[greenclub] iCan update, Aug. 31 2016

[Allen, Bryan L (393F)]

So the iCan beta test saga continues. In my last report I wrote:

If “registered” as a HAN device (Home and business Area Network) then the iCan can sense the present house load reported by the TOU meter and avoid running the meter backwards

Well, after a phone call, several emails, and many days the iCan showed up as “Registered” on the SCE website, I I began being able to monitor the current house load (watts) and the cumulative reading on the SCE meter (KwH) through the PeakShaver app that is used to control the iCan. I initially thought the iCan was doing the right thing, but it seemed suspicious that the “dent” in our hourly usage on the SCE website was about four hours long, since our house load is typically about 300 to 350 watts and the iCan discharges at ~500 watts and can discharge 2 KwH.

Alas, when I watched the device more carefully, I saw this (phone screenshot):

Yep, negative house load, otherwise known as “We’re sending power to our neighbors.”

A quick look at our meter showed the same conclusion: negative numbers:

I mailed the developers and told them that until they have a fix for this, I’m unplugging/inerting the iCan.

The economics of this thing are just BAD; the device uses 11 watts continuous (0.264 KwH/day), the device needs to consume about 2.4 KwH to feed back 2 KwH into the house (about 83% efficient), and when you realize that you’re not getting 2 KwH worth of benefit because of the “powering the neighbors” syndrome, it’s a money-loser even though it’s free to me, for now, as a beta-tester. I have to eventually ship this weighty device back to them, unless I decided to buy one… Likelihood of purchase: currently zero.

As mentioned in a previous e-mail, even the developers say the device is un-economic unless the spread of high-cost to low-cost electricity over a 24-hour period is at least 20¢. Our spread is only 12¢.

For Green Club pondering, there is NO WAY to make this thing “save” energy; you are guaranteed to use MORE energy with a device like this (Hey Elon, I’m looking at you and your PowerWall) because of the conversion efficiencies being, by the laws of physics, less than 100%. No Free Lunch. Even more ominous, if battery storage was done at utility scale, the same conclusions would apply.

When you factor in the energy cost of manufacturing this iCan in the first place and the expected seven-year lifetime of the batteries, not only is it uneconomic and ungreen, it’s hard to conclude it’s anything but a shiny toy meant to entice wealthy people who style themselves as “Green” but who really aren’t.

—
Bryan L Allen   bryan....@jpl.nasa.gov
Section 393F   MRO eeDAT, RTO, & GDS
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (818) 393-4163
Cell: (818) 298-8408 Text paging: 81829...@mms.att.net

[scot...@aol.com]

Thanks for alerting us to the scam!

There's one point you make that deserves discussion, about battery storage at utility scale. My understanding is that a big reason to do that is to store energy from wind and solar in order to put it on the grid at times when it is needed more. One example would be saving energy from a wind farm and putting it on the grid in the evening after the sun goes down and the wind dies, to reduce the need for fossil fuel power at that time. 

Scott

[Allen, Bryan L (393F)]

On Sep 1, 2016, at 08:08, scot...@aol.com wrote:

Thanks for alerting us to the scam!

“Scam” is perhaps not an overly diplomatic word. :-)

There's one point you make that deserves discussion, about battery storage at utility scale. My understanding is that a big reason to do that is to store energy from wind and solar in order to put it on the grid at times when it is needed more. One example would be saving energy from a wind farm and putting it on the grid in the evening after the sun goes down and the wind dies, to reduce the need for fossil fuel power at that time. 

Scott

Sounds good, doesn’t it? But I’m becoming convinced it’s NOT good. My reasoning:

Right now all the power produced by solar and wind is used - we’re NOT discarding any of it, at least in California.

So for it to be useful to store “excess” power, you’ll have to build enough infrastructure to HAVE excess power!

Anytime the word “build” is used, that should send a shiver down your spine, if you’re actually motivated to reducing human impact on the environment and climate. Doesn’t matter if you’re building something you think of as benign, or think of as evil; the energy is used, the resources are consumed. We can ADAPT our way to lower impact, but we can’t BUILD or BUY our way to lower impact. I realize I am goring some particularly cherished beliefs here…

So as a thought experiment, build a wind and solar system that can provide ALL the power currently derived in California from Natural Gas & Coal. Let’s just say that’s 50 Gigawatts peak power (gotta have some margin) and about 32 Gigawatts average, using yesterday as an example:

So where it says “thermal” and “imports" you’ll be replacing that with Renewables, and the battery-stored energy from renewables. But in California we’re pretty close to tapped out with wind (have used up most of the windy locations), so you’ll have to get almost all of that “Renewables” from photovoltaics. See a problem yet? Let me remind you that physics says your storage conversion and extraction efficiencies are only going to be about 85% if you’re really pushing things. This suggests to me that we’d have to have AT LEAST 150 Gwatts of installed solar (we’ve got about 8 right now) and at least 1000 Gwatts of battery storage! And all the powerline infrastructure to move that electricity to the batteries, and then move it from the batteries to the users. THAT IS A VAST AMOUNT OF STUFF! How many megatons of copper and aluminum and lithium and concrete and steel is this going to take? And how many huge warehouses to shelter the batteries?

Glancing at those numbers, I think I’m being too optimistic. It’s likely you’d have to have even more solar, and more storage, than I’m assuming. Gack!

Or on the other hand, we could  figure out a way to use less…

Technological Optimist, commenting on "less": "Nah, that’d never work."

[Nowicki, Robert M (348C)]

No thought experiment required, NREL just published a study that figured out how many GWh of storage would be required to get California up to 50% solar generation from 10% now:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66595.pdf

 

Storage also doesn’t necessarily mean lots of batteries, you could just run trains full of rocks up big hills. Pilot plant coming next year to a desert near you:

http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/about-ares-north-america

 

Scalable, efficient, low environmental footprint, nearly automated, no water usage.

 

Robert

[Allen, Bryan L (393F)]

On Sep 1, 2016, at 12:54, Nowicki, Robert M (348C) <robert.m...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

No thought experiment required, NREL just published a study that figured out how many GWh of storage would be required to get California up to 50% solar generation from 10% now:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66595.pdf

Seems to depend heavily on LARGE installed base of electric cars, to provide storage. Also depends on PV becoming noticeably cheaper. The Green Club speaker from Caltech a while back pointed out that PV has some powerful resource limits, particularly regarding silver, and once you’re using all the available silver production you’d expect the market to kick in and make PV more expensive.

Interesting link, thanks for sending that, I’ll have to read it and ponder a bit.

 

Storage also doesn’t necessarily mean lots of batteries, you could just run trains full of rocks up big hills. Pilot plant coming next year to a desert near you:

http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/about-ares-north-america

 

Scalable, efficient, low environmental footprint, nearly automated, no water usage.

Obviously this is a pilot project, but the page says it can store 12.5 MwH. So to store, say 15 GwH, California would need 1200 of these beauties.

For my admittedly-crazy estimate of needing 1000 GwH of storage to be 100% solar in California, that’d be 80,000 trains. Obviously you’d make the trains bigger, with more rocks. But still, 10,000 trains?

Please remember that these trains have to use rail roadbed, which has notable constraints on inclination and curviness. And you have to build the roadbed, lay the rails, and so forth. And it’s GOT to be in a moderately mountainous area, steep enough but not too steep.

“Coming soon to a canyon near you!"