Florida Utility To Close Two Natural Gas Plants, Build World's Largest Solar Battery System (electrek.co)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: Florida Power & Light has joined the race to build the world's largest solar battery storage system, announcing plans for its massive Manatee Energy Storage Center. The utility plans to build a 409 MW/900 MWh battery, to be powered by an existing FPL solar plant in Manatee County, Florida. It will begin serving customers in 2021. FPL says the battery system will be able to power 329,000 homes for two hours. For comparison, FPL notes the battery system is equivalent to 100 million iPhone batteries, or 300 million AA batteries. The system will be used in periods of high demand. The utility company also said that it will accelerate the retirement of two natural gas facilities at a nearby power plant. "FPL says the project will save customers more than $100 million while eliminating more than 1 million tons of carbon emissions, though no cost estimates for the project were disclosed," reports Electrek.

And while the Manatee Energy Storage Center is projected to be the "world's largest solar-powered battery storage system," it will have some competition from Texas where there are plans to build a 495 MW battery storage system that would be paired with an equivalent 495 MW solar farm in Borden County, Texas. It too is due to come online in 2021.

Comments

Manatee Energy

[PeeAitchPee]

How exactly does that work? They move too slow to generate a lot of kinetic energy, and burning them is a challenge . . .

Re:Manatee Energy

[TimothyHollins]

There's a lot of viagra in the wastewater from retirement homes.

Re:Manatee Energy

[OzPeter]

How exactly does that work? They move too slow to generate a lot of kinetic energy, and burning them is a challenge . . .

Geez .. don't you know .. the manatees are going to be the operators of the plant! Thats why it is called a Manatee Energy Storage Center - the Manatees are operating it.

This is really forward thinking by Florida. When climate change floods the whole state and everything is underwater you'll find that the manatees are eminently suited for manual labor. So its essential to start getting them trained up now for the job.

Energy conservation off the table?

[Latent Heat]

What if a combination of a reflective roof, improved sealing and insulation of attic ducts, and a higher-efficiency A/C unit is more cost effective than a solar photovoltaic panel?

The reflective roof is more than covering your house in tin -- there are coatings that reflect sunlight with better combined ability to reflect incoming radiation along with emit heat that gets in as infrared. Florida houses typically lack basements, so the A/C ductwork is in the hot attic -- sealing air leaks and insulating the ducts helps a lot. Newer A/C units are much more efficient.

"Uh, why not do both solar electric and A/C efficiency?" Indeed, why not, but all of the resources and press attention is going into the production side over the demand side. Low-hanging fruit, baby!

Re:Energy conservation off the table?

[DontBeAMoran]

Indeed. What's the point of adding all these new "green energy" systems everywhere if you're going to keep wasting most of it?

Re:Energy conservation off the table?

[Maury Markowitz]

"What if a combination of a reflective roof, improved sealing and insulation of attic ducts, and a higher-efficiency A/C unit is more cost effective than a solar photovoltaic panel?"

Then do that too.

I think you're missing the point that this is not a rooftop system. That's important. For argument's sake, let's say this system is 1GW peak. To deploy that on homes you'd need to install 200,000 average 5k rooftop systems. Or, as you suggest, you could improve existing systems to lower the energy use. If that's 1kW per home, then you need 1,000,000 homes to be upgraded.

Current pricing on utility-scale solar is about 80 cents/W. So installing one 1 GW plant will cost you about 800 million dollars. In contrast, installing on the rooftop costs about $3.25/W, so that option would be 3.25 billion dollars. Re-doing the homes as you suggest will cost thousands per home, so I would not be surprised if it was tens of billions.

So the end result is the same, 1GW offset. One solution costs many times less than the others. Done like dinner.

Re: Energy conservation off the table?

[marklark]

<sarc>Well, let's just stop doing all that, then! </sarc>

Don't worry

[DontBeAMoran]

It's not a problem, because The Sun Always Shines On TV.

iPhones? AA batteries?

[DontBeAMoran]

For comparison, FPL notes the battery system is equivalent to 100 million iPhone batteries, or 300 million AA batteries.

First of all, is it true there's only the equivalent of three AA batteries in an iPhone?

Secondly, 100 million iPhone batteries or 300 million AA batteries may sound like a lot, but when divided by the power required by houses, it doesn't seem like much. Can someone convert that in a how-many-tesla-car-batteries-can-fit-in-a-stadium number?

Re:iPhones? AA batteries?

[LynnwoodRooster]

For comparison, FPL notes the battery system is equivalent to 100 million iPhone batteries, or 300 million AA batteries.

First of all, is it true there's only the equivalent of three AA batteries in an iPhone?

