analysis of the nas battery and multi-technology ... · 6 64-68% 57-63% 7 65-69% 57-63% . norris...

Norris Energy Consulting Co.

Analysis of the NAS Battery and Multi-TechnologyDemonstration at AEP

Benjamin L. NorrisNorris Energy Consulting Co.

Georgianne H. PeekSandia National Laboratories

David K. NicholsAmerican Electric Power

DOE Energy Storage Systems ResearchAnnual Peer Review, October, 2005

Sandia is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funded in part by the Energy Storage Systems Program of the U.S.Department Of Energy (DOE/ESS) through Sandia National Laboratories (SNL).


PartnersDOE / Sandia National LaboratoriesAEP EmTech, LLC.Tokyo Electric Power Co.NGK Insulators Ltd.ABB Inc.EPRI


Project Scope

Performance assessment of NAS demonstration systemEconomic analysis of NASMulti-technology comparison


Instrumentation13.8kV / 480V

Heater and auxiliary powerfor the battery modules A&B

kWkWhVdcIdct

kWkWhVloadIload

t

kWkWh

VsourceIsource

t

kWkWhVdcIdc

VblocksTbaseTsideAh

DODt

From NGK's DataAcquisition System

CB1

CB3

CB2

StaticSwitch

BuildingLoad

480V / 200V

NAS Battery Modules A&B

BAT-A

INV-A

kWkWhVPCSIPCS

t480V / 200V

BAT-B

INV-BBi-DirectionalInverter

MIS (SW)BIB (CB)

CB-MBP (N.O.)

480V / 208V

Auxiliary power for PCS A&B

kV2

VA400/5 1/1

kWkWh

IV

THD

kV2

VA400/5 1/1

kWkWh

IV

THD

kV2

kWkWh

IV

THD

CT accuracyis ±0.3%

KV2 meteraccuracy is

±0.5%

V A 800/11/1HOBRUY C10.5

V A 800/11/1

HOBRUY C10.5Shorted Shorted

V

1/1

ILVcap

V1/1

NGK measurements

AEP measurements

ABB measurements

ILVcap

NGK Current and Voltage MeasurementAccuracy

1. Current Measurement:

Typically ±0.5%, max. ±1.0% at 1000A

* LT 1005-S: ±0.4% (catalogue value) * Others: max. ±0.6% (for secondary measurement circuit plus A/Dconversion)

2. Voltage Measurement:

Typically ±0.1%, max. ±0.3% at 990V

CT accuracyis ±0.3%

Voltage is directly measuredKV2 meter

accuracy is ±0.5%

KV2 meteraccuracy is

±0.5%

This KV2 directly measuresvoltage and current

Voltage is directly measured


Regime 6 Profile (2/5/2004)

Storage Power Flows

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Storage Input Storage Output Auxiliary Input Auxiliary Output


Regime 7 Profile (5/19/2004)

Storage Power Flows

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Storage Input Storage Output Auxiliary Input Auxiliary Output


Sample Cycle Storage Energy

Regime Storage Charge

Storage Discharge

Auxiliary Load

Charging Cost

Total Cost

Aux. Portion

6 1050 kWh 699 kWh 66 kWh 351 kWh 417 kWh 16% 7 1100 kWh 726 kWh 68 kWh 373 kWh 441 kWh 15%


System Performance

Charging efficiency includes PCS, static switch, and batterySystem efficiency includes PCS, battery, and auxiliariesAuxiliary load includes: battery heaters; PCS cabinet heaters (x2); control cabinet heater; PCS fans (x2); microcontrollers; instrumentation.

Regime Charging Efficiency System Efficiency 6 64-68% 57-63% 7 65-69% 57-63%


Power Quality Impacts

Grid

Load

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Duration (s)

Volta

ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Duration (s)

Volta

ge


Regime 6 Peak Shaving

0

50

100

150

200

250

3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Grid Net Load


Regime 7 Peak Shaving

0

50

100

150

200

250

6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM 3:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Grid Net Load


Lessons Learned

Battery system overall efficiency needs to be addressed in the specificationFor PQ+PS systems, efficiency should be pegged at the nominal PS power levelPerformance monitoring and measurement sensitivities need to be addressed in the specificationControl system should optimize peak loads


Multi-technology Comparison

NAS

MGE UPS / ActivePower

PureWave


2 Recorded Concurrent Events

6 months data collected (Oct’03 – Apr’04)14 extended periods of concurrent data collection2 events propagate through all three systems during concurrent data collection:

