Michigan’s newly enacted energy storage target means we now have 10 states in the club. On April 21, 2022, Governor Gretchen Witmer released the MI Healthy Climate Plan, a roadmap for Michigan to achieve economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050 with interim 2030 goals. In addition to recommendations for renewable energy, the plan established a target of 4,000 MW of energy storage by 2040.
Fractal speculated that Michigan would be next. The state recently published a study (March 2022) that recommended energy storage targets. The report said that the state of Michigan would need to deploy 2,500 MW of energy storage by 2030 and 4,000 MW by 2040 to ensure grid reliability as fossil fuel generation retires. To facilitate that goal, the report recommended a “value of storage” study that could quantify the contributions storage makes to the grid, an economic gap analysis to set grant and rebate levels for customers and upgrades to building codes to include storage readiness requirements. The report also recommended new legislation requiring utility integrated resource plans (IRPs) to evaluate storage opportunities and to establish on-bill financing pilot programs for residential and commercial projects.
California
Assembly Bill (A.B.) 2514 (2013) directed the state’s three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to procure 1,325 MW of storage by 2020 with installations operational by 2024 (580 MW from SCE, 580 MW from PG&E, 165 MW from SDG&E).
A.B. 2868 (2016) directed the same utilities to add an additional 500 MW of additional storage to be rate-based. No more than 25 percent of the capacity could be behind-the-meter (BTM).
S.B. 801 (2018) required SCE to deploy 20 MW energy storage to meet energy reliability requirements in the greater Los Angeles area associated with the Aliso Canyon gas explosion.
CPUC Rulemaking 20-05-003 (Feb 2022) requires utilities to add an additional 15,000 MW of energy storage, emphasis on long duration, and demand response by 2032
Let’s look at the other states with storage targets:
Connecticut
S.B. 952 (2021) set a target of 1 GW of energy storage to be achieved by 2030. Sets interim targets of 300 MW by 2024 and 650 MW by 2027.
Maine
LD 528 (2021) set a 400 MW energy storage target to be achieved by 2025, and 500 MW by 2030.
Massachusetts
House Bill (H.B.) 4857 (2018) established a 1,000 MWh energy storage deployment target to be achieved by 2026.
Nevada
S.B. 204 (2017) directed the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada to establish biennial targets for NV Energy Inc.’s procurement of energy storage systems, starting at 100 MW by the end of 2020 and increasing to 1,000 MW by the end of 2030.
New Jersey
A.B. 3723 (2018) set targets of 600 MW of energy storage capacity within three years and 2 GW of capacity by 2030.
New York
S.B. 5190 and A.B. 6571 directed the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) to develop an Energy Storage Deployment Program, including 3,000 MW by 2030 with an interim goal of 1,500 MW by 2025.
Oregon
H.B. 2193 (2016) required Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp to each have a minimum of 5 MWh of energy storage in service by January 2020.
Virginia
H.B. 1526 and S.B. 851 (2020) and 20 VAC 5-3535, had Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) mandating a 3.1 GW energy target and a goal to achieve 100% renewable and clean energy by 2050.
Who will be next? Well, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Minnesota have favorable climates that include storage deployments, state policy and incentives, that could lead to storage targets.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants provides technical design, financial analysis, procurement, buy and sell side due diligence, technoeconomic models, controls integration and OE services for energy storage and hybrid projects. Contact us today for more information https://www.energystorageconsultants.com.
On August 16, 2021, a group of US solar manufacturers, represented by D.C. law firm Wiley, filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), alleging that Chinese competitors had shifted production to Southeast Asia to circumvent import tariffs (assembling solar cells and panels at factories in Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam).
The group, called American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention (A-SMACC), has chosen to remain anonymous. On August 24th, NextEra Energy asked the DOC to force the group to identify its members or reject the request. The group has insisted on anonymity saying that “identifying its members could lead to retribution against them.”
