BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 VERSION:2.0 BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Pacific Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16010101T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:16010101T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT ORGANIZER;CN=Sarah Kurtz:mailto:skurtz@ucmerced.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="Kittner, N oah":mailto:kittner@unc.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=rs348:mail to:rui.shan@unc.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Sergio Cas tellanos Rodriguez:mailto:sergioc@berkeley.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Pedro Andr es Sanchez Perez:mailto:psanchez30@ucmerced.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=ldes-techn ology@lists.ucmerced.edu:mailto:ldes-technology@lists.ucmerced.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Mahmoud Ab ido:mailto:mabido@ucmerced.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Zabir Mahm ud:mailto:zmahmud@ucmerced.edu ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Russ Jones :mailto:russ.jones@ieee.org ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Jeremiah R eagan:mailto:jreagan@ucmerced.edu DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=en-US:I haven’t done very well about confirming agen das\, so I’ll try to do better this week:\nOur plan is to discuss the su rvey – if you didn’t complete it yet\, please fill it in along with yo ur feedback and return to Noah and Rui.\n\nRuss also suggested some questi ons for ETES as a follow up to our meeting last week. This is a complement ary (collecting specifics about the company) approach to the survey that R ui developed\, which is a standardized survey that would ask everