California Passes Huge Grid Energy Storage Mandate

[madokie]

CPUC passes controversial mandate for 1.3 gigawatts of batteries, grid storage by 2020


California’s status as the vanguard in pushing energy storage technologies onto the power grid is now official. On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved its proposed mandate (PDF) that will require the state’s big three investor-owned utilities to add 1.3 gigawatts of energy storage to their grids by decade’s end.

Now comes the hard part: putting in place a complex set of regulations to guide the development of an unprecedented number of batteries, thermal energy storage and other forms of grid power and energy capture-and-release technologies, all keeping to the mandate’s requirement that they be “cost-effective.”

CPUC’s ruling comes after years of work jump-started by a 2010 state law, Assembly Bill 2514, which originally called for the statewide energy storage mandate to enable a “market transformation” for these new technologies.

Large-scale energy storage doesn’t really exist today beyond massive pumped hydro projects. But California’s aggressive renewable energy goals and greenhouse gas reduction mandates will be hard to meet without a lot more energy storage to help balance intermittent wind and solar resources while keeping the grid stable.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-passes-huge-grid-energy-storage-mandate

[NYC_SKP]

1. Storage is key to expanded deployment of renewables and, interestingly, to new transportation.

I'm really happy with this mandate and want to see our state continue to lead in energy technologies and renewables.

However, we still suck at transportation compared to other regions and need to deploy more EVs and electric mass transit.

Doing this makes the challenge of more renewable generation that much harder, so storage is really going to help in achieving both goals.

While not a big fan of batteries as the solution, they can be strategically deployed where most useful in the grid, and are scalable unlike pumped hydro which is necessarily large in scale and only works where there are changes in elevation.

[madokie]

2. We have pumped hydro near here.

A 750 acre lake 185 feet deep with a 200 ft head. They use the top 15 ft or so. I spent the better part of my free time of the '80s chasing the all elusive large mouth bass there.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I know which one, I think.

Good for bass and catfish, but no swimming or internal combustion engine boating?

[madokie]

4. You got it

Been here have you?

[NYC_SKP]

5. No but it sure looks pretty.

From a list of pumped storage facilities, Grand River Salina was the likely suspect.

http://www.industcards.com/ps-usa.htm

[madokie]

6. We just call it the pump back

the water comes from Saline creek so its relatively clear. Its a beautiful lake full of fish.

I found if I'd anchor off the long points in about 50 ft of water during the dog days of summer, August and September, and fish with a plastic worm and a jig and chunk I'd catch huge bass. It was slow fishing but man o man it was well worth it. 4 to 7 pound range with some that I'd never be able to turn their heads. I used 10 pound line and a good double improved clinch knot that very seldom ever broke at the knot so I know some of those I didn't get in were monsters.

Haven't fished in 20 years now though

[phantom power]

7. I just went and read the PDF...

Amazing: the entire document talks about storage as "watts" without ever mentioning "watts X (unit-of-time)", which is what actually defines energy storage.

I can provide "1.3 gigawatts of storage" with a car battery. I just can't provide it for very long.

[oldhippie]

8. Sad, isn't it, what passes for technical journalism these days.

The difference between power and energy seems to be just "too hard" for most to grasp. Really, it's not rocket science.

Oh, and just to pick a nit, I don't think you can provide 1.3 gigawatts of storage with a car battery. Even for a short while. That would be 100,000,000 amps at 13 volts. I think the internal resistance in most car batteries will limit the dump rate to a couple thousand amps. But I get your point.

[kristopher]

11. So you think of CPUC documents as "technical journalism"?

And that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't understand the difference between power and energy?

I don't think you are correct.

[oldhippie]

12. The document I read was from greentechmedia ....

.... not the CPUC. So your post is N/A.

And I really don't care if you think I am correct. I think I am correct.

What were your credentials, again?

[kristopher]

14. The document (PDF) PP referred to is from the CPUC

In other words, you think you are correct but you aren't even reading the correct document.

Well, at least that is consistent with your prior efforts here.

[oldhippie]

15. The .pdf document from the CPUC referenced in the article .....

... also makes the same error regarding energy and power.

Do I think the CPUC knows the difference? I don't know. But you would think that if they did they would get it right in their documents.

What were your credentials, again?