On August 26th, the Solar Energy Industry Associuation (SEIA) wrote a petition to the Secretary of Commerce, strongly contesting the allegations and calling A-SMACC’s efforts, “a procedural gimmick” that “circumvents and evades the channels pursuant to which the DOC normally investigates supposedly unfairly priced and unfairly subsidized imports.” SEIA also expressed disapproval in A-SMACC’s request to shield the identity of its members. SEIA urged the DOC to order the public disclosure of A-SMACC’s members, stating that they had “no legal basis to hide behind an ad hoc coalition created solely for the purpose of expanding trade restrictions on solar products.”
The DOC was expected to make a decision this week. On Wednesday, the DOC sent the group’s attorney an October 6th deadline for A-SMACC to respond to a series of questions. The DOC said it would issue a decision within 45 days of receiving a response.
The past two months have been a roller coaster of trade-based issues. In addition to the circumvention filing by A-SMACC, the following events sent shockwaves through the solar industry:
Section 201 Tariff Extension Petitions
In early August, Suniva and Auxin Solar, filed a petition asking the International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate extending the Section 201 tariffs for another four years. Three days later a second petition was filed by Hanwha Q Cells, LG Electronics, and Mission Solar, which also included a request that the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) be increased to 5 GW (from the current 2.5 GW). The current Section 201 tariff is 18% and is slated to drop to 0% in February 2022. The ITC is currently collecting data to investigate the petition, and a hearing will be held this fall with a report and recommendation delivered to the president in December 2021.
Detainment of Modules by U.S. CBP
At the end of June, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that imports containing silica from a Chinese company called Hoshine would be banned due to concerns of forced labor. In August, news spread that the CBP was detaining modules suspected of containing material from Hoshine. The news sent buyers scrambling for replacement modules.
Forced Labor Prevention Act
In July, the U.S. Senate passed legislation to ban the import of products from China’s Xinjiang region. In a separate move, the Biden administration issued an advisory warning to businesses that they could be in violation of U.S. law if their operations are linked, even indirectly, to suspected surveillance networks in Xinjiang. It is expected that the Forced Labor Prevention Act will be signed into law this fall. The bill creates a “rebuttable presumption” that assumes goods manufactured in Xinjiang are made with forced labor, meaning they could be banned under the 1930 Tariff Act, and it shifts the burden of proof to the importers.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants provides technical design, financial analysis, procurement, due diligence and OE services for energy storage and hybrid projects. Fractal EMS provides turn-key energy storage controls and integration. Contact us today for more information https://www.energystorageconsultants.com.
On September 15, 2021, the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee finished a markup of the Build Back Better Act[1], specifically Subtitle G – Green Energy.[2] The markup for Subtitle G contains proposed amendments to the current Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 48[3] that would add Energy Storage Technologies (among others), as eligible energy property, and hence receive the Investment Tax Credit.
Original IRC Section 48 Language
The original Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 48 listed ITC eligible technologies:
Qualified fuel cell property
Energy property
Qualified small wind energy property
Waste energy recovery property
Proposed Subtitle G Language
Proposed amendments to IRC Section 48 were described in Subtitle G – Clean Energy, Part 1 – Renewable Electricity and Reducing Carbon Emissions, Section 136101, Extension and Modification of Credit for Electricity Produced from Certain Renewable Resources.
The following technologies were added as eligible energy property:
Energy Storage Technology. Energy Storage Technology means equipment (other than equipment primarily used in the transportation of goods or individuals and not for the production of electricity) which uses batteries, compressed air, pumped hydropower, hydrogen storage, thermal energy storage, regenerative fuel cells, flywheels, capacitors, superconducting magnets, or other technologies identified by the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to store energy for conversion to electricity (or, in the case of hydrogen storage, to store energy), and has a capacity of not less than 5 kilowatt hours. Construction must begin by Jan 1, 2034.