Yes, it is true. A typical alkaline AA battery has up to 2800 mAh capacity. Of course, this is at 1.5V, so the power capacity is around 4.2 Wh. So 3 of them would be around 12.6 Wh. A, iPhone Xs Max has a 3174 mAh battery, at about 4.2V. So around 12.6 Wh. So yes, about the same capacity.

Very good, but expected, almost inevitable ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

In CA PG&L is closing three natural gas plants replacing them with batteries. Four systems, two experimental at 10 GWh each. Two large systems 350 MW x 4 hours and 175 MW x 4 hours.

South Australian grid using wind mills widely separated was the first one to go in with a 50 MW system. It stabilized the grid and flattened the spot market prices so much they saved millions of dollars. Every dollar saved by the utility is a dollar NOT EARNED by gas powered plants. The ROI on natural gas plants are going to take a serious rework, they are losing juicy profits in the spot markets.

Now, Florida. Cost of storage batteries is falling so rapidly, it is like the micro chip revolution in computing. There is a Moore's Law for batteries, with a time period of about 7 years.

The neck of the famous "duck curve" is after sunset in CA. Solar has stopped, but a/c load is yet to peak. That one hour after sunset is the last critical piece needed for solar to become totally effective against natural gas. It is at hand. It is very exciting for the renewable energy fans.

Some of the gas plants operating in the peak load are "quick response" gas turbine plants. Their quick response is still measured in tens of minutes. The batteries are responding in milliseconds. The key thing about spot market electricity is, the price can go negative. If the gas plant is producing power and the grid could not absorb it they need to pay someone to take their power. The gas plant will not throttle down for several minutes. Who can absorb that power and get paid? The Batteries! Once the battery systems reach a critical mass, all natural gas fired power will be sold at long term pre negotiated fixed contract prices. Not the spot market. This will seriously change the ROI calculations of these plants that were already built. I am expecting the owners of these plants to cry uncle and come with hat in hand asking for "relief" from the utility rate payers.

Re:Very good, but expected, almost inevitable ...

[CrimsonAvenger]

In CA PG&L is closing three natural gas plants replacing them with batteries.

Which is pretty much what FL is doing. Note that what is closing is NOT coal plants. They're replacing one (relatively) clean system with another (cleaner) system, NOT replacing a dirty system with a clean one....

Which, interestingly, is something I saw predicted a few months ago - that solar isn't going to be replacing coal, but natural gas,,,,

Re:Very good, but expected, almost inevitable ...

[PopeRatzo]

...that solar isn't going to be replacing coal, but natural gas,,

Coal is disappearing all on its own. In 1997, coal accounted for 52.8% of the electricity generated in the US. In 2017, it accounted for 27.4%. The reason for the decline is that coal plants have been replaced by...natural gas plants.

And now, natural gas plants are being replaced by solar plants. You could correctly say that solar is generating electricity where coal once did. So, solar is replacing coal, but there is an intermediate step.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...

Vacuum fluctuations

[goombah99]

They use the cavitation of the manitee fart bubbles collapsing. these get instantaneously hotter than the sun, cause fusion and also photons streaming out of the squeezed vacuum states.

Re:And the cost of power

[gabrieltss]

PFFT! And hence reply as AC - no real facts - just climate change boogie man scares.
I wanted to go solar to reduce the cost and reliance on the electric company. But right now there isn't a lower cost yet. The cost of a solar installation needs to come down a lot more to make it cost effective. When it costs $20K+ for a solar installation - yeah not going to cut it. People are better off finding how to do it themselves, build your own pannels - it can be done I found out. Build your own outbuilding with battery banks - oh yeah and the LiOn batteries that are best for solar yeah those are way pricy too. Cheapest I found were around 600-800/each for 100amph. Solar/Wind may sound like the solution but like I said until the cost comes down - it's not. So maybe if all the folks with their climate change boogie man stories would do something about getting cost down instead of telling boogie man stories people might take it serious more.
The reason people stay with the coal, natural gas, and fossil fuels is COST! Oh electric cars? Yeah you recharge them from what? an outlet? Where is IT getting it's electricity. Oh yeah form one of those big bad coal, natural gas or fossil fuel electric plants. So tell me how they are saving the environment? Now Hydrogen cars are the solution!

I worked for Uline for a while. They have started converting their forklifts from electric to hydrogen fuel cells. They have eliminated WALLS of battery charging stations down to 1 hydrogen fuel cell "pump" in the warehouse. In fact they got hydrogen fuel cells that were drop in replacements for the batteries in the forklifts so they didn't have to buy new equipment. I was amazed at what they were doing and being light years ahead of the competition. They put in a huge hydrogen tank in a brick enclosure out side. The new 1 million square foot warehouse (1 mile long) they are building will have an underground hydrogen tank. If Uline can do this -any- company running large amounts of forklifts in warehouses could do it. Now I can't tell you what the upfront initial conversions costs were to do this but I do know it's a far better solution.

