It has been very frustrating to keep reading stories about storage market size, cost etc described in MW or GW without also mentioning capacity in MWh or GWh. I could understand these numbers if in fact there is an industry standard - for example one could mean by saying one MW of storage what us really meant is that one MW of discharge capacity is available for say four hours.
But, alas, there seems to be no such standard.
This makes things even more confusing when discussing costs - people discus $/MW which is really related to inverter rating (and nothing much to do with battery) cost.
Publications like this one should step in and clarify and editors should insist on authors providing clarity. This publication has been even more recalcitrant in letting original authors of posts not responding to comments, such as a recent article on storage costs from Rocky Mountain Institute which was both confusing and erroneous .
The editors should insist on certain standards of authorship.
In the mean time storage cost performance should be discussed in MWh not MW, as MW numbers are only relevant to power electronics and not relevant to the storage technology, costs etc other than it's relationship to charge/discharge rates.
It is indeed a difficult task to summarize value of distributed storage in a single chart - it is often misleading or confusing to say the least, as the one presented in this article. It all depends on the assumptions on costs and revenues. I believe this article relies on Li ion costs at $29,000 for 24 kWh costs. But this is not the gold standard, or should not be. We are currently developing projects at less than $10,000 for 24 kWh (all in) of which storage costs at about $5,000 - today. These batteries provide all the performance required of the applications required in the chart.
We are also looking for collaborative partners - pls contact me. I would be interested in exploring collaborative opportunities with you
This is a terrific report. It appears from your "duck curve" that a distributed storage (behind the meter) system that can shift demand by about 3 hrs (6pm to 9pm) would be beneficial all around - the consumer will see a reduction in their bill by avoiding the high TOU rates and demand charges, which cannot be saved with either wind or solar alone. Have you looked at how to quantify the economic (financial benefit) of this? Third party owned storage services seem feasible if there are some standard rues of the game. Any thoughts?
My company is now "rescuing" some local government owned solar projects initially financed thru "securitized" (rated) bond instruments, now in trouble. We have also developed some proprietary insurance products to cover gaps in the solar O&M guaranties related to performance, which would be helpful in mitigating much of the O&M risk you have identified in your report. We are also developing standardized docs. I would like to be involved in your stake holder group to share and understand - pls let me know how. Thank you.
This discussion is long over due. There have been a lot of studies done by USDOE (about 19 years ago) and by EPRI that have put rationalized values of the the last kWh over the last mile - considering these studies as a part of this discussion would help.
There is also the price (cost) of reliability - the EDC's have an obligation to provide guaranteed service reliability in order that they can have their franchise. This number is something like 99.9%. Technically, if they fon't maintain this level of service, they could lose their franchise. As evidenced by the power outages on the ease coast (and the time to recover full service), the EDC's have to invest considerable dollars, which even if they do, will get paid by the rate payers. There isa cost effective alternative if distributed storage is incoporated, which can also provide for demand side management, and the associated benefits. No new battery technologies are needed to deliver an effective and affordable solaution.
I would like to suggest that this consideration be included in the net metering discussion.
Your fundamental notion that rather than talking about energy as a mere commodity, but asking the question energy for what, sheds a lot of clarity in our search for energy solutions. RE is more efficient all around relative to base line energy technologies when you approach energy planning and policy with this question in mind.
For example distributed solar electricity generation tied to specific services, for example delivering clean water, reliably is more cost effective and improves security.
In addition to (or instead of) spending money on strengthening the grid (particularly distribution) infrastructure, which is in bad shape, it will cost less money, less time and provide more security if distributed generation is included in the mix. This also needs involvement of the power distribution companies, ISO's and other non governmental entities.
This article is a wonderful starting point for an intelligent debate and planning for renewable energy policy in this country.