California Replaces Gas Plant with Giant, Billion-Dollar Grid Battery (canarymedia.com)
- Reference: 0173527742
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/04/15/0032244/california-replaces-gas-plant-with-giant-billion-dollar-grid-battery
- Source link: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/batteries/this-california-city-is-trading-an-old-gas-plant-for-a-giant-grid-battery
It's expected to store "more electricity than [2]all but one battery plant currently operating in the U.S."
> The billion-dollar project, with 680 megawatts and 2,720 megawatt-hours, will help California shift its nation-leading solar generation into the critical evening and nighttime hours, bolstering the grid against the heat waves that have pushed it to the brink multiple times in recent years... The town of Menifee gets to move on from the power plant exhaust that used to join the smog flowing from Los Angeles... And the grid gets a bunch more clean capacity that can, ideally, displace fossil fuels...
>
> Moreover, [the power bank] represents [3]Calpine 's grand arrival in the energy storage market, after years operating one of the biggest independent gas power plant fleets in the country alongside Vistra and NRG... Federal analysts predict 2024 will be the biggest-ever year for grid battery installations across the U.S., and [4]they highlighted Calpine's project as one of the single largest projects. The 620 megawatts the company plans to energize this year represent more than 4% of the industry's total expected new additions.
>
> Many of these new grid batteries will be built in California, which needs all the dispatchable power it can get to meet demand when its massive solar fleet stops producing, and to keep pace with the electrification of vehicles and buildings. The Menifee Power Bank, and the other gigawatts worth of storage expected to come online in the state this year, will deliver much-needed reinforcement.
The company says it's planning "a portfolio" of 2,000 megawatts of California battery capacity.
But even this 680-megawatt project consists of 1,096 total battery containers holding 26,304 battery modules (or a total of 3 million cells), "all manufactured by Chinese battery powerhouse BYD, according to Robert Stuart, an electrical project manager with Calpine. That's enough electricity to supply 680,000 homes for four hours before it runs out."
> What's remarkable is just how quickly the project came together. Construction began last August, and is expected to hit 510 megawatts of fully operational capacity over the course of this summer, even as installation continues on other parts of the plant. Erecting a conventional gas plant of comparable scale would have taken three or four years of construction labor, due to the complexity of the systems and the many different trades required for it, Stuart told Canary Media... That speed and flexibility makes batteries a crucial solution as utilities across the nation grapple with a [5]spike in expected electricity demand unlike anything seen in the last few decades.
The article notes a 2013 Caifornia policy [6]mandating battery storage for its utility companies, which "kicked off a decade-long project to will an energy storage market into existence through methodical policies and regulations, and the knock-on effects of building the nation's foremost solar fleet."
> Those energy storage policies succeeded in jumpstarting the modern grid battery market: California leads the nation with more than 7 gigawatts of batteries installed as of last year (though Texas is poised to [7]overtake California in battery installations this year , on the back of no particular policy effort but a general openness to building energy projects)... California's interlocking climate regulations effectively rule out new gas construction. The state's energy roadmap instead calls for massive expansion of battery capacity to shift the ample amounts of solar generation into the evening peaks.
"These trends, along with the falling price of batteries and maturing business model for storage, nudged Calpine to get into the battery business, too."
[1] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/batteries/this-california-city-is-trading-an-old-gas-plant-for-a-giant-grid-battery
[2] https://www.energy-storage.news/moss-landing-worlds-biggest-battery-storage-project-is-now-3gwh-capacity/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpine
[4] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
[5] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/transmission/suddenly-us-electricity-demand-is-spiking-can-the-grid-keep-up
[6] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-passes-huge-grid-energy-storage-mandate
[7] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/texas-will-add-more-grid-batteries-than-any-other-state-in-2024
number of households for pespective (Score:2)
There are 13.3 million households in California according to a 2022 economic census. While running 680,000 homes should be able to bridge short interruptions in a region it doesn't necessarily offer much for power interruptions that cover a larger portion of the state.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to replace a gas plant they would otherwise have to build. Maybe read the title of the story next time?
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, it will help cover peaks and short term spikes in demand. It's not a whole-state UPS.