Qualified Biogas Property. Qualified Biogas Property means property comprising a system which (i) converts biomass into a gas which (a) consists of not less than 52 percent methane, or (b) is concentrated by such system into a gas which consists of not less than 52 percent methane, and (ii) captures such gas for productive use. Construction must begin by Jan 1, 2034.
Microgrid Controllers. Microgrid Controller means equipment which is (i) part of a “Qualified Microgrid,” and (ii) designed and used to monitor and control the energy resources and loads on such microgrid to maintain acceptable frequency, voltage, or economic dispatch. Construction must begin by Jan 1, 2034.
Qualified Microgrid means an electrical system which (i) includes equipment which is capable of generating not less than 4 kilowatts and not greater than 20 megawatts of electricity, (ii) is capable of operating (a) in connection with the electrical grid and as a single controllable entity with respect to such grid, and ‘(b) independently (and disconnected) from such grid, and (iii) is not part of a bulk-power system.
Energy storage technologies added as eligible property in the current ITC Section 48.
ITC Section 48 extended for 10 years, at 30% 2022-2031 before phasing down 26% in 2032 and 22% in 2033
Base ITC value is 6%, and rises to 30% if certain labor standards are met (with <1 MW projects exempted):
Prevailing wage for all workers in project construction & project alteration and repair up to 5 years after placed in service
Qualified apprentices required to complete a percent of all construction/alteration/repair labor hours, starting at 5% in 2022 and rising to 15% in 2024 and beyond, with 1 apprentice required for every 4 workers; exemptions allowed if labor supply is unavailable or good faith efforts can be demonstrated
A bonus of 10% of ITC value (i.e., +3% added to 30% ITC) if certain domestic content standards are met:
100% of steel & iron
55% of manufactured products
Waivers allowed if domestic content raises project costs 25% or US production is determined to be insufficient in volume
Direct payment election allowed for Section 48 ITCs, with a phase in of domestic content requirements:
Only 90% and 85% of ITC value is available for direct payment in 2024 and 2025 if domestic content standards are not met
Domestic content standards are required for any direct payment of ITC value starting in 2026
This legislation is expected to be included in a full budget reconciliation package for vote in the House of Representatives later this month.
[1] https://waysandmeans.house.gov/legislation/markups/markup-build-back-better-act. See bottom of webpage for all markup documents
[4] Summary provided by the Energy Storage Association (ESA). ESA provides vital policy and market updates to members.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants provides technical design, financial analysis, procurement, due diligence and OE services for energy storage and hybrid projects. Fractal EMS provides turn-key energy storage controls and integration. Contact us today for more information https://www.energystorageconsultants.com.
In response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2021-14 that further extends a safe harbor allowing taxpayers who are developing renewable energy projects to claim the production and investment tax credits
Previous Notice
The Treasury Department and the IRS previously released Notice 2020-41 back in May 2020. This notice informed taxpayers that for projects that began construction in either calendar year 2016 or 2017, the Continuity Safe Harbor is satisfied if a taxpayer places the qualified facility or energy property in service by the end of a calendar year that is no more than five calendar years after the calendar year during which construction with respect to that qualified facility or energy property began.
More Breathing Room
In this latest notice, the Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledged continued COVID-related delays in the development of facilities eligible for tax credits. Accordingly, the notice provides relief for projects on which construction began in 2016 through 2020 by expanding the period that qualifies for the Continuity Safe Harbor.
Latest Provisions
Any qualified facility or energy property that began construction under the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor in calendar year 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019, the Continuity Safe Harbor is satisfied if a taxpayer places the qualified facility or energy property in service by the end of a calendar year that is no more than six calendar years after the calendar year during which construction with respect to that qualified facility or energy property began.
For for any qualified facility or energy property that began construction under the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor in calendar year 2020, the Continuity Safe Harbor is satisfied if a taxpayer places the qualified facility or energy property in service by the end of a calendar year that is no more than five calendar years after the calendar year during which construction with respect to that qualified facility or energy property began.
