In partnership with PLMA, this group is for practitioners from energy utilities, solution providers, and trade allies to share load management expertise and explore innovative approaches to program delivery, pricing constructs, and technology adoption.

WARNING: SIGN-IN

You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please or register to continue.

Post

U.S. GRID ENERGY STORAGE FACTSHEET

U.S. GRID ENERGY STORAGE FACTSHEET

Center for Sustainable Systems

University of Michigan

Electrical Energy Storage (EES) refers to the process of converting electrical energy into a stored form that can later be converted back into electrical energy when needed.1 Batteries are one of the most common forms of electrical energy storage, ubiquitous in most peoples' lives. The first battery—called Volta’s cell—was developed in 1800. The first U.S. large-scale energy storage facility was the Rocky River Pumped Storage plant in 1929, on the Housatonic River in Connecticut.2,3 Research in energy storage has increased dramatically, especially after the first U.S. oil crisis in the 1970s, and with advancements in the cost and performance of rechargeable batteries.2,4 The impact energy storage can have on the current and future sustainable energy grid are substantial.5

  • EES systems are often expressed by rated power in megawatts (MW) and energy storage capacity in megawatt-hours (MWh): the maximum charge/discharge power and the amount of energy capable of being stored, respectively.6
  • As of May 2019, the U.S. had over 31.2 GW of rated power in energy storage compared to 1,098 GW of total in service installed generation capacity as of January 2019.7,8 Globally, installed energy storage totaled 175.8 GW in 2018.9
  • 2.5% of delivered electric power in the U.S. is cycled through a storage facility.  For comparison, 10% of delivered power in Europe and 15% of delivered power in Japan are cycled through energy storage facilities.10
  • Globally, 1,273 energy storage projects were operational in 2018, with 10 projects under construction. 40% of operational projects located in the U.S.7
  • California leads the U.S. in energy storage with 300 operational projects (7.2 GW), followed by Virginia and South Carolina.7

CLICK PDF TO DOWNLOAD A PRINTABLE VERSION: 

PDF icon US Grid Energy Storage_CSS15-17_e2019.pdf

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-factsheet

Discussions

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jan 1, 2020 4:02 pm GMT

Noam, one of the most important (and neglected) facts on your factsheet:

"Round-trip efficiency, annual degradation, and generator heat rate have moderate to strong influence on the environmental performance of grid connected energy storage."

Renewables disciples tend to consider Li-ion batteries an energy "resource", lumping them together with sunlight and wind as a clean source of energy.

But there's a significant difference. Resources are a "stock or supply" of something, and batteries? They're a "stock or supply" of exactly nothing, but a mechanism with which to store a stock or supply of something: electrical energy generated by other means - solar panels, wind turbines, coal furnaces, combined-cycle gas turbines, etc.

Li-ion grid batteries waste anywhere from 15-20% of the energy that goes into them as heat, thanks to internal resistance and bi-directional inversion losses. That makes energy generated by fossil fuels 15-20% dirtier after it's been stored in batteries. It gives natural gas the emissions profile of anthracite coal, and anthracite coal the emissions profile of the dirtiest lignite coal.

To all the energy neophytes touting efficiency improvements - caulking around windows, smart thermostats, etc. - you're largely wasting your time if you're storing grid energy from renewables in batteries. It's always stored together with energy generated by burning natural gas which, after storage, might as well be coal.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Jan 8, 2020 6:25 pm GMT

Bob, 

You have not understood one of the most profound things with the new generation of renewable energy - that it is so cheap, and so much in plenty, so that the usual "saving etc." Latin does not work anymore. 

I am - as I write these lines here - working on planning for implementation of this new generation Solar Concentrator in a Danish 400 m² house, Energy class D (this is the lowest class - the house is absolutely NOT insulated, so it is like heat is fizzling out as if a window is open). 

We are doing this as a test case, as proof of concept of the new paradigm: That instead of spending enormous resources on insulation, we put up this new solar concentrator - and not only do we heat up this house 24/7/365, we also heat up (!) and melt ice (!) in the drive way and on the outdoor pedestrian. We are discussing a house on 55th Northern Latitude - where the winters are cold and the annual energy consumption for heat goes above 30,000 kWh. 

So all there is to say to YOUR response to Noam's excellent article from University of Michigan is, that the one wasting his time is you - you appear as someone perpetually drumming a message from ancient times while reality is moving on even in front of your eyes. 

What we are discussing, Bob (And Noam just for your curiousity maybe..?) is that BEFORE - referring to Bob's now outdated knowledge - lets say - in 1973 - after the Oil Crisis - in order for anyone to build a zero-energy house, they had to spend more than half the cost on 500 mm. insulation, and advanced ways of keeping the heat over the winter. 