California has reached the point where demand from traditional generation drops to zero during the day, due to the amount of solar installed. It goes back up as the light fades and people come home from work, so there is a period in the early evening when fossil fuels have to ramp up to meet demand. This battery directly replaces those fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Funny how those opposed never seem to know the facts of the matter and like use some form of the inane "if it does not fix everything, it is useless" pseudo-argument.
Re:number of households for pespective (Score:5, Funny)
This is not the only battery bank being built.
There was an announcement on Slashdot just two days ago of an identical battery bank being built in the same location.
[1]Calpines California Battery Plant [slashdot.org]
[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/04/12/2134248/calpines-california-battery-plant-is-among-worlds-largest
Re: (Score:3)
You may have been a tad too subtle there...
2 batteries (Score:2)
Wow, so theywill put 2 batteries ? Cool
Re: (Score:2)
This made me snort out loud thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
A grid tied battery cannot typically "bridge short interruptions in a region"
That would mean islanding, and often this is not a use case.
Also, those interruption have a root cause (broken transmisson lines for example), and cannot be overcome by a battery.
Re: (Score:3)
Current batteries are pretty good. Future batteries will be even better and old batteries will be recycled into new ones.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEBRQ9KWrRY
Re:And in five years they have to do it again? (Score:4, Insightful)
> I wonder what the battery life of this thing is going to be in actual service.
Battery life for grid storage is good. They are in a temperature controlled environment and kept within charging specs.
Phone batteries die because people charge them to 100%, leave them on the seat of their car parked in the sun, and then drain them to 0%.
Also, the lifetime is calculated differently for grid storage. For a vehicle, the battery is based on retaining 80% of its range. But 80% or even 60% is acceptable for grid storage. So, old batteries can be kept in service much longer.
Re: And in five years they have to do it again? (Score:2)
Why do they leave their phones in their cars? Apparently, the problem is with constant current charging. It should be pulsed
Re: (Score:2)
You can go even lower with grid batteries. The only real factor is maintenance cost. At some point it becomes cheaper to swap them out, but that point can be much lower than 60% capacity. The main reason figures like these show up in studies is because these studies were made for cars.
Re: (Score:3)
> leave them on the seat of their car parked in the sun
I'm not sure what "people" you know, but I have never met a living breathing human that has left their phone on the seat of their parked car in the sun. Well, not quite, I have met a few people, and they universally get to about 6.37meters from their car, slap all their pockets including shirt pockets even when not wearing a shirt, go pale as the blood drains from their face in a moment of truly horrific panic, before shouting "MY PHONE!" and running back like a crack addict to save their precious.
Humans do
Nearly zero degradation (Score:2)
Service life is a big issue with electric car batteries; this will be an even bigger issue.
Hmm, nope.
Only the Nissan leaf has big degradation. Any serious designed car has nearly zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. This is a much smaller issue with stationary batteries. In cars, weight matters a lot and batteries get phased out as relatively high remaining capacities because the weight to capacity ratio makes continued use uneconomic. The point where that happens is much, much lower with stationary batteries as weight is basically irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impressive how this talking point has been getting proven wrong for the past 20 years, and yet people still front with it as if it's a real gotcha.
=Smidge=
The lifetime of a Li-ion battery is good. (Score:2)
You have no idea how wrong your suppositions are.
Hint : Nope.
Re:The lifetime of a Li-ion battery : 8 years (Score:4, Informative)
That’s not true even for EVs, which is a very demanding application, much more than this. EV battery warranties are for replacement if state of health at 8 years is below 80%. That implies manufacturers expect batteries to last considerably longer, which is unsurprising, given they can do 1000 charge-discharge cycles before hitting 80%. And it’s not like they’re useless at 80%. They’re at 80%.
Re: (Score:2)
The first big battery in Australia (Hornsdale) paid for itself in under 2 years so quite a good investment
BYD? (Score:2)
Interesting that this project was awarded to BYD. Does anyone know if Tesla bid on the project and if so why BYD won?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Tesla buys batteries from BYD (as well as making their own) may offer a clue.
Re:Sounds Great (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently Tesla buys batteries from the same Chinese company (BYD).
