towards energy storage for profitable renewable ... · jay whitacre, guannan he scott institute for...
TRANSCRIPT
Towards Energy Storage for Profitable Renewable Integration:
What’s Needed and When
(Valuating Functional Loss in Energy Storage Installations)
Jay Whitacre, Guannan He
Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, Department of Engineering and Public Policy,
Department of Materials Science and EngineeringCarnegie Mellon University
Harvard April 20191
Motivation…
Economically Viable Electrochemical energy storage (EES) is enabling future power systems
2
What is Economic Viability?
• (of course) Depends on the application• Low hanging fruit
• C&I demand reduction• Ancillary services
• “white whale” of storage: renewable integration. . . .
3
Already Viable! Small market price taking assumptions needed
4https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-powers-latest-plunge-costs-threatens-coal-gas/
5https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-powers-latest-plunge-costs-threatens-coal-gas/
“Onshore wind and photovoltaic solar have also gotten cheaper, their respective benchmark LCOE reaching $50 and $57 per megawatt-hour for projects starting construction in early 2019, down 10% and 18% on the equivalent figures of a year ago.”
“. . .lithium-ion battery storage has dropped by 76% since 2012, based on recent project costs and historical battery pack prices.”
• “Levelized cost of stored electricity” used most commonly to valuate and inform decisions- Very basic/simple approach typically used: storage capX price is
amortized through cycles as weighted by efficiency and discount rate- Does not contemplate degradation or how to valuate it over time
Focus on Utility Use and Economics
6*https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/12/calculating-true-cost-energy-storage/
7Kittner, N., Lill, F. & Kammen, D. M. Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 2, 17125 (2017).
?Capacity = f(cycles, depth of discharge, temperature)
8
Testing on Tesla “Model S” Battery Cells at CMU
9
The Materials Science of Battery Aging. . .
10
11Kittner, N., Lill, F. & Kammen, D. M. Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 2, 17125 (2017).
?Capacity = f(cycles, depth of discharge, temperature)
• In General – as DoD and Cycles are increased, Capacity decreases
• Fewer actual cycles the more you use the pack• ~1000 Full cycles or less for EV packs
• NOT a problem for cars. . . • HUGE problem for 4 hour stationary storage
12Kittner, N., Lill, F. & Kammen, D. M. Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 2, 17125 (2017).
“Based on a ten-year project lifetime, and in the optimal case assuming a full charge–discharge cycle on a daily basis ignoring losses, LCOE at current prices is US$0.15 kWh−1 at residential scale and US$0.10 kWh−1 at utility scale”
Kittner, N., Lill, F. & Kammen, D. M. Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 2, 17125 (2017).
13Kittner, N., Lill, F. & Kammen, D. M. Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 2, 17125 (2017).
Baseload Renewables Coming Soon??
• No. These LCOE values are off by at least a factor of 2• The relationship between cycle life and DoD is not captured
properly in these common market assessments• What is actually needed (to get to a place where subsidies might
work): • LCOE adder for storage is less than the cost of the primary
energy (~$5/MWh)• Energy storage with installed capital costs of < $75/kWh, with at least
2000 100% cycles of known non-fading capacity• NO known battery can do this – some long term projects seeking
solution
The Present Reality
14
• Like other installed capital assets, batteries have more value earlier in their life, and less value as they age
• Use/dispatch decisions should be based on the evolving present value of the assets, and weighed against the use case value proposition
Our Solution: Create A dispatch decision model that incorporates incremental battery degradation to determine the true value and the optimal
dispatch for different use cases of the storage asset
15
Why Intertemporal?• Intertemporal choice/decision is used when choices at one time influence the
possibilities available at other points in time
• Short-term operational decision is necessary‒ Accurate forecasting information is only available in day/hour-ahead
• The degradation/usage of battery has long-term constraint and effects‒ The incremental degradation accumulates and affects future profitability‒ The total degradation/usage of battery has a life-cycle limit
• The short-term profit opportunities vary significantly in long term‒ Weekday v.s. Weekend/Holiday, Summer v.s. Winter‒ Increasing penetration of renewables
• Battery owner has time preference in battery revenues
16
New Metrics/Concepts Introduced. . .
17
Marginal Benefit of Usage Average Benefit/Cost of Usage• Average Benefit of Usage (ABU):
The average life-cycle benefit per unit of battery usage/degradation
• Average Cost of Degradation (ACD): The average capital cost per unit of battery degradation
CAPEXACDD
=
maxLBABU
D=• Derivation: A necessary optimality
condition for long-term optimization problem that maximizes the life-cycle benefit:
• Definition: The maximum benefit that can be achieved with an incremental unit of battery usage/degradation
Short-term Benefit MBU Degradation Discount Factor
t
t t
∂=
∂
The Framework
18
Maximize
MaximizeShort-term
Mid-term
Long-term
Operating
Aggregate
Aggregate
DailyOutputs
Discounted MBU
Life-cycle MBU
Decisions
Daily Benefit
Annual Benefit
Life-cycle Benefit
Objectives
Short-termPrices
Life-cycle Degradation
Inputs
ABU
Capital Cost
InvestmentPlanning
SubsidyACD
Decision Order
Simulation Order
Case Study: Energy Arbitrage
19
Power capacity 50 MW
Energy capacity 200 MWh
Cycle life 3000 cycles-100% DOD30000 cycles-10% DOD
Calendar degradation 0.5% capacity loss/year
Capital Cost $200-300/kWh
Charge/discharge efficiency 90%
Price scenario: California ISO 2016 market prices
~3X better than most data suggests
Optimal Decisions - Year 11DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
20
Optimal Decisions - Year 22DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
21
Optimal Decisions - Year 33DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
22
Optimal Decisions - Year 44DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
23
Optimal Decisions - Year 55DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
24
Optimal Decisions - Year 66DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
25
Optimal Decisions - Year 77DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
26
Optimal Decisions - Year 88DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
27
Optimal Decisions - Year 99DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
28
Optimal Decisions - Year 1010DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
29
Optimal Decisions - Year 1111DMBU (1 7%) 5 $/MWh-throughput= + ⋅
30
Decreasing Value Analysis
31
Valuation & SubsidyEnergy
ArbitrageEnergy Arbitrage +
Frequency Regulation
Total profit ($ million 2016) 8 37
Optimal MBU ($/MWh-throughput) 5 25
ABU ($/MWh-throughput) 7 35
Unit capacity capital cost ($/kWh) 200 200
Average cost of degradation ($/MWh-throughput) 33 33
Break-even capital cost ($/kWh) 40 210
Required subsidy ($/MWh-throughput) 26 0
32
33
Summary• Current energy storage technology is not tenable for making renewable +
Battery power economically competitive. . • capacity fade + capX are both issues
• An intertemporal framework for quantitatively assessing values and costs, and determining the optimal dispatch of electrochemical energy storage has been developed
• We introduce new usage/degradation metrics (ABU & ACD) for economic assessment, subsidy design and technology learning study of battery storage.
• The only viable use case calls on multiple income streams, some of which are limited in market size.
Long-term Decision
34
Numerically optimize the life-cycle MBU based on historical and forecast information
Arbitrarily setting the unit cost of degradation in short-term operational decisions could cause great life-cycle benefit loss