68-cycle interruptionVoltage sag sequence (8 sags)


Interruption Protection

Grid ALoad ALoad B

Load C 1.133s (68 cycle) Interruption


Sag Protection

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

0 50 100 150 200

msec

Vrm

s

34ms (2 cycle) A-phase Sag

11/27/03 14:03:11

301V (9%) overvoltage


Conclusions - 3 Technologies

InterruptionTwo systems fully protected loadsOne system protected load against outage, but introduced a voltage sag on one phase

Voltage SagAll three systems fully protected load


NAS Economic Analysis

Customer combined PQ/PS applicationNational tariff reviewCost / performance data based upon commercial products and existing manufacturing capacity


System Specifications

Installed cost (TI/NGK) includes modules, PCS ($202/kW), BOP ($100/kW), land, and installation.PQ rating - pulse factor of 3.Based on mature price projections.

Module System (5 Modules)PS/PQ Power Rating 50 kW / 150 kW 250 kW / 750 kWPQ duration 30 seconds 30 secondsPS Energy 360 kWh 1800 kWhPrice $75k (module price) $605,000 (installed)


Technical Assumptions

O&M includes maintenance, standby heat losses, property taxes, and insurance.Efficiency includes DC/DC battery efficiency and power conversion efficiency (double pass).

PS Discharge Duration 7.2 hoursRecharge Duration 8.64 hoursCalendar Life 15 yearsCycle Life 2500 cycles

O&M $26/kW-yrAC/AC Roundtrip Efficiency 77%


Other AssumptionsTariff Data On Peak Demand Charge ($/kW-mo) 10 Facilities Charge ($/mo) 25 On Peak Energy Charge ($/kWh) 0.08 Off Peak Energy Charge ($/kWh) 0.06Customer Billing Data - Without NAS Peak (operating) Days in Billing Cycle 20 On Peak Consumption (kWh) 400000 Off Peak Consumption (kWh) 100000 Peak Demand (kW) 1000Financial Escalation Rate 2.50% Discount Rate 7% State Marginal Tax Rate 5% Federal Marginal Tax Rate 35% Study Period (yr) 15Reduced losses from PQ protection Value ($/kW-event) 5 Events per year 20


Bill Comparison

Original New Benefit

On Peak Consumption (kWh) 400,000 364,000Off Peak Consumption (kWh) 100,000 146,753On Peak Demand (kW) 1,000 750Power factor 1 1Billed On-Peak Demand (kW) 1,000 750Total consumption (kWh) 500,000 510,753Load factor 0.694 0.946

Utility Bill ($) On-peak Demand Charge 10,000 7,500 2,500 Facilities Charge 25 25 0 On-peak Energy Charge 32,000 29,120 2,880 Off-Peak Energy Charge 6,000 8,805 -2,805Total Bill ($/mo) 48,025 45,450 2,575

PS Operating months/yr 8Annual Utility Bill Savings ($/yr) 20,598


Proforma (15 yr)YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR

NPV 0 1 2 3 …NAS Ownership NAS Capital Cost -604,500 -604,500 NAS Depreciation -30,225 -57,428 -51,685 NAS O&M -68,621 -6,500 -6,663 -6,829

Power Quality PQ Loss Savings 791,783 75,000 76,875 78,797

Peak Shaving Utility Bill Savings 217,460 20,598 21,113 21,641Net Profit/(Loss) Before Tax 58,873 33,898 41,924LESS: Tax -219,787 -22,519 -12,966 -16,036Net Profit/(Loss) After Tax 36,354 20,932 25,888ADDBACK: Depreciation 30,225 57,428 51,685Net Present Value (NPV) 116,335 -604,500 66,579 78,360 77,573

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 9.801%

MACRS Depr Rate (15 year) 5.000% 9.500% 8.550%


Conclusions - NAS Economic Analysis

Reasonable IRR (9.8%) for typical PS/PQ combined applicationBenefits dominated by PQ loss savings, rather than utility bill savingsCustomer-specific analysis should include impact of tariff switching (penalties for increased demand charge, BESS oversizing)


Project Wrap Up

Economic analysis reportMulti-technology comparison report

analysis of the nas battery and multi-technology ... · 6 64-68% 57-63% 7 65-69% 57-63% . norris...

Documents