<div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Zabir,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for the document. </div><div>For RESOLVE, I used the annualized costs from the spreadsheet that Sarah sent last week. Therefore, I did not annualize costs myself. </div><div>If I should use updated RESOLVE inputs for comparison, it would be great to share those with us.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Kenji</div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:22 AM Zabir Mahmud <<a href="mailto:zmahmud@ucmerced.edu">zmahmud@ucmerced.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Hey Kenji,</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
It's an excellent summary. Can you please tell me how you calculated the annualized cost for RESOLVE. I did some calculations, and I found the attached data. You might take a look!</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
N.B. I have considered the discount factor 7% and lifetime 15 years.</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Thanks,<br>
Zabir</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-8657268046968047652appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="gmail-m_-8657268046968047652divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> LDES-coremodel <<a href="mailto:ldes-coremodel-bounces@lists.ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">ldes-coremodel-bounces@lists.ucmerced.edu</a>> on behalf of Sarah Kurtz <<a href="mailto:skurtz@ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">skurtz@ucmerced.edu</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kenji Shiraishi <<a href="mailto:kenjis@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">kenjis@berkeley.edu</a>>; <a href="mailto:ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu</a> <<a href="mailto:ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [LDES-coremodel] Battery storage cost projections</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div>
<p>Hi, Kenji,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is a super nice summary.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I’m getting somewhat different results from the ATB.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First, we might talk about whether 7% is still the right number for the discount rate.
</p>
<p>But, when I annualize the ATB numbers, I get substantially lower numbers than you do. I wonder if we are using different versions.</p>
<p>I see Capex in $/kW for 4 hr battery and 2 hr batteries in cells M10 to AR16.</p>
<p>Then, I see that someone has used those numbers to derive both $/kWh and $/kW with those being listed in cells AX10 through something like BT22.</p>
<p>If I use the 4 hr battery numbers I get something like what you get, but if I use the $/kWh and $/kW that are on the far right, I get different numbers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sarah</p>
<p> </p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">LDES-coremodel <<a href="mailto:ldes-coremodel-bounces@lists.ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">ldes-coremodel-bounces@lists.ucmerced.edu</a>> on behalf of Kenji Shiraishi <<a href="mailto:kenjis@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">kenjis@berkeley.edu</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 11:40 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu</a>" <<a href="mailto:ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu" target="_blank">ldes-coremodel@lists.ucmerced.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[LDES-coremodel] Battery storage cost projections</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>I have summarized the battery storage cost projection of NREL ATB 2020 as attached. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>It would be great if you could skim it before our regular meeting. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Based on their scenario description, Moderate scenario seems appropriate as the base case scenario of SWITCH. Costs in Moderate scenario is about 2/3 of current SWITCH model. It is partly because of the difference in lifetime (ATB assumes
15 years, while SWITCH assumes 10 years.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>The costs inputs of RESOLVE are much lower than those in Advanced scenarios of ATB. I would like to talk about the units of the cost inputs in the next meeting.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Best regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Kenji</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><br clear="all">
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>---<br>
Kenji Shiraishi<br>
<br>
Researcher,<br>
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL)<br>
450 Sutardja Dai Hall<br>
Ph.D. student, Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP)<br>
University of California, Berkeley<br>
<br>
<a href="https://rael.berkeley.edu/people/shiraishi-kenji/" target="_blank">https://rael.berkeley.edu/people/shiraishi-kenji/</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a href="https://www.kenjishiraishi.com/" target="_blank">https://www.kenjishiraishi.com/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>