For any qualified facility or energy property to which the Continuity Safe Harbor does not apply, the Continuity Requirement is satisfied if the taxpayer demonstrates satisfaction of either the Continuous Construction Test or the Continuous Efforts Test, regardless of whether the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor was used to establish the beginning of construction.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants provides technical design, financial analysis, procurement, due diligence and OE services for energy storage and hybrid projects. Contact us today for more information https://www.energystorageconsultants.com.
Welcome to the energy storage team Maine. We’ve been waiting for you. On June 22, 2021, the state of Maine became the 9th state with an energy storage target. Governor Mills signed LD 528 into law, establishing a goal of 400 MW of energy storage by 2025, and 500 MW by 2030. Let’s update the team roster…
California
Assembly Bill (A.B.) 2514 (2013) directed the state’s three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to procure 1,325 MW of storage by 2020 with installations operational by 2024 (580 MW from SCE, 580 MW from PG&E, 165 MW from SDG&E).
A.B. 2868 (2016) directed the same utilities to add an additional 500 MW of additional storage to be rate-based. No more than 25 percent of the capacity could be behind-the-meter (BTM).
S.B. 801 (2018) required SCE to deploy 20 MW energy storage to meet energy reliability requirements in the greater Los Angeles area associated with the Aliso Canyon gas explosion.
Connecticut – Newly added May 20, 2021
S.B. 952 (2021) set a target of 1 GW of energy storage to be achieved by 2030. Sets interim targets of 300 MW by 2024 and 650 MW by 2027.
Maine – NEW
LD 528 (2021) set a 400 MW energy storage target to be achieved by 2025, and 500 MW by 2030.
Massachusetts
House Bill (H.B.) 4857 (2018) established a 1,000 MWh energy storage deployment target to be achieved by 2026.
Nevada
S.B. 204 (2017) directed the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada to establish biennial targets for NV Energy Inc.’s procurement of energy storage systems, starting at 100 MW by the end of 2020 and increasing to 1,000 MW by the end of 2030.
New Jersey
A.B. 3723 (2018) set targets of 600 MW of energy storage capacity within three years and 2 GW of capacity by 2030.
New York
S.B. 5190 and A.B. 6571 directed the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) to develop an Energy Storage Deployment Program, including 3,000 MW by 2030 with an interim goal of 1,500 MW by 2025.
Oregon
H.B. 2193 (2016) required Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp to each have a minimum of 5 MWh of energy storage in service by January 2020.
Virginia
H.B. 1526 and S.B. 85 (2020) had Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) mandating a 3.1 GW energy target and a goal to achieve 100% renewable and clean energy by 2050.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants provides technical design, financial analysis, procurement, due diligence and OE services for energy storage and hybrid projects. Contact us today for more information https://www.energystorageconsultants.com.
The state of Connecticut looks to become the 8th state with an energy storage target. On May, 20, 2021 the Connecticut Senate passed Senate Bill (S.B.) 952, which will set a target of 1 GW of energy storage to be achieved by 2030. Energy storage targets are on the rise across the country. Let’s look at state energy storage targets to date:
California
Assembly Bill (A.B.) 2514 (2013) directed the state’s three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to procure 1,325 MW of storage by 2020 with installations operational by 2024 (580 MW from SCE, 580 MW from PG&E, 165 MW from SDG&E).
A.B. 2868 (2016) directed the same utilities to add an additional 500 MW of additional storage to be rate-based. No more than 25 percent of the capacity could be behind-the-meter (BTM).
S.B. 801 (2018) required SCE to deploy 20 MW energy storage to meet energy reliability requirements in the greater Los Angeles area associated with the Aliso Canyon gas explosion.
Connecticut – NEW
S.B. 952 (2021) set a target of 1 GW of energy storage to be achieved by 2030. Sets interim targets of 300 MW by 2024 and 650 MW by 2027.
Massachusetts
House Bill (H.B.) 4857 (2018) established a 1,000 MWh energy storage deployment target to be achieved by 2026.
