NrgEdge Editor

Sharing content and articles for users
Last Updated: January 9, 2018
1 view
Renewable Energy
image

graph of U.S. utility-scale annual battery installations, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860M, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory

Note: 2017 includes reported installations for January–October and reported planned installations for November–December.


Driven largely by installations over the past three years, the electric power industry has installed about 700 megawatts (MW) of utility-scale batteries on the U.S. electric grid. As of October 2017, these batteries made up about 0.06% of U.S. utility-scale generating capacity. Another 22 MW of batteries are planned for the last two months of 2017, with 69 MW more planned for 2018.


New energy storage information available in the 2016 edition of EIA’s Annual Electric Generator Report provides more detail on battery capacity, charge and discharge rates, storage technology types, reactive power ratings, storage enclosure types, and expected usage applications.


Batteries, like other energy storage technologies, can serve as both energy suppliers and consumers at different times, creating an unusual combination of cost and revenue streams and making direct comparisons to other generation technologies challenging.


The decision to build a new power plant depends in part on its initial construction costs and ongoing operating costs. Although battery projects have a relatively low average construction cost, they are not stand-alone generation sources and must buy electricity supplied by other generators to charge and cover the round-trip efficiency losses experienced during cycles of charging and discharging.


Battery costs also depend on technical characteristics such as generating capability, which for energy storage systems can be described in two ways:

  • Power capacity or rating. Measured in megawatts, this is the maximum instantaneous amount of power that can be produced on a continuous basis and is the usual type of generator capacity discussed
  • Energy capacity. Measured in megawatthours (MWh), this is the total amount of energy that can be stored or discharged by the battery 


A battery’s duration is the ratio of its energy capacity to its power capacity. For instance, a battery with a 2 MWh energy capacity and 1 MW power capacity can produce at its maximum power capacity for 2 hours. Actual operation of batteries can vary widely from these specifications. Batteries discharged at lower-than-maximum rates will yield longer duration times and possibly more energy capacity.


Short-duration batteries are designed to provide power for a very short time, usually on the order of minutes to an hour, and are generally less expensive per MW to build. Long-duration batteries can provide power for several hours and are more expensive per MW.


On the revenue side, batteries have relatively low capacity factors because of charging durations and cycling limitations for optimal performance. Nevertheless, they can uniquely capture a range of value streams, which can sometimes be combined to improve project economics. Some of the uses for batteries include:

  • Balancing grid supply and demand.  Batteries can help balance electricity supply and demand on multiple time scales (by the second, minute, or hour).  Fast-ramping batteries are particularly well suited to provide ancillary grid services such as frequency regulation, which helps maintain the grid’s electric frequency on a second-to-second basis.
  • Peak shaving and price arbitrage opportunities. By buying power and charging during lower-price (or negative-price) periods and selling power and discharging during higher-price periods, batteries can flatten daily load or net load shapes.  Shifting portions of electricity demand from peak hours to other times of day also reduces the amount of higher-cost, seldom-used generation capacity needed to be online, which can result in overall lower wholesale electricity prices.
  • Storing and smoothing renewable generation. Storing excess solar- and wind-generated electricity and supplying it back to the grid or to local loads when needed can reduce renewable curtailments, negative wholesale power prices coincident with wind and solar over-generation, and price spikes related to evening peak ramping needs.  Co-locating batteries with solar and wind generators allows system owners to more predictably manage the power supplied to the grid by combined renewable-generator-and-battery systems.
  • Deferring large infrastructure investments.  Local pockets of growing electricity demand sometimes require electric utilities to build expensive new grid infrastructure such as upgraded substations or additional distribution lines to handle the higher demand, which can cost upwards of tens of millions of dollars.  Installing batteries at strategic locations, at a much lower cost, enables utilities to manage growing demand while deferring large grid investments.
  • Reducing end-use consumer demand charges. Large power consumers such as commercial and industrial facilities can reduce their electricity demand charges, which are generally based on the facilities’ highest observed rates of electricity consumption during peak periods, by using on-site energy storage during peak demand times.
  • Back-up power. Batteries can provide back-up power to households, businesses, and distribution grids during outages or to support electric reliability.  As part of an advanced microgrid setup, batteries can help keep power flowing when the microgrid is islanded, or temporarily electrically separated, from the rest of the grid.

map of operating and planned utility-scale battery power capacity, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860M, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory

3
2 0

Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today

Latest NrgBuzz

Pricing-in The Covid 19 Vaccine

In a few days, the bi-annual OPEC meeting will take place on November 30, leading into a wider OPEC+ meeting on December 30. This is what all the political jostling and negotiations currently taking place is leading up to, as the coalition of major oil producers under the OPEC+ banner decide on the next step of its historic and ambitious supply control plan. Designed to prop up global oil prices by managing supply, a postponement of the next phase in the supply deal is widely expected. But there are many cracks appearing beneath the headline.

A quick recap. After Saudi Arabia and Russia triggered a price war in March 2020 that led to a collapse in oil prices (with US crude prices briefly falling into negative territory due to the technical quirk), OPEC and its non-OPEC allies (known collectively as OPEC+) agreed to a massive supply quota deal that would throttle their production for 2 years. The initial figure was 10 mmb/d, until Mexico’s reticence brought that down to 9.7 mmb/d. This was due to fall to 7.7 mmb/d by July 2020, but soft demand forced a delay, while Saudi Arabia led the charge to ensure full compliance from laggards, which included Iraq, Nigeria and (unusually) the UAE. The next tranche will bring the supply control ceiling down to 5.7 mmb/d. But given that Covid-19 is still raging globally (despite promising vaccine results), this might be too much too soon. Yes, prices have recovered, but at US$40/b crude, this is still not sufficient to cover the oil-dependent budgets of many OPEC+ nations. So a delay is very likely.

But for how long? The OPEC+ Joint Technical Committee panel has suggested that the next step of the plan (which will effectively boost global supply by 2 mmb/d) be postponed by 3-6 months. This move, if adopted, will have been presaged by several public statements by OPEC+ leaders, including a pointed comment from OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo that producers must be ready to respond to ‘shifts in market fundamentals’.

On the surface, this is a necessary move. Crude prices have rallied recently – to as high as US$45/b – on positive news of Covid-19 vaccines. Treatments from Pfizer, Moderna and the Oxford University/AstraZeneca have touted 90%+ effectiveness in various forms, with countries such as the US, Germany and the UK ordering billions of doses and setting the stage for mass vaccinations beginning December. Life returning to a semblance of normality would lift demand, particularly in key products such as gasoline (as driving rates increase) and jet fuel (allowing a crippled aviation sector to return to life). Underpinning the rally is the understanding that OPEC+ will always act in the market’s favour, carefully supporting the price recovery. But there are already grouses among OPEC members that they are doing ‘too much’. Led by Saudi Arabia, the draconian dictates of meeting full compliance to previous quotas have ruffled feathers, although most members have reluctantly attempt to abide by them. But there is a wider existential issue that OPEC+ is merely allowing its rivals to resuscitate and leapfrog them once again; the US active oil rig count by Baker Hughes has reversed a chronic decline trend, as WTI prices are at levels above breakeven for US shale.

Complaints from Iran, Iraq and Nigeria are to be expected, as is from Libya as it seeks continued exemption from quotas due to the legacy of civil war even though it has recently returned to almost full production following a truce. But grievance is also coming from an unexpected quarter: the UAE. A major supporter in the Saudi Arabia faction of OPEC, reports suggest that the UAE (led by the largest emirate, Abu Dhabi) are privately questioning the benefit of remaining in OPEC. Beset by shrivelling oil revenue, the Emiratis have been grumbling about the fairness of their allocated quota as they seek to rebuild their trade-dependent economy. There has been suggestion that the Emiratis could even leave OPEC if decisions led to a net negative outcome for them. Unlike the Qatar exit, this will not just be a blow to OPEC as a whole, questioning its market relevance but to Saudi Arabia’s lead position, as it loses one of its main allies, reducing its negotiation power. And if the UAE leaves, Kuwait could follow, which would leave the Saudis even more isolated.

This could be a tactic to increase the volume of the UAE’s voice in OPEC+, which has been dominated by Saudi Arabia and Russia. But it could also be a genuine policy shift. Either way, it throws even more conundrums onto a delicate situation that could undermine an already fragile market. Despite the positive market news led by Covid-19 vaccines and demand recovery in Asia, American crude oil inventories in Cushing are now approaching similar high levels last seen in April (just before the WTI crash) while OPEC itself has lowered its global demand forecast for 2020 by 300,000 b/d. That’s dangerous territory to be treading in, especially if members of the OPEC+ club are threatening to exit and undermine the pack. A postponement of the plan seems inevitable on December 1 at this point, but it is what lies beyond the immediate horizon that is the true threat to OPEC+.