Now if the automobile manufacturer's would get a clue and skip this electric car Bull Shit and go right to hydrogen it would be a much better deal. THAT would go along way to getting rid of "gas". Look how quick the move from incandescent to LED went. Florescent bulbs are actually WORSE for than incandescent on the environment. It's the mercury gas in the bulbs. You can't just dispose of them in the trash like incandescent bulbs. They are highly TOXIC. But oh how they were pitched as better for the environment than incandescent. I called Bull Shit then too. I waited and kept my incandescent bulbs. Now LED is CHEAP and I replaced everything with LED in the house and garage. Save more money and electricity with LED than incandescent or florescent.

So, moral of the story - don't always take the climate change boogie man stories to heart. They are a scare tactic to get you to jump at the first solution they think is best. This is NOT always so. Do we need to do something about the problems facing our environment - yes, but we need to do it RIGHT. Not just jump at the first hair brain ideas that come along.

Re: And the cost of power

[zmooc]

If you can recover the costs within its lifetime compared to using fossil electricity, it's not more expensive, it's cheaper.

Re:And the cost of power

[gtall]

And the cost to dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere acidifying the oceans, melting the ice caps, causing more destructive storms, etc. is what, precisely?

Re:The con artist must be having an apoplectic fit

[gtall]

How dare you call the President a con artist. A con artist is able to calculate secondary and ternary effects so as to get an outcome favorable to him. The President has the intellectual depth only sufficient to make him a con to fools and be a tool of the Russian mafia and their boss, Putin.

Re:And the cost of power

[skullandbones99]

Now Hydrogen cars are the solution!

A hydrogen car has an electric drivetrain, a small battery, a fuel cell and a hydrogen tank.

A battery electric car (BEV) has an electric drivetrain and a big battery.

Hydrogen cars are losing the battle against BEVs for the following reasons:

1. The fuel cell and hydrogen tank are not needed in a BEV so this cost and mass are avoided. Instead a BEV is dependent on deploying a battery with a high storage capability (up to 100kWh) with a high power output.

2. A BEV will have a better 0 to 60 MPH rating than a hydrogen car because the fuel cell cannot provide the needed high power output for fast acceleration. Hydrogen cars use a small battery to supply power during periods of high power demand. As battery technology improves, the hydrogen car becomes nearer to being a pure BEV which increases the risk of the fuel cell and hydrogen tank being redundant.

3. A BEV can be charged from anywhere there is a suitable power socket including a domestic house. A hydrogen car requires a hydrogen refuelling station which are rare. Therefore, BEVs already have a better charging infrastructure than hydrogen refuelling stations.

4. Hydrogen needs to be compressed which takes energy and also the hydrogen tank must be designed to be safe during car crashes. BEVs can catch fire in a car crash due to the battery being damaged, however, the probability of a BEV catching fire is less than the probability of an ICE car catching fire.

5. Hydrogen takes energy to be created such as via electrolysis. This energy reduces the overall efficiency of a hydrogen car. If water is used to generate hydrogen using electrolysis then a source of water is needed which will have an environmental impact. Hydrogen can also be generated from industrial fossil fuel processes but this hydrogen would need to be transported to the hydrogen refuelling stations so having an environmental impact.

6. Only a handful of car manufacturers are building hydrogen fuel cell cars and these cars have a very small share of the electric car market. The race to hydrogen fuel cell cars has already been lost to BEVs.

7. There is a race in the electric semi-tractor market between hydrogen fuel cell and BEV. This market has not yet decided which technology will win. Hydrogen may get a foothold in this market because sending freight travels along defined routes so only a few hydrogen refuelling stations are needed to support a freight route. But on the other hand, battery technology is continuing to improve which could eliminate the fuel cell.

The reason people stay with the coal, natural gas, and fossil fuels is COST! Oh electric cars? Yeah you recharge them from what? an outlet? Where is IT getting it's electricity. Oh yeah form one of those big bad coal, natural gas or fossil fuel electric plants. So tell me how they are saving the environment?

The accuracy of this claim depends on which country you are in. The biggest market per capita for electric cars is Norway where the electricity grid is 98% hydro-electric. Therefore, this claim fails for Norway. In France the electricity grid is 75% Nuclear and so your claim is also invalid for France. Renewable energy deployment in Europe is increasing each year which means your claim becomes more inaccurate each year. There are countries in Europe such as Poland that have a high percentage of electricity generated from coal but even for Poland it is better to generate the pollution at the rural coal fired power station than in the cities where the population lives. Therefore, electric cars will still benefit countries that use coal as pollution from ICE cars in cities will be reduced.