Nevada
S.B. 204 (2017) directed the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada to establish biennial targets for NV Energy Inc.’s procurement of energy storage systems, starting at 100 MW by the end of 2020 and increasing to 1,000 MW by the end of 2030.
New Jersey
A.B. 3723 (2018) set targets of 600 MW of energy storage capacity within three years and 2 GW of capacity by 2030.
New York
S.B. 5190 and A.B. 6571 directed the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) to develop an Energy Storage Deployment Program, including 3,000 MW by 2030 with an interim goal of 1,500 MW by 2025.
Oregon
H.B. 2193 (2016) required Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp to each have a minimum of 5 MWh of energy storage in service by January 2020.
Virginia
H.B. 1526 and S.B. 85 (2020) had Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) mandating a 3.1 GW energy target and a goal to achieve 100% renewable and clean energy by 2050.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants provides technical design, financial analysis, procurement, due diligence and OE services for energy storage and hybrid projects. Contact us today for more information https://www.energystorageconsultants.com.
Sales for electric vehicles, consumer electronics and stationary storage are expected to increase lithium-ion demand by double in 2025 and quadruple by 2030. That will create a LOT of spent batteries. Lithium-ion battery recycling is not well developed. Despite the eminent need for recycling, the economics are not financially compelling. The purpose of this article is to discuss these challenges and to share recent recycling costs.
Complicated and Time Consuming
Lithium-ion batteries have a wide variety of materials in each cell. The active materials are in the form of powder that are coated onto metal foils. These different materials must be separated from each other during recycling. Some large format lithium-ion manufacturers encase the cells in epoxy, making deconstruction extremely difficult. In addition, a lithium-ion pack is likely to contain 100 or more individual cells. This makes recycling a costly and complicated process.
Critical Metals
Cobalt, nickel and lithium have been identified by the Biden administration as “critical metals.”[1] Cobalt has driven the business case for recycling, but in the future, the value of the reclaimed nickel and lithium may also help. Unfortunately, the amount of these critical metals represents a small fraction of the total battery weight (low single digit percent). Battery manufacturers require critical metals to have the highest purity, this makes the economics of recycling even more difficult.
Diminishing Cobalt Content
Manufacturers have been systematically reducing their dependency on cobalt. As the cobalt content diminishes, so does the immediate motivation to recycle. Cobalt creates substantial supply chain risk for battery manufacturers due to its price volatility (prices have ranged from USD $10-$42/ton). Additionally, cobalt mining has issues with human rights, including child labor. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is by far the world’s largest producer of cobalt, accounting for roughly 60 percent of global production. Avoiding DRC sourced cobalt creates further pressure on prices.
Following the commercial success of equally blended NMC[2] (⅓ nickel, ⅓ manganese, ⅓ cobalt – also abbreviated as NMC 111), NMC cathodes have migrated to a lower cobalt ratio. Many EV and stationary storage battery makers are now using NMC 811 (cathode composition with 80% nickel, 10% manganese, and 10% cobalt). Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries have been gaining market share due to their low cost (no cobalt content).
These trends underscore one of the fundamental challenges that will complicate the future of the recycling landscape. Without cobalt, there may be little financial incentive to recycle batteries or to invest in recycling technologies (without subsidies or grants).
U.S. Legislation is Lagging
The European Union (EU) has implemented a directive for collection and recycling of batteries. The EU Battery Directive (2006/66/EC) regulates the manufacturing, disposal and accumulators of batteries in the EU to minimize the negative impact on the environment. Most notably:
Battery producers or third parties acting on their behalf cannot refuse to take back waste batteries.
All collected batteries must be recycled.
Batteries cannot be disposed of in landfills or by incineration.
Recycling processes must achieve a minimum efficiency of 65% for lead-acid batteries, 75% for nickel-cadmium batteries and 50% for other batteries.
