Two megawatts of batteries connected to power grid

Giant cousins of your laptop batteries are going to provide storage to the electricity grid.

Altairnano on Tuesday said that Indianapolis Power & Light, a division of utility AES, completed tests for using two megawatts worth of its batteries to maintain grid frequency.

Inside a semi-trailer that houses one megawatt of lithium-titanate batteries for grid storage.

(Credit: Altairnano)

The two one-megawatt units--each housed in a semi-trailer--can store up to 15 minutes worth of electricity, or 250 kilowatt-hours each. (The average U.S. home consumes 920 kilowatt-hours per month.)

The tests are important because they demonstrated that lithium-ion batteries can be used for utility-grade energy storage. Right now, most short-term energy storage is done by lead acid batteries.

The certification also suggests that these types of batteries can be used for other grid applications, such as storing electricity from renewable energy sources.

"This two-megawatt validation project is one of the final steps in our move towards commercial deployment of grid-scale energy storage," Chris Shelton, director of energy storage development at AES, said in a statement. "Fast-responding, high-efficiency energy storage systems such as these will create a more resilient grid and allow for increased use of variable generating sources such as wind and solar."

Energy storage on the power grid, for the most part, is not widely done.

But there are a number of companies now pursuing that market in addition to Altairnano, which also makes batteries for plug-in hybrid cars.

Another battery upstart, A123 Systems, last month said that it is testing its lithium-ion batteries with utilities right now.

In addition to the need to develop utility-specific technology, energy storage--particularly for several hours or days-- faces a number of financial hurdles from risk-averse utilities.

Another utility, AEP, already has megawatt-class storage units from NGK Insulators of Japan installed on its grid and has a program to put 25 megawatts of storage on the grid this decade.

Update at 8:15 am PT on July 9: Correction to the last paragraph, stating that AEP already has a grid storage program in place.

[fredtheviking]

I am glad to know that work is being done in the electric energy storage, but why is the work being done now. This should have started decades ago. Why do American bussinesses only look at what is in front of faces instead of looking over the hozion? I guess it because US investors don't reward bussiness for taking risks. They dump the stocks the second company hits a rough patch. Now, it the government that is force the ulities to improve the way they do bussiness, when they should have been the ones being proactive.

[theBike45]

Anyione who thinks batteries this expensive can be used for storing wind or solar is living in a dream world. These batteries are so limited and expensive, that they are only being used for very short term power fluctuations. A kilowatthour of capacity using Altair batteries costs well over $1500, which would require a $1.5 million battery pack to hold a mere megawatthour of electricity. A single wind turbine often will produce over 3/4 megawatthour of power every hour of the night (and none during peak deamnd) or about 7 megawatthours per night, requiring over $10 million worth of batteries!!! Now does anyone really believe that this would allow wind power to be store for when it's actually needed, to meet the critical peak demand period hours later? The idea is totally ludicrous.

[texaslabrat]

Batteries such as these are not meant for the storage scenario that you have laid out. Of course they would be too expensive to store that much energy....that's not the strategy for their deployment. Rather, they are meant to smooth out the fluctuations in the delta between supply and consumption on the grid, which normally is done by adjusting generation output (and in some cases bringing auxillery generators online at great cost in both fuel and capital). Both Wind and Solar give a constantly fluctuating power output...one that is relatively expensive to smooth out with the "traditional" methods I mentioned. Battery banks, and flywheel storage technologies, can provide the same effect "passively"...ie without the inordinate fuel costs associated with the auxillery generators (which are generally some of the least efficient plants on the grid). Also, such technologies can greatly increase the reliability of the grid by absorbing sharp spikes in demand that can actually cause physical damange to generators due to the large torques imposed on the rotors. Finally, by placing these storage systems near the points of consumption (eg at substations), they further increase the efficiency over using auxillery generation by avoiding the transmission losses incurred over the long-distance lines. Other technologies are being developed to address your concerns..such as compressed air storage in underground caverns and molten salt (in the case of solar thermal).

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Utility-Grade Energy Storage - On A Plane": Somehow, the thinking is about those crucial "15 minutes worth of electricity" that can be available just in case the "fuel" runs out before the plane lands!

[guyingta]

The target price that Altair is set is in the ~$300-$500 range for 1kW of batteries. These batteries last 100 times longer (>10,000 cycle life) and no maintenance.

With more and more move to nuclear power load leveling becomes very important. Japan is dependent > 50% Nuclear power. They have need of serious load level between 12pm - 2pm weekdays.

Corporate computers (even desktops) in Japan run of batteries between 12pm - 2pm and do not take power from the wall.

Gotta see how the pilot project in Japan opens up the market.

btw **** the picture above is upside down ****

[mlamonica]

Thanks for spotting the problem with the picture. It's right-side up now.