What we are seeing now is, that it is now more expensive to insulate the house than simply provide it with sufficient with energy PROVISION - so - we will plaster a 60 kiloWatt solar battery (concentration) outside of the house, and will be heating a 330 cubic meter heat storage which is half way under the house. From our calculations at that particular location - they will have filled the storage up with sufficient heat for the winter from around mid August, and any excess heat will be used to keep the drive way and pedestrian free of ice!!! 

We are talking about, Bob, that we are POURING out energy - out of the window - and it simply does not matter, because the entire system cost less than USD 7,500 to setup - less than a typical, quite limited, PV setup in California - and it produces the energy, directly, locally - and as the cost is so low - it does not matter anymore with insulation and all that stuff.

Look at the difference: Getting the house up to insulation class A - would cost USD 80,000 - and they would still be consuming 6,500 kWh per year on heating ... A heat pump would cost USD 18,900 - for the not insulated house. NONE of the existing solutions makes sense.

The annual pay, currently, for the 30,000 kWh - is USD 11,130. So, the entire system has paid for itself within one season - despite being a "energy gustler" of dimensions. 

Therefore, Bob, all your stuff does not work anymore. I will send you pictures and photos, when they have installed it and had it run for 1 season (that would likely be March 2021). 

Meanwhile, it would serve you well to learn a bit more about Renewable Energy - you are speaking as if you do not have any knowledge and just lots of attitudes.

And just for the record - Naom's article makes so much sense!

Sincerely

David Svarrer

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jan 11, 2020 12:01 am GMT

David, the idea solar energy is cheap just because it's shines everywhere is as erroneous as believing omnipresent moisture in the air will allow flowers to grow in the middle of a desert.

Solar energy, compared to the energy we use to drive our cars, heat our homes, and power our ovens and dishwashers, is extremely diffuse - like moisture in the desert air. At noon on the equator, on a clear day, the most that one can possibly collect is ~1.2kW/m^2. That's all you get. It's energy density drops off sharply for northern latitudes and other times of the day. On cloudy days less than 10% of that is available; at night (obviously) no solar power is available.

Unless the sun never sets in Denmark, no - you can't "heat up this house 24/7/365", nor if the Danish sky is ever cloudy. Your concentrator does not add any energy, it only concentrates energy from a larger surface area to a smaller one. Same energy.

These are fundamental principles which haven't changed in the last 55 years since I first learned of them, or the 5 billion before that. It's amusing you believe nuclear energy "does not work anymore", as Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California churns out two billion watts of carbon-free electricity every day of the year - even after the sun has set. You needn't worry - nuclear works just fine - and it doesn't even matter if I don't have Class A insulation, a heat pump, solar panels, inverters, etc etc etc. It creates no extra carbon emissions when I "waste" some energy, it just costs a little more.

I've run into many other disciples of the Church of Renewables here on EC who, seduced by the innocent fantasy of solar and wind energy, enter a world where logic and reason are left behind. Reason has been anathema to religion since the Spanish Inquisition and before, so you will have to learn as persecuted Christians did centuries ago - the hard way. Best of luck, I hope you learn quickly.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Jan 13, 2020 7:36 pm GMT

Dear Bob,

I am wondering if you are a professional. No offence, but you are writing about scientific and engineering data, as if you do not really understand what you are writing about. 

It is really OK to have opinions, Bob, I don't mind, but you are in a professional group here with engineers, and the things you write, simply do not add up. 

Let us for the sake of good order say, that you could be a layman, who have got into this forum by mistake. 

That, alone, does not disqualify you. Because even laymen, even non-scholars, can - on their own - without being formally examined - over the years - study such well so that they are indeed even overshadowing long time professionals.

Furthermore many handymen develop during their career, such hands on experience within their discipline, so that even seriously educated civil engineers must obey to their expertise, simply because these handymen knows what they talk about, and the civil engineer may not have that particular skill present (often due to lack of exposure).

But I would - still no offence intended - say, that it is sometimes better to accept something you are being told, which you do not understand, and do serious, professional consulting - instead of opening your mouth/writing in a forum, and blatantly revealing your ignorance. 

I really do not mean you no harm, Bob, but this message here calls even for editorial intervenience.

With that said, your response calls for severe correction; in fact such severe, that it is regrettable in a forum of professionals. 

Well. Let me get on with it: 

 

David, the idea solar energy is cheap just because it's shines everywhere is as erroneous as believing omnipresent moisture in the air will allow flowers to grow in the middle of a desert.

Right: Yes, omnipresent moisture in a desert will not make the vast majority of plants grow in the desert. 