Market Outlook:

  • Crude price trading range: Brent – US$44-46/b, WTI – US$42-44/b
  • More positive news on Covid-19 vaccines have underpinned a crude price rally despite worrying signs of continued soft demand and inventory build-ups
  • Pfizer’s application for emergency approval of its vaccine is paving the way for mass vaccinations to begin soon, with some experts predicting that the global economy could return to normality in Q2 2021
  • Market observers are predicting a delay in the OPEC+ supply quota schedule, but the longer timeline for the club’s plan – which is set to last until April 2022 – may have to be brought forward to appease current dissent in the group

Get timely updates about latest developments in oil & gas delivered to your inbox. Join our email list and get your targeted content regularly for free.

Submit Your Details to Download Your Copy Today!

November, 25 2020
EIA expects U.S. crude oil production to remain relatively flat through 2021

In the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) November Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), EIA forecasts that U.S. crude oil production will remain near its current level through the end of 2021.

A record 12.9 million barrels per day (b/d) of crude oil was produced in the United States in November 2019 and was at 12.7 million b/d in March 2020, when the President declared a national emergency concerning the COVID-19 outbreak. Crude oil production then fell to 10.0 million b/d in May 2020, the lowest level since January 2018.

By August, the latest monthly data available in EIA’s series, production of crude oil had risen to 10.6 million b/d in the United States, and the U.S. benchmark price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil had increased from a monthly average of $17 per barrel (b) in April to $42/b in August. EIA forecasts that the WTI price will average $43/b in the first half of 2021, up from our forecast of $40/b during the second half of 2020.

The U.S. crude oil production forecast reflects EIA’s expectations that annual global petroleum demand will not recover to pre-pandemic levels (101.5 million b/d in 2019) through at least 2021. EIA forecasts that global consumption of petroleum will average 92.9 million b/d in 2020 and 98.8 million b/d in 2021.

The gradual recovery in global demand for petroleum contributes to EIA’s forecast of higher crude oil prices in 2021. EIA expects that the Brent crude oil price will increase from its 2020 average of $41/b to $47/b in 2021.

EIA’s crude oil price forecast depends on many factors, especially changes in global production of crude oil. As of early November, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and partner countries (OPEC+) were considering plans to keep production at current levels, which could result in higher crude oil prices. OPEC+ had previously planned to ease production cuts in January 2021.

Other factors could result in lower-than-forecast prices, especially a slower recovery in global petroleum demand. As COVID-19 cases continue to increase, some parts of the United States are adding restrictions such as curfews and limitations on gatherings and some European countries are re-instituting lockdown measures.

EIA recently published a more detailed discussion of U.S. crude oil production in This Week in Petroleum.

November, 19 2020
OPEC members' net oil export revenue in 2020 expected to drop to lowest level since 2002

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will earn about $323 billion in net oil export revenues in 2020. If realized, this forecast revenue would be the lowest in 18 years. Lower crude oil prices and lower export volumes drive this expected decrease in export revenues.

Crude oil prices have fallen as a result of lower global demand for petroleum products because of responses to COVID-19. Export volumes have also decreased under OPEC agreements limiting crude oil output that were made in response to low crude oil prices and record-high production disruptions in Libya, Iran, and to a lesser extent, Venezuela.

OPEC earned an estimated $595 billion in net oil export revenues in 2019, less than half of the estimated record high of $1.2 trillion, which was earned in 2012. Continued declines in revenue in 2020 could be detrimental to member countries’ fiscal budgets, which rely heavily on revenues from oil sales to import goods, fund social programs, and support public services. EIA expects a decline in net oil export revenue for OPEC in 2020 because of continued voluntary curtailments and low crude oil prices.

The benchmark Brent crude oil spot price fell from an annual average of $71 per barrel (b) in 2018 to $64/b in 2019. EIA expects Brent to average $41/b in 2020, based on forecasts in EIA’s October 2020 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). OPEC petroleum production averaged 36.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2018 and fell to 34.5 million b/d in 2019; EIA expects OPEC production to decline a further 3.9 million b/d to average 30.7 million b/d in 2020.

EIA based its OPEC revenues estimate on forecast petroleum liquids production—including crude oil, condensate, and natural gas plant liquids—and forecast values of OPEC petroleum consumption and crude oil prices.

EIA recently published a more detailed discussion of OPEC revenue in This Week in Petroleum.

November, 16 2020