[jemiller0]

Computer hard drives used to cost $10,000. Now look how much they cost. If they get it working, the prices will come down. What alternative do you suggest? Burn more coal?

[BurnCoal4Now]

So... Computer hard drives came down because the government taxed the use of floppy disks and subsidized $10,000 hard drives for everyone? Nope. Capitalists found ways to make Hard Drives cheaper so people were willing to pay for the convenience of a hard drive. I suggest we burn coal or oil or gas for peak demand in a free market until the free market gets the price for the alternatives down. You suggest that we regulate low cost energy out of the market in favor of high cost alternatives that are not ready for the mass market. Al Gore can afford $1000/KWh or $10/gallon gas. His maid can't. Stop inflicting pain on those less fortunate in your efforts to save the planet from CO2. The planet did just fine managing much higher levels of CO2 millions of years before man got in the game. Remember, "fossil" fuels by definition came from "fossils". Every gallon of oil and every ton of coal that is in the ground was once in the atmosphere in the past. We would have to find and burn every single gallon of oil and ton of coal to return the atmosphere to the level of CO2 it was at when life began. I learned this in Science class in 7th grade for crying out loud!

Free healthcare, let the government pay for it. Free energy, let the government pay for it. Free tuition, let the government pay for it. With whose money? We finance our inefficiencies by taking from those who work and giving to those who waste, with a "democracy" that assures that those least knowledgeable about technology or economics get to decide how it's spent.

We let coal sit under our feet and waste our treasure on solar panels and batteries while the poor of the world are in mud huts burning dung. The arrogance of Western Cultures. We are so wealthy that we can waste our money on inefficient technologies rather than working to get others out of horrible conditions where real non-CO2 pollution actually exists. I would rather spend our money and resources assuring that we heat 50 homes using coal than one aristocrat's home using Solar Panels.

[er6247]

The use of taxation to respond to market failures which arise from cost not incurred in it's entirity directly by the any party responsible for it is appropriate.

The current system is "the greatest market failure in history" (Lord Stern, Great Britain Treasury, 2007). That is not to say that we shouldn't burn coal, gas or oil or partake in any other variety of polluting behaviour, only to say that it should be done whilst observing the total cost of such schemes with a full redistribution of assets from those who benefit from others to those who suffer as a result.

Don't think I'm some green idiot who doesn't have clue on this, I've worked for 'green' companies, a oil firm and the generation of power to match the UK's energy requirements in the basis of my thesis.

Pollute but mitigate for it so that when future generations look back they don't think the current generations where a bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!

[pldehoff]

The coal fields formed during the Carboniferous period (354 to 290 mya). This is about 3.2 billion (3200 million) years after life started. Photosynthetic life began (if I recall from a science class somewhat beyond the 7th grade) in the Mesoproterozoic period (1600 to 900 mya). This is about the time period that gas phase carbon (primarily in the form of CO2, though maybe there was methane too) began being taken out of the atmosphere and converted into soluble or solid forms. I'd wager that you would have to burn a fair amount more than the current supplies of Carboniferous coal and oil to bring the CO2 levels to where they were when life began.

But when life began, Earth was not hospitable to eukaryotic life, much less human life. No plants, no animals. The atmosphere was likely a methane/ammonia haze. But even if we burned all the coal and oil and only went back to the Carboniferous period, when all those ferns and mosses were busy sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, laying the foundation for that wonderful and cheap coal beneath our feet, would you really want to live back then too?

To turn those plants into coal, they needed to perish under salty water, so they would not rapidly decay before the heat and pressure could covert them to the black gold. Vast areas of humid marine swampland. High sea levels inundating the land. Hopefully not something I'll see in my lifetime. Though it seems that in each iteration of the range of global warming effects predicted by scientists, we appear to hit pretty near the most extreme end.

Can't say I know the best way to decouple dumping CO2 back into the atmosphere from energy and transportation. I figure a carbon trading scheme might be a good way to harness the very real power of capitalism at finding the most efficient ways. I think BurnCoal4Now's laissez-faire approach to the problem would lead to a solution in one area (cheap gas) and greater problem in others. (can't drive very fast underwater) And like any extreme, total governmental regulation is a proven route to total disaster. That happy middle is rarely happy and seems the hardest place to reach.

As much as I'd like to see us back at 1850's atmosphere CO2 levels, were I a betting man, I'd sadly have to put my money on BurnCoal4Now's approach to what we're going to do. After all, there are more maids than millionaires.

As for the article on batteries above, it seems like a fairly good idea for a buffer to meet pulse demand. It gives time for the grid to bring new sources online in a controlled fashion. If the battery buffer is large enough, you can ride out extended high load rises. I suspect that the overhead costs, in terms of dollars and perhaps emissions, for turning on or ramping up a power plant for the unexpected surge make the costs of the batteries economically worth the price.

Just my 2 cents. ....now where did I put those swim trunks?