Re: (Score:2)
> Apparently Tesla buys batteries from the same Chinese company (BYD).
Where? No seriously geography is key. Tesla buys batteries from the place that it makes most sense for Tesla to buy batteries. In some cases that's from BYD. In other cases that's companies like Northvolt or Panasonic. And in some cases they make their own at one of the several "Gigafactories" they have for this purpose.
That said the BYD batteries are specifically sourced for cold-environment vehicles and the Model Y. Doesn't really fit the description of a climate controlled installation in California.
Re: (Score:2)
BYD and CATL supply Tesla with LFP batteries, which significantly out-perform Tesla's other supplier, Panasonic. They last 2-4 times longer, are cobalt free, and are safer. The only down side is that they are less energy dense, but for cars it's a worthwhile trade-off.
China has a near monopoly on LFP batteries at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
The plant was shut off back in 2019, five years ago, for being uneconomic. It was already shut off well before Calpine decided to build the battery bank.
So this wasn't a choice between a ive CCGT plant and batteries; it was a choice between a dead CCGT plant and batteries.
The CCGT jobs were long gone.
This is great, except... (Score:1)
"all manufactured by Chinese battery powerhouse BYD" ... really?
Sure it does (Score:1)
Old plant goes bye bye, new battery stores solar power for night time. You'd have a point if it said it was replacing generating capacity...something about retardation?
Re: That headline doesn't make sense (Score:2)
A gas plant has been built in 2008. It was uneconomic to run, so they didn't run it, and tore it down, and replaced it with this battery plant. That's the sense in which the gas plant was replaced by the battery plant. I think it's clear and straightforward, and also very well explained in the article. Presumably the battery plant benefits from the existing grid interconnects.
Re: (Score:2)
> You cannot replace a power plant, which is something producing electricity
Of course you can. A peaking gas power plant is nothing more than an installation that converts chemical energy in the form of gas (which needs to be sourced from elsewhere) into electricity. A battery pack is nothing more than an installation that converts chemical energy in the form of charged electrolyte (which needs to be charged from electricity stored elsewhere) into electricity.
Not all "power plants" exist to create electricity. Some exist to offset wasting electricity, and they can be replaced with
Re: (Score:2)
You can replace anything with anything, I can pull down a power station and build a hotel, or a hospital on the site if I want. There is no law saying a replacement building must have the same function as the old one.
Weird comparison (Score:1)
Comparing establishing a battery with building a gas plant is just wrong. One is an energy producing facility, the other is not.
OK (Score:1)
For reference, this battery is equal in size to 7% of all the batteries made worldwide in a single year.
Re:OK (Score:5, Informative)
Power usage has a daily pattern something like this:
[1]https://db-excel.com/wp-conten... [db-excel.com]
The battery lets you take some usage from a period of low usage ( like approximately 5am on that image ) to charge up your battery array and then discharge it back into the grid at the highest usage point ( like 6pm on that image ).
A whole lot of engineering is worrying about the worst case of your metrics, so taking some usage from your best case and using it to make your worst case better is a great improvement.
[1] https://db-excel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/electrical-maximum-demand-spreadsheet-pertaining-to-the-grid-2025-challenge-data-university-of-glasgow.png
Re: OK (Score:2)
The problem is that Cali wants to increase their energy needs by 10x to cover all their future electric cars. Taking capacity offline seems shortsighted.
Re: OK (Score:4, Interesting)
> The problem is that Cali wants to increase their energy needs by 10x to cover all their future electric cars.
That number seems way too high to me. As of the end of 2022, California had just 28.2 million cars and light trucks burning gasoline (and 1.1 million BEV/PHEV/FCVs, with about 764k of those being full BEVs).
To move everyone to electric, then, means moving 28.2 million cars into that BEV column, plus 300k PHEVs. All told, that's about 28.5 million. On average, Californians drive 12,524 miles per year. So that's 356,934,000,000 electric miles. At an average of 3 miles per kWh, that's 118,978,000,000 kWh per year, or 118,978 GWh per year.
California currently uses about 287,220 GWh annually. That means if you ignore time of day concerns, if California moves every car and light truck to be fully electric, it would increase California's power consumption by only about 42%, not 900% as you're implying. Your numbers are off by more than a factor of 20.