The U.S. pales in comparison. In 2017, the Trump administration introduced EO 13817 – A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.[3] The EO cited the national dependency on foreign sources for certain mineral commodities (lithium and cobalt). The EO called for the following actions:
Increasing private-sector domestic exploration, production, recycling, and reprocessing of critical minerals, and support to identify alternatives
Increasing activity at all levels of the supply chain to expedite exploration, production, processing, reprocessing, recycling, and domestic refining of critical minerals
In response to the EO, the Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office (VOT) initiated three areas of R&D:[4]
Supporting laboratory, university, and industry research to develop low-cobalt (or no cobalt) active cathode materials for next-generation lithium-ion batteries.
Establishing the ReCell Lithium Battery Recycling R&D Center focused on cost effective recycling processes to recover lithium battery critical materials.[5]
Launching a Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Prize[6] to incent American entrepreneurs to find innovative solutions to solve current challenges associated with collecting, storing, and transporting discarded lithium-ion batteries for eventual recycling.
Unfortunately, despite all the climate friendly ambitions our country has postulated, our plan for domestic recycling is nowhere close to maturity.
Recycling Costs Have Actually Increased
Prior to 2018, numerous U.S. companies claimed to “recycle” lithium-ion batteries, but in actuality they were shipping the batteries to China (similar to plastics). For over a decade, recyclables and scrap materials have been one of the country’s largest exports to China. In 2018, China enacted the National Sword policy restricting plastic waste imports to protect their environment and to develop their own domestic recycling capacity. In addition to the bans, China reduced the number of import licenses, meaning that fewer businesses could import waste.[7] In response, many recyclers moved their operations from China to other countries in Asia. Exports from the U.S. to Thailand jumped almost 7,000 percent in one year, while Malaysia’s went up several hundred percent.[8] The actual amount of U.S. plastic waste that ends in countries with high waste mismanagement may be even higher because the U.S. exports millions of kgs of plastic waste to countries like Canada and South Korea who may re-export U.S. plastic waste to other countries.
Current Recycling Costs
Fractal received a quote from a recycling company in Q2/2021 that costs $1.00/lb to collect and accept batteries from a project site. This includes the cost of pick up and transport by a qualified Universal Waste Handler. But this does not include the cost of packaging the batteries onto pallets (about $0.50/lb). It is unknown what happens to the batteries once they are accepted by the recycling company. Sadly, they are most likely put in a landfill.
Non-Lithium Batteries
Quotes for Sodium Sulfur ($1.70/lb) and Zinc Air ($1.85/lb) batteries were also received. Keep in mind that Fractal only received quotes from two companies. Other recylers may have better pricing, volume discounts or corporate partnerships.
Impact of Energy Density
Since we know that recycling costs are a function of weight, let us exam how energy density impacts recycling costs. Note: The number of enclosures, modules and weights will vary across vendors, but this is an example of density variations across battery chemistries. Fractal has intentionally omitted the total cost to preserve your sanity.
Chemistry
Lithium NMC
Lithium LFP
Zinc Air
Power/Energy
10 MW / 40 MWh
10 MW / 40 MWh
10 MW / 40 MWh
Footprint
10 x 40ft Containers 442 modules / container
20 x 40ft Containers 256 modules / container
320 x 25ft Containers 144 modules / container
Weight
148.77 lbs / module Total Weight: 657,563 lbs
198.42 lbs / module Total Weight: 1,015,910 lbs
215 lbs / module Total Weight: 9,907,200 lbs
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants is a consulting and OE firm that specializes in energy storage and hybrid systems. More information at https://www.energystorageconsultants.com
[6] The $5.5-million, three-phased Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Prize was announced by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry in January 2019. https://americanmadechallenges.org/batteryrecycling/
Judy McElroy, Fractal Energy Storage Consultants, providing testimony on lithium-ion BESS safety May 3, 2020 in North Carolina for a proposed utility-scale solar plus storage installation.