Wrong: Certain plants in the desert sucks the (little) moisture from the air.

Solar energy, compared to the energy we use to drive our cars, heat our homes, and power our ovens and dishwashers, is extremely diffuse - like moisture in the desert air.

Wrong: Solar energy is direct, on a clear sunny day.

Right: The solar beams indeed spread out in all directions from the sun

Right: Solar energy on cloudy days leaves a fully diffused energy (usable for PV, not for heating)

At noon on the equator, on a clear day, the most that one can possibly collect is ~1.2kW/m^2. That's all you get.

Right: Yes, depending on many factors, it typically varies on a clear sunny day, between some 900 Watt per m² and 1500 Watt per m². 

It's energy density drops off sharply for northern latitudes and other times of the day.

Wrong: No, Bob, The density does not drop sharply

Correction: The density drops off following a sinusoid formula depending both on latitude and time of year.

Wrong: No, Bob; The net delivered effect though, over a year, depends much more on the number of insolation hours per year, typically 1800 hours per year - than other factors.

On cloudy days less than 10% of that is available; at night (obviously) no solar power is available.

Wrong: No Bob, This depends again. PV cells have various characteristics, where SOME PV-cells deliver much less than 10% and others above 10%. 

Unless the sun never sets in Denmark, no - you can't "heat up this house 24/7/365", nor if the Danish sky is ever cloudy.

Wrong: No, Bob; The location where we are putting up this system has 1800 hours of insolation per year. We are heating up insulated stones to between 300 to 600 degrees Celsius. The house need some 30,000 kWh of heat per year. It is on 55th latitude. The effect brought in, on anyone of the 1800 hours of insolation, is expected to be some 108,000 kWh net. We expect the loss to be around 60%. So we have dimensioned the entire thing accordingly. The stones are dug down under the house. The simple heat loss is what keeps the house warm during the winter. 

Your concentrator does not add any energy, it only concentrates energy from a larger surface area to a smaller one. Same energy.

Right: Yes, the concentrator does not add energy. 

Right: It concentrates the same energy (here 60,000 Watt) from a larger surface (75 m² reflector array) into a smaller surface (a stone storage). 

Wrong: You are here making an unspoken inference from your true facts, to that it does not work.

Facts: The concentrator loses out some 18% of the insolation effect. So the delivery of 60,000 Watt on a clear sunny day in Denmark, latitude 55, is AFTER having catered for that loss. The loss is due to loss in the reflector (various causes catered for in that figure)

These are fundamental principles which haven't changed in the last 55 years since I first learned of them, or the 5 billion before that.

Right: Yes, you are indeed right about those facts.

Wrong: Bob, what you haven't got right is that when you store 108,000 kWh in an insulated stone storage, and the loss is around 60% (this is the maximized figure), then you have some 43,000 kWh left. Furthermore some 12% of the heat energy is collected throughout the winter. At that time the reflector array delivers some 9,000 Watt, not 75,000 Watt. We have some 200+ insolation hours during the winter, thereby delivering a further 1,800 kWh of energy. Thereby we have some 50% extra energy, just for the purpose of compensation for statistic deviations.

It's amusing you believe nuclear energy "does not work anymore", as Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California churns out two billion watts of carbon-free electricity every day of the year - even after the sun has set.

Wrong: Building a Nuclear Power plant of 3.3 GigaWatt (as the one under construction in Britain), cost a whopping USD 22 Billion to build, and produces an even more whopping 59 Billion kg. of CO2. 

Furthermore the encapsulation of nuclear waste, handling of it, transportation, keeping of it, is yet another CO2 producing process.

Right: Well, Bob, I was not discussing whether the Nuclear Power Station works, while it is still not faulty. I am discussing that they do not work anymore as anything people trust.

Right: Technically, the Nuclear Power Plant will work as long as it is not faulty. 

Wrong: The Nuclear Power Plants do not work in the sense that they produce tonnes of 

 

You needn't worry - nuclear works just fine - and it doesn't even matter if I don't have Class A insulation, a heat pump, solar panels, inverters, etc etc etc. It creates no extra carbon emissions when I "waste" some energy, it just costs a little more.

Facts. The house we are provisioning with 75,000 Watt of solar energy, is a class D insulation house. Just to provoke, we expect to burn quite some of the Joule's from the solar array to keep the entry free of snow and ice !!! Because, unlike your good Nuclear Power - which leaves super dangerous nuclear waste in its trail - the solar concentrator - worst case - will end up like melted steel, melted glass, melted aluminium. The Nuclear Reactor cannot be reused as it is severely radioactively contaminated after its end of life decomissioning.

