Its Official, Distribution-Connected Electricity Storage Expected to be (Another) Bust

Posted by on

A new Ontario government report released today by the Ministry of Energy includes a surprising admission.

Not even hinted at in the Executive Summary and buried on the third last page of the 135 page report is the report’s conclusion about the impact on consumers of distribution-connected electricity storage devices:

“The results suggest that energy storage is not presently cost effective. The benefit-cost ratio is 0.7, on an expected basis (where a benefit-cost ratio of 1 would indicate breakeven)”

The report was apparently produced for the government to rebuff the Auditor General’s report smart meters which documented gross mismanagement and to justify the government’s decision to double down on so-called “Smart Grid” investments….all on the backs of ratepayers.

The report carries a January 2015 publication date but appeared publicly only after the Legislature rose for the summer recess yesterday.

Electricity storage gets mountains of airhead PR from advocates for higher power rates. Almost never is the cost of storage even mentioned. Here is an example of the Toronto Star running fluffy PR for distribution-connected storage promoters. Here is the recently retired Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Gord Miller demanding more spending on energy storage. Here is an example of Toronto Hydro’s PR campaign supporting its longstanding plans for a massive storage investment binge.

15 Comments

  1. Hi Tom. Did you provide the correct link to the ECO commentary on storage?

    The link you provided above says: “Take advantage of the technological opportunities: We are ignoring or have been under-utilizing options like waste heat, smart grid and thermal/electrical storage.”

    I was unable to locate anything in that article “demanding more spending on energy storage”.

    Rick

  2. Uggg.

    This article starts off by arguing that one government report is utterly bogus, and to prove it, here’s another government report that I’ll simply assume is true. Come on.

    As aways, the only proper approach is to assume they are all bogus and run the numbers.

    Looking at page D-44 we see their best-case scenario for cost is $497 million by 2035, which page D-42 says is 242 MW of capacity. 497 / 242 = $2/W.

    Tesla is selling grid storage, complete, for $3,000 (retail!) for 7,000 W of storage. That’s 3000 / 7000 = $0.42/W. It has been said that their large-scale commercial versions, which are about 2 MW, are around 30 cents/W.

    So sure, if your report assumes the absolute best case scenario for 2035 is six times the cost of storage *today*, gee, you think you end up with a lousy result?

    • The installed price for power- wall panels is about $7,000/panel.

      Check AP/Associated Press for more information.

    • This Maury? Chief Technical Officer AS Solar Inc.? I love the way renewable advocates and those that benefit directly troll the internet trying to dispel the nasty truth. Did you forget he cost of the inverter ($2K) and the fact that these costs are in US dollars adding another 20%. Cheap energy storage is a dream and really hasn’t advanced beyond the battery invented in 1800 by Volta.

      “In 1802, William Cruickshank designed the first electric battery for mass production. Cruickshank arranged square sheets of copper with equal-sized sheets sizes of zinc. These sheets were placed into a long rectangular wooden box and soldered together. Grooves in the box held the metal plates in position, and the sealed box was then filled with an electrolyte of brine, or a watered-down acid. This resembled the flooded battery that is still with us today.”

      • > This Maury? Chief Technical Officer AS Solar Inc.?

        Nope, I left the industry a while ago. Let me guess, you googled my name and found some old web page and just flew with it?

        > those that benefit directly troll the internet

        And as this post demonstrates, so do people who don’t directly benefit. Like both of us.

        > Did you forget he cost of the inverter ($2K)

        It includes the cost of the inverter, which is built into the unit. Have you even looked it up?

        > that these costs are in US dollars adding another 20%

        So the report is wrong by five times instead of six.

        > hasn’t advanced beyond the battery invented in 1800 by Volta

        A copper-zinc battery is a one-time-use device with an energy density around 10Wh/l. A li-ion polymer battery has 1000 to 5000 cycles with an energy density around 300Wh/l. Absolute prices have fallen about 10 times, which means price-per-Wh over the lifetime has improved perhaps 30 x 10 x 2000 (on average) times, or 600k times.

        If you think almost six orders of magnitude is “hasn’t advanced”, then I’m surprised you bothered to upgrade your Commodore 64.

        • Wow! Impressive comeback. Time to update your “Linked in” (old web page) profile though! It is obviously a bit dated.
          Part of your writings in your prior job perhaps: “So when you add it all up, of the 24 hours in a day half of them are nightime (on average over a year), the geometery accounts for about another half, and weather for some of what’s left. The result is the average “effective sun hours” a day, which varies from about 2.5 in the winter to as much as 7.5 in the summer.”

          PS: Spelling is awful!

  3. When you include the total costs of this system it becomes un-affordable right now for the average person.

    And this kind of battery can also be charged from household electric supply. Good if you can afford it but not much benefit if your electricity is out for more than several hours?

  5. Tom have you drunk the Kool Ade? The revolution in solar efficiency (and inverters etc.) and battery storage efficiency make carbon free renewables viable, and reliable without massive fossil backup.

    Tesla is touting cars that will go over 900 km between charges by 2017, 1200 by 2020. He claims he can improve today’s battery’s (which he describes as lousy) by 10% per year. Utility scale battery storage and load balancing is now available from private companies. The revolution is underway.

    The challenge now is to construct a HVDC backbone across the continent to efficiently carry wind, wave and solar energy long distances, balanced at the utilities by battery storage of renewable energy generated continent wide. Obama promised one in the US and has not delivered.

    If Tesla delivers on battery efficiency and solar costs continue to decline as expected, there will be little need for grid connection for most regions of the continent in a decade.

    Tom, come back to the light!

  6. So Tom “an example of Toronto Hydro’s PR campaign supporting its longstanding plans for a massive storage investment binge”, is this?
    “Take advantage of the technological opportunities: We are ignoring or have been under-utilizing options like waste heat, smart grid and thermal/electrical storage. ”
    Tom there was Orange Sunshine in that Kool Aid! Clear your head and come back to the Green Sunshine.

    • PR campaigns take advantage of the public’s lack of scientific knowledge about energy issues.

      Can the laws of physics be changed to suit the wishes of the renewable energy industry and its promoters?

      Create a need and then expect the science to comply with this need? A great many of the public think this can be done.

      • Exactly.. Lets make use of the vast and publicly funded renewable hydroelectric infrastructure in Ontario. Using expensive storage systems to propagate the wind turbine and solar agenda makes no sense. Especially since we are bringing the technology in from US at a 20% premium.

  7. Pingback: Top posts on www.tomadamsenergy.com for 2015 | Tom Adams Energy - ideas for a smarter grid

Comments are closed.