Battery storage, and lithium-ion batteries in general, remain a highly magnified technology in terms of safety. This past week, Fractal had the pleasure of testifying at the Nash County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina on the topic of battery safety and cited significant improvements in BESS safety:
Standards have continued to evolve (1973, UL9540 and UL9540A) that limit the impacts of abuse and the ability of fire propagation should there be a thermal runaway event.
BESS enclosures have continued to compartmentalize, enabling less battery capacity to be exposed to an event
Detection equipment has really evolved (CO and H2 sensors, both container and rack level)
Suppression equipment and agents has also evolved (dry chem agents, aerosols, automatic venting tied to sensors)
Redundancy in fuses and protections enabling isolation of affected equipment
Deflagration panels enable mitigation of gas pressure build up
Sensor ports enable external monitoring of internal gas levels
Drip dry pipe (dry stand pipe) enabling flooding via fire department connection without the need to open an enclosure
Key observations and recommendations included:
Not all systems are built alike. During procurement you must understand which of these options comes standard and which is an additional cost. It is best practice to present equipment bidders with specific technical requirements in the beginning.
Always consult with your Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to understand local requirements related to safety and design standards.
Insurance companies may require spacing and safety systems above and beyond general codes and standards.
UL9540A testing and certification should be done by a domestic, reputable testing provider.
Real-time monitoring (people) is a must and should be performed by an experienced provider. Unfortunately, some Energy Management Systems (EMS) suppliers offer “monitoring” but they are only monitoring the software, or they subcontract it out to another company. You need experienced eyes on your asset at all times, that have the ability to take action, and to perform anomaly detection. Most events could be circumvented with a good EMS, proper monitoring and data analysis.
A safety plan and training outline should be given to first responders early during the design phase. Then formal training and materials should be provided during the commissioning process (2-step approach).
You get what you pay for. A least-cost procurement methodology is not recommended when it comes to battery storage. Tier-1 stationary storage battery manufacturers with a domestic proof-of-concept should be mandatory.
The experience and safety history of contractors should be well-vetted. This is what separates the U.S. safety track record compared to other countries.
Fractal Energy Storage Consultants is a consulting and OE firm that specializes in energy storage and hybrid systems. More information at https://www.energystorageconsultants.com
The Biden-Harris administration announced on January 21, 2021 that Energy Storage Association (ESA) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Kelly Speakes-Backman has been appointed as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. Speakes-Backman and the ESA has played a integral role in shaping U.S. federal and market policy for energy storage. Congratulations!
ESA Chairman of the Board, John Hewa reported that the ESA Board voted unanimously to appoint ESA Vice President of Policy Jason Burwen to serve as interim ESA CEO, effective immediately.
Presently the ESA consists of 31 Leadership Circle companies, over 210 members and a Storage PAC to fund storage-related education in Washington, DC. Under Speakes-Backman’s watch, the ESA aggressively shaped policy across the ISO/RTO landscape by ensuring accountability and representation during FERC order implementation as it related to energy storage. The BEST Act, shaped by ESA, was passed at the end of last year, authorizing $1 billion for federal innovation investments in energy storage technology.
An increase of 20GWh of battery storage could reduce the amount of wasted wind power in Great Britain by 50%, according to new analysis from consultancy LCP.
Wind curtailments between Scotland and England are expected to cost consumers £1 billion (US$1.36 billion) per year by 2025, a figure that will continue to grow as the nation works towards the UK government’s 40MW by 2030 target. This figure highlights how “rapidly scaling up battery storage capacity is key” LCP said.
GB curtailed wind power on 75% of days in 2020, according to the consultancy, with over 3.6TWh of wind power being turned off in total, a figure mainly resulting from network constraints.
This analysis comes as LCP releases a new report into the investment opportunities of battery storage, which looked at a variety of different battery trading strategies and markets.
To read the full version of this story visit Current±.
Energy-Storage.news’ publisher Solar Media will be hosting the Energy Storage Summit 2021 in an exciting new format on 23-24 February and again on 3-4 March. See the website for more details.
Recent Comments