Left for our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, (continue yourself) to find out what to do with this huge and totally wasted block of armoured concrete. 

I've run into many other disciples of the Church of Renewables here on EC who, seduced by the innocent fantasy of solar and wind energy, enter a world where logic and reason are left behind.

Wrong: Well Bob. We are in the patent phase of the solar concentrator solution we have developed. Once patent agents give us a go, we will publish our fantasy solution here :-) - and we will then publish the videos we have taken when we put a 4 x 4 log into the beam and it lits fire within seconds.

Reason has been anathema to religion since the Spanish Inquisition and before, so you will have to learn as persecuted Christians did centuries ago - the hard way.

Well. Let me stick to believe that when our instruments have measured that we produce 75,000 Watt of energy over 1800 hours, then those are probably right. 

And outside of the scope of the scientific facts we are discussing - reason is not necessary anathema to religion. And religion is not necessarily faith. And faith is not necessarily without reason :-) ... But that is now a completely different story, Bob. 

As a poetic response to your comment on the persecuted Christians - which if we follow your logic - were then persecuted by reason - well - they were persecuted by other religions :-) :-) :-) :-) ...

Best of luck, I hope you learn quickly.

Well, Bob, in order to learn something, it is necessary to have a teacher who has something to teach, isn't it? 

So. My good Bob. I will stick to my good religion who offers me emperic evidence that it works. 

While you are right, that a solar concentrator does not add any energy (rather it reduces the effect as I mentioned by 18%), you fail to remember that a battery of, say, 2000 pieces of 0.1 square meter reflectors, focused towards one 0.1 square meter spot, ie. 30 x 30 centimeter area - will produce around 200,000 Watt of effect on a clear sunny day. In this constellation - with 2000 times concentration, it will melt stone, metal, almost anything.

Enjoy YOUR religion, Bob, then I will enjoy the heat power from mine :-)

Sincerely

Rational Intuitive 
David Svarrer
Renwable Energy Design Architect

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Jan 14, 2020 6:41 pm GMT

David, you sooo long dissertation is, per Newton's 3rd Law, a reflection on your religion.  What on God's Green Earth is wrong with CO2???

Obviously you are a "Climate Denier" to boot.  Mankind is emulating the sun...

You admitted that "Wrong: No, Bob; The location where we are putting up this system has 1800 hours of insolation per year."

Really?? That much?? 1800 hrs / 8760 hrs = 20.5%.

That much for this technology.  There are no dollars or senses here.  It is inadequate to sustain a modern grid.  Thx., Noam.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Jan 15, 2020 9:37 pm GMT

Naom, you wrote that I "admitted 1800 hours = 20%" .

 

No. It is not in any way an admission. It is a measurable fact.

 

Other places have 2100 hours per year. Others again 1500 hours.

 

Some places have lower insolation .

 

Some have higher.

Let us now not discuss reality as if reality is theory.

Selenko-Bob has claimed that solar energy does not work. I have lit fire to a log with it, in the real physical world. 

So I am not that inclined to listen to theoretical gibberish when I have facts just in front of my own eyes documenting that it plain simply works.

So I will leave it there, and stand by my offer to share the link to the video when we test our second prototype in maybe a few weeks from now. 

 

We had some focal issues which reduced the temperature (not the effect), and these have been sorted out now, so we are right now constructing the new version 

Then you call me a climate denier?

Well. That's a difficult one because I also admitted that I believe climate change is ongoing.

Finally you asked what is wrong with CO2. I have never said there is anything wrong with co2. 

I believe co2 will speed Up plant growthz though I do not know about that.

H2O is by far a factor 200+ bigger GHG. And also H2O preserves temperatures.

And trees - they work as temperature buffers due to their enormous impact on the daily temperature cycle on earth.

The equation of trees and their impact with their approximately 500 liter of water evaporation driven consumption per day per tree is a story for another day.

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Jan 8, 2020 2:05 pm GMT

Thanks for that information.  It´s more than I had thought.

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Jan 9, 2020 7:06 pm GMT

I had not previously noticed the information from your post that the first batteries were produced in Connecticut, where I grew up.  It´s also worth noting that the earliest electric cars were also built there in 1897, and which were among the first of any car.  The Harford Courant posted a rave review under the headline “HORSELESS ERA COMES,” noting that even first-time drivers could “manage and turn [the vehicles] about with as much comfort and success as they would have in driving the gentlest horse.”

https://todayincthistory.com/2019/05/13/may-13-electric-automobile-1897/

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Jan 9, 2020 9:19 pm GMT

first-time drivers could “manage and turn [the vehicles] about with as much comfort and success as they would have in driving the gentlest horse.”

I'd love to see that on a Tesla ad!

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »