Posted by vaughn on July 29, 2010, 8:47 pm
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:46:43 -0400, "vaughn"
>>OK, let's do a little "napkin math" to see if this makes any sense. (You are
>>free to make your own assumptions, but let's start with mine)
>>
>>First assumption: 50% DOD (More than that will shorten the life of the
>>battery)
> IIRC, Nick Pine demonstrated that deeper discharges resulted in the
> highest amount of lifetime kWhs. He used data from Trojan, for L16s I
> think. It wasn't a big difference though.
Like I said, different folks, different assumptions. I do notice I forgot to
figure in the round-trip efficiency of the battery. When you put 1 kWh into a
battery, you unfortunately do not get 1 kWh. I usually se 80% used as an
assumption. Don't know if that includes inverter and other system losses.
>>Third assumption: Battery life = 3 years = 1095 cycles @ 50% DOD (A more
>>expensive battery will last longer.)
> I've seen folks with poorly maintained T105s go beyond 5.
With daily cycles?
>The usual assumption for normal maintenance and correct loading is 5 years for
> 105s, 10 years for L16s, and 20 for industrial quality.
Fair enough, but even those assumptions have problems. At the end of life
(whatever that is) you no longer have a battery with the original capacity,
because the battery capacity slowly decreases over its lifetime. So you can't
really use the full factory nameplate capacity as a lifetime figure when doing
your cost calculations.
>>Over its lifespan our battery will store a total of ..6 X 1095 = 657 kWh
>>
>>Divide $00.00 battery cost by 657 to get storage cost per kWh 100.00/657=
>>15.2
>>cents/kWh for STORAGE, you need to add the actual cost of the energy plus the
>>other costs for the storage system to get your full storage cost.
>>
>>I don't know about you, but that does not sound like anything that would make
>>financial sense for a home that has access to the grid. My cost for grid
>>power
>>is far less than that.
> That looks about right, but don't forget to allow for the fact that
> with most battery-based power setups, not all the energy makes a trip
> through the batteries.
Yes, but the article was more about storage for time-shifting to take advantage
of excess capacity and to get around peak hour pricing. My point is that
battery energy storage is not free, it can actually be quite expensive.
>
> Quick and dirty for 1kW solar, 2kW inverter, 48V string of L16s...
> say, $k total, and 5kWh per day production. Call it an average 20
> year life for most of the setup except the batteries = 17 cents per
> kWh for generation, and an additional 11 for batteries.
OK, I was mostly talking about the battery portion of the expense. I came up
with 15 cents per kWh, while your working assumption is 11 cents, so we agree
that battery storage is neither free nor cheap. Last month, I paid just under
11 cents/kWh for my grid power (all inclusive). It would make no sense to pay
11 cents/kWh to store power that costs me 11 cents.kWh.
Thanks for a good response!
Vaughn
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on July 29, 2010, 10:17 pm
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:47:56 -0400, "vaughn"
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:46:43 -0400, "vaughn"
>>
>>
>>>OK, let's do a little "napkin math" to see if this makes any sense. (You are
>>>free to make your own assumptions, but let's start with mine)
>>>
>>>First assumption: 50% DOD (More than that will shorten the life of the
>>>battery)
>>
>> IIRC, Nick Pine demonstrated that deeper discharges resulted in the
>> highest amount of lifetime kWhs. He used data from Trojan, for L16s I
>> think. It wasn't a big difference though.
>Like I said, different folks, different assumptions. I do notice I forgot to
>figure in the round-trip efficiency of the battery. When you put 1 kWh into a
>battery, you unfortunately do not get 1 kWh. I usually se 80% used as an
>assumption. Don't know if that includes inverter and other system losses.
>>
>>>Third assumption: Battery life = 3 years = 1095 cycles @ 50% DOD (A more
>>>expensive battery will last longer.)
>>
>> I've seen folks with poorly maintained T105s go beyond 5.
>With daily cycles?
Yup. One guy I'm thinking of had the most messed up arrangement
imaginable. It didn't look like it was possible that it ever got fully
charged, and yet it had been functioning that way for over 5 years
then, and another year since. I'm thinking that the daily discharges
were always shallow though, and for sure they're shallow now with full
charges most days. The bank may only be a fraction of its original
capacity, but it's still doing the job.
>>The usual assumption for normal maintenance and correct loading is 5 years for
>> 105s, 10 years for L16s, and 20 for industrial quality.
>Fair enough, but even those assumptions have problems. At the end of life
>(whatever that is) you no longer have a battery with the original capacity,
>because the battery capacity slowly decreases over its lifetime. So you can't
>really use the full factory nameplate capacity as a lifetime figure when doing
>your cost calculations.
That's supposed to be taken into account when purchasing. But the
longer the projected life span, the less likely that the use will be
as expected. About the only thing that's stayed the same with my place
over the last 15 years is that the energy use keeps changing. :-) 3
different radio-phone setups over the years, 3 different Internet
delivery methods, 2 different TVs, 3 different time-shifting setups,
daily computer use was originally 1 machine for 1 hour, now it's 3
machines for a total of 15 hours, etc.
>>>Over its lifespan our battery will store a total of ..6 X 1095 = 657 kWh
>>>
>>>Divide $00.00 battery cost by 657 to get storage cost per kWh 100.00/657=
>>>15.2
>>>cents/kWh for STORAGE, you need to add the actual cost of the energy plus the
>>>other costs for the storage system to get your full storage cost.
>>>
>>>I don't know about you, but that does not sound like anything that would make
>>>financial sense for a home that has access to the grid. My cost for grid
>>>power
>>>is far less than that.
>>
>> That looks about right, but don't forget to allow for the fact that
>> with most battery-based power setups, not all the energy makes a trip
>> through the batteries.
>Yes, but the article was more about storage for time-shifting to take advantage
>of excess capacity and to get around peak hour pricing. My point is that
>battery energy storage is not free, it can actually be quite expensive.
> >
>> Quick and dirty for 1kW solar, 2kW inverter, 48V string of L16s...
>> say, $k total, and 5kWh per day production. Call it an average 20
>> year life for most of the setup except the batteries = 17 cents per
>> kWh for generation, and an additional 11 for batteries.
>OK, I was mostly talking about the battery portion of the expense. I came up
>with 15 cents per kWh, while your working assumption is 11 cents, so we agree
>that battery storage is neither free nor cheap. Last month, I paid just under
>11 cents/kWh for my grid power (all inclusive). It would make no sense to pay
>11 cents/kWh to store power that costs me 11 cents.kWh.
Disregarding the battery thing for a moment, the only sense would be
if you wanted to make a "green" statement and a good long-term
investment. Plug your zip, monthly bill, and the name of your power
company into this
http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=solar-calculator&subpage=&external_estimator=
You might want to change the default $ to reflect your local costs
and/or your DIY skills. Retail is supposedly $ here according to
local news reports. I did it for my place just for fun - called it $0
per month and $ per watt. It came up with $K investment, 9 year
breakeven and nearly 300% return.
>Thanks for a good response!
Right back at ya'.
Wayne
Posted by ghio on August 3, 2010, 1:15 pm
On Jul 30, 5:28am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:46:43 -0400, "vaughn"
> >OK, let's do a little "napkin math" to see if this makes any sense. (You are
> >free to make your own assumptions, but let's start with mine)
> >First assumption: 50% DOD (More than that will shorten the life of the battery)
> IIRC, Nick Pine demonstrated that deeper discharges resulted in the
> highest amount of lifetime kWhs. He used data from Trojan, for L16s I
> think. It wasn't a big difference though.
> >So we can store .6 KWH/cycle per battery.
> >Second assumption: One cycle per day
> >Third assumption: Battery life = 3 years = 1095 cycles @ 50% DOD (A more
> >expensive battery will last longer.)
> I've seen folks with poorly maintained T105s go beyond 5. The usual
> assumption for normal maintenance and correct loading is 5 years for
> 105s, 10 years for L16s, and 20 for industrial quality.
> >Over its lifespan our battery will store a total of ..6 X 1095 = 657 KWH
> >Divide $00.00 battery cost by 657 to get storage cost per KWH 100.00/657= 15.2
> >cents/KWH for STORAGE, you need to add the actual cost of the energy plus the
> >other costs for the storage system to get your full storage cost.
> >I don't know about you, but that does not sound like anything that would make
> >financial sense for a home that has access to the grid. My cost for grid power
> >is far less than that.
> >Vaughn
> That looks about right, but don't forget to allow for the fact that
> with most battery-based power setups, not all the energy makes a trip
> through the batteries. At my own place, some days it's virtually none.
> For a few it's 100%. Anything over about 2kW generally comes from the
> batteries. When welding during daytime while simultaneous loads are
> invariably present, it tends to be more than half the power from the
> batteries. Quick estimate of the average overall - perhaps a quarter
> of the total consumption takes the battery route. Tracking and wind
> power helps considerably.
> Quick and dirty for 1kW solar, 2kW inverter, 48V string of L16s...
> say, $k total, and 5kWh per day production. Call it an average 20
> year life for most of the setup except the batteries = 17 cents per
> kWh for generation, and an additional 11 for batteries. Some folks are
> already paying more than that for grid energy, without counting the
> hookup cost which can be substantial even if it might be buried in the
> home purchase price. Add in the generally ignored external costs which
> are put off onto future generations, and a very good case can be made
> for home power.
> Wayne
A good description of a daylight only system.
>>OK, let's do a little "napkin math" to see if this makes any sense. (You are
>>free to make your own assumptions, but let's start with mine)
>>
>>First assumption: 50% DOD (More than that will shorten the life of the
>>battery)
> IIRC, Nick Pine demonstrated that deeper discharges resulted in the
> highest amount of lifetime kWhs. He used data from Trojan, for L16s I
> think. It wasn't a big difference though.