Even the brain-dead greenies who support solar at the utility level (which I hate because utility power should be dependable) should be offended that their government spent so much for this battery storage project.

[Revel]

That will be a heck of a lithium Chemical fire when it catches.

[EEGator]

Thanks for the response. I’ll come back in a bit to check both your post and the original article out.

Still working…

[moovova]

I hope all of he poor little African children that dug up the minerals necessary to power this plant are compensated fairly.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

The ONLY useful feature of battery storage in the context of highly variable wind and solar is that it is very easy to ramp up the battery output quickly, to cover sudden drops in the power from the windmills.

Now this task is allotted to gas, which is slower to respond and with current technology is not storable at the generating site, so if there’s ever a hiccup in the gas pipelines..... (as happened in Texas).

The other source which can be modulated quickly is hydro, but of course the greenies are tearing down the dams.

Nuclear (specifically thorium/salt) is the answer, but they also oppose that.

AFAIC they are welcome to commit suicide, but DON’T demand that I go with them.

[FreedomPoster]

What is the expected life of your battery stack?

[hanamizu]

Here’s a video about another large ‘battery’ in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jx_bJgIFhI

[Tell It Right]

The warranty is 19 years guaranteed for a slow decline in throughput to still be storing 50% as much on the final year. But I expect to get more years out of them because they're rated/guaranteed as long as I don't make a habit of draining them more than 80%. Instead I drain them no more than 70%. Plus I have 18 of them -- spreading the charge and discharge capacity equally among them so that they're worked a lot less than they're designed to be.

For example, today my solar panels were bringing in 15kW at the highest point. Since my house was using less than 500 watts at that time, my inverters/charge controllers were putting 14.5kW into battery storage. That's a lot of charge coming in, but spread out among 18 batteries to make it only 800 watts per battery. The same goes when I consume power from the batteries. If at night we're consuming 15kW (say I'm charging the EV while running the clothes dryer and a few incidentals in the house), then pulling all of that from the batteries (at night means nothing coming from solar) then it's only 833 watts per battery. That's child's play when each battery is capable of 5.14kW. Thus, each battery is charged lightly and discharged lightly, even when solar coming into batteries or my power demand coming from the batteries is heavy.

The solar panels have a 25 year/70% guarantee (the old ones, the new ones have a 25 year/80% guarantee).

[M. Dodge Thomas]

“Primary thoughts with respect to alternative energy and UK is bovine scat.”

Last November the UK, for the first time, had a 24-hour period when total energy generated by renewables exceeded all other sources.

Last year 97% of all electricity consumed in Scotland was generated by renewables.

The displacement I described above is already happening.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Uh.... do you really expect that lower energy costs will force you to reduce consumption?

WSB is the only currently technically viable and cost-competitive source of cheap, abundant electrical power available.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Uh.... do you really expect that lower energy costs will force you to reduce consumption?

WSB is the only currently technically viable and cost-competitive source of cheap, abundant electrical power available.

[PLMerite]

“Last year 97% of all electricity consumed in Scotland was generated by renewables.”

So they were able to permanently shut down a corresponding percentage of legacy generation?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Petty much so, though there wasn’t all that much to decommission.
Decommissioned the last thermal coal in 2021.
Closed down a nuclear plant years early in 2020.
Last remaining nuclear plant to decommission in 2028.
Still around a dozen small oil or diesel generators, mostly serving isolated areas.
Current investment is 100% in wind and hydro.
Currently, sources other than wind and hydro contribute around 7% of total generation.

[EEGator]

I’ll look into as said. I don’t take others statistics and maths without personal rigor.

(I tried to make that sound UK style. Not sure it worked...)