[kristopher]

17. California's Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

[hunter]

20. The trick is inductors and capacitors...

That's what makes spark plugs spark. I'm not up on my high voltage physics, but very short gigawatt pulses don't seem unapproachable.

If I put some thought into it I think I could throw a pretty long spark with a car battery.

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. The Flux Capacitor

Soaking up 1.21 gigawatts. Lightning yes, car battery not so much.

A 2 Farad Capacitor charged to 36kV yields 1.3x10^9 J
Make one heck of a party strobe!

[hunter]

26. Something you might look up is "Vector Inversion Generator" and similar technologies.

Once you figure out how to generate a pulse measured in nanoseconds, gigawatt pulses from car batteries become quite a bit easier.

Basically what you are doing is compressing a high voltage high current pulse in time, somewhat analogous to the way big waves are generated on some shorelines...

http://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/9464-has-carlos-burle-beaten-mcnamaras-largest-wave-record

I was always a danger to myself and others when I surfed, even when I was merely body surfing. I once broke some guy's arm with my head. I have a brother who is a similar danger to himself and others surfing. His wife just said "NO." I think it's in their unspoken and unwritten marriage contract that he not surf. Yet his kids are horse whisperers, something I think is just as dangerous. I've met mean horses.

My youngest brother and my wife are our family's only accomplished surfers. But as middle age parents with kids we mostly avoid danger and try to model proper adult behavior to the young ones.

My major vices as a young adult were very high voltages and explosives.

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. Like this one?

1nS rise time is not unusual. This is just a 330pF cap with a pulse shaping network to keep the output waveform in spec. Car batteries inherent inductance won't let you pull enough pulsed current to achieve a high energy flow rate without transferring the stored energy to something capable of the higher discharge rate.

[kristopher]

10. Why would they need to discuss "watts X (unit-of-time)" specifically in this document?

It has absolutely nothing to do with their purpose and would be in opposition to their approach encouraging a flexible, needs-based, or use-based strategy for developing different technologies for different applications.

Their benchmark of 1% of peak load is unquestionably appropriate to the function of their rule making, which encompasses the entire range of potential services that storage might provide for transmission, distribution and behind-the-meter customer owned storage. The potential variance in the appropriate size of these widely differing systems argues against too much prescriptive detail at the CPUC level.

What I like is that they have limited utilities to ownership of storage under this program to 50% or less and that they've excluded large scale (>50MW) pumped hydro storage. Both decisions show that the direction they are steering is towards a distributed grid with lots of local stakeholders.

[oldhippie]

13. Maybe because the whole article is about "energy storage" .....

Really, kris, you don't understand how energy is described? Or does it just not matter to you, as long as you think you can lodge your propaganda points with the technically uninformed?

Really. How much energy is 1.3 Gigawatts?

Really, your post above is techno-garfle.

What were your credentials, again?

[kristopher]

16. How does prescribing the depth of capacity assist the CPUC effort?

You are showing your true self yet again.

Tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store? Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

[oldhippie]

18. Obsfucate much?

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Who is prescribing the depth of capacity?

Why are you asking irrelevant questions about how much energy things should store?

What were your credentials, again?

Gentlemen, I rest my case. I am done.

ETA: Hey, I have an idea! Why don't you change the subject again, set up a strawman, and ask some more questions? Oh, wait ....

[kristopher]

19. I posed legitimate questions related to the actual policy under discussion.

That would contrast sharply with your contributions to the thread. You have asserted (from "reading" the wrong document) that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power based on the fact that they specified an amount of storage based on the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate. Now that you are faced with germane questions that put your claim in doubt, you want to flee the scene.

Before you go, please tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store?

Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

[oldhippie]

21. [sigh] ... I really need to get a life ....

I posed legitimate questions related to the actual policy under discussion.

Except I never said or intended to say anything about the policy under discussion (which, FWIW, I think is a good idea.) My comment was only about the state of journalism and how people don't know the difference between units of power and energy. (That comment, BTW, was in answer to PhantomPower, not you, but, being a discussion board, you were within your rights to comment on it. It would be nice, though, if you didn't change the subject before commenting.)

You have asserted (from "reading" the wrong document) that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power ...

Uh, no, I never asserted any such thing. And you can't show where I did. The closest I came was saying I don't know. That's hardly an assertion. Whoever wrote the documents used the wrong term.

... based on the fact that they specified an amount of storage based on the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate.

Uh, no, that was not the basis of my non-assertion. I commented only on the mis-use of the unit of power when they were talking about energy. I cared not why it was done, by whom, or how anyone came up with the amount of peak power capacity or storage resource. I didn't look at it because I didn't care. I care about the mis-use of technical language.

And as long as I am here wasting my time with you, I may as well answer the other inane, irrelevant questions you have asked, even though I never addressed them before in this thread.

Before you go, please tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store?

Ha! I can NAIL that one. Enough to get me from where I am to where I'm going and back with a comfortable (20%) margin. That's too easy.

Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

Hmmm, that's a little tougher. No, there is not a specific number. I do have to wonder why you ask me that question, since it has nothing to do with anything I have said in this thread. I never considered any of that. I commented on the mis-use of a term. Remember?

And finally.

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

I mean, why are you even asking me this? I don't know, I don't care. It has nothing to do with what I was commenting on. But it is a very good illustration of how you change subjects, bring up extraneous issues, and ask people why they said things that they never said. Surely, I am not the only one that notices this? I make a comment about technical literacy only, and you keep trying to make it a discussion about how the CPUC sets energy storage policy. I guess you're asking me since no one else seems to want to talk to you about it?

What were your credentials, again?

I'm really going to bed now.

[kristopher]

22. Or you could just be civil...

I suppose, then, that it's back to the beginning again. I strongly urge anyone still reading to review the thread.

After reading the wrong document (post 8) you clearly stated that the CPUC was making the "same mistake" that the uninformed "technical" journalist had made (post 15). You tried to backtrack with a qualifier, but you are clearly stating that the CPUC document is wrong and, by implication, that the people who wrote it are less informed than you.

Perhaps you should worry less about tossing snark at other DUers and more about simply reading with comprehension and accuracy, for the CPUC docs are actually very clear when they define that in this document, "MW represents the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate". (pg 1, APPENDIX A)

Appendix A, btw, is the document actually being adopted.

The CPUC is issuing a policy that "prescribes" the purchase of a certain amount of storage. For their purposes it isn't necessary to define that storage in terms of amount delivered over time. I explained why in post 10, but you chose to call that "techno-garfel" rather than consider that you were off-target.

I then gave examples to demonstrate why the time element of the storage to be purchased isn't predictable enough for a prescriptive approach to be used at this stage. One important goal of the policy is "cost effectiveness". There would be severe negative impacts to that if they tried to determine in advance the hours of storage involved in all of the different applications.

I see from your continued nervous snark that you understand specifying the time dimension would be a ridiculous approach to pursue but that is what your criticism is about - they chose to use the faceplate peak power capacity of the resources being purchased rather than get into the depth of delivery that might suit each of those resources best.

[phantom power]

23. Because the goal is to mandate storage requirements for their grid.

If you are going to be defining storage requirements, there's a ginormous difference between mandating 1.3 GW, to be sustainable for 10 minutes, or 1.3 GW, to be sustainable for an hour, or 1.3 GW, to be sustainable for 12 hours, etc.

In that entire document, I have no idea what kind of use case they're going after. Maybe they all know, and assume anybody else reading their document knows too.

Could be just me, but I like to think people in an organization like that would be rigorous enough to know that storage has units of energy = power X time, not just power.

[kristopher]

24. Their goals are well presented in the papers

If you have no idea what they are trying to do it is because you didn't actually read the papers.

[oldhippie]

25. Too bad we're not as smart as kristopher .....

You see, as long as something's or someone's goals are approved by Kristopher, it doesn't matter whether it is technically correct or not. It's the spin that counts, not the accuracy.

I sure wish I was as smart as Kristopher. I wish I knew what his credentials were, so I could try to emulate them.

[kristopher]

27. Maybe you're onto something...

The situation seems to be one where there is a series of papers, written by professional staff at a high level of expertise, reviewed and contributed to by an array of involved major industrial organizations and various stakeholders specializing in the field.

The number of highly qualified professionals involved in the production of this policy and paper is very high.

You say they've made a fundamental lexical error in spite of the fact that they define their usage with precise, unambiguous language on the first page of the document being adopted.

I thought it was just a matter of laziness towards reading combined with a preference for disruption over discussion, but after reading your post 25, I'll admit you raise a real possibility I hadn't considered.

[kristopher]

29. Kick