California increases its energy output by a couple of percent every year, so even if they do nothing more than they're already doing (and assuming all other consumption miraculously remains flat), California could theoretically meet those capacity needs within two decades, which is long before the last gasoline-powered car goes away.
But given that California's daytime energy usage already peaks at almost half again more than its nighttime use, that means you could probably electrify close to half of those cars right now, without adding any more capacity, assuming you can get people to charge during the troughs or otherwise smooth out the power consumption over the course of the day.
> Taking capacity offline seems shortsighted.
On this, we agree.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Your 42% number is still too high. It doesn't account for the reduction in electricity required to refine all the gasoline for all those vehicles. Plus 3mpkWh is a very low figure, eg:
- Model Y - 3.3 to 3.8
- Model 3 - 4 to 5
- Kona - 4.8
- Niro - 4.4
I know there's Hummers and Cybertrucks etc, but an average of 3 seems too conservative
2. This capacity was taken offline back in 2019. We need to retire carbon intensive capacity fast, and we need to expand less carbon intensive capacity even faster. New capaci
Re:OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, I didn't. I'll be charitable and say perhaps you misunderstand the situation. You can replace peak time generation capacity with a battery charged up with quiet time capacity.
I'd love it if I could do the same thing with internet capacity that we provision in my day job.
Re: (Score:2)
The net load curve is more interesting, i.e. the demand on the grid: [1]https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]
As you can see, it drops to zero during the March to May period, due to the massive amounts of solar power installed. They picked that period because it's not peak summer sunshine, by the way.
The issue for energy producers is that during the day demand for their product falls to zero, and then goes back up again in the evening. If their production facilities aren't flexible enough to ramp down every day, th
[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880
Re:OK (Score:4, Informative)
Demand for power goes from a baseload low at 3:30 AM to a peak at 6:30 PM that is 60% higher.
If your power is 100% gas, you need to size it for 160% of baseload.
But if you have a battery bank, you can size it for about 125% of the baseload. Then use the surplus power to charge the batteries at night, and use the batteries to boost peak supply to 160% at 6:30 PM.
The battery banks obviously don't generate energy. They are used to match supply to demand.
Battery banks are especially useful with intermittent renewables. Solar power is only available during the day, and the sun is low during the 6:30 PM peak.
Re: (Score:1)
For now, to build extra power of natural gas is a lot cheaper than build batteries.
In fact, sometimes in USA, natural gas is so cheap that it's cheaper than solar alone, although that require to ignore CO2 emissions.
But there are places where prices are a lot more expensive. Europe has a significant dependence of Russia and natural gas is a lot more expensive that it usually used to be.
In any case, batteries has a clear trend to get cheaper in the future. Projects like this are necessary to lower the price.
Re: OK (Score:2)
It's right there in the title. A gas plant has been built in 2008 but was uneconomic to run, so they didn't run it. It has been torn down and replaced by the battery system. That's the sense in which the gas plant was replaced by the battery plant. Presumably it was handy to have all the grid connectivity already in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Your data or math is broken. According to this [1]https://www.iea.org/data-and-s... [iea.org] LiIon alone was about 1.5TWh in 2022 (it is more now). This plant here has 2.7GWh, putting it around the 0,2% mark.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lithium-ion-battery-manufacturing-capacity-2022-2030
Re: (Score:2)
Today
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, pumped storage hydro dams in the US are about 200 times bigger.
Re: (Score:1)
The number of batteries is changing constantly at exponential rate.
The 7% of 2023 is not the 7% of 2024
Re: (Score:2)
> For reference, this battery is equal in size to 7% of all the batteries made worldwide in a single year.
Not sure what you mean by 'size', but automotive lithium ion batteries in 2022 were 70.6GWh in the United States alone. The 620MW that will be operational this year of this plant is less than 1 percent of the US car batteries per year. The total future ambition size is 2GWh which would put it at about 3% of the US yearly car total.
That's just automative and the US. The total global 2023 lithium ion shipments were 1200 GWh. To hit 7% of that it would have to be a 87GWh plant, but for now it's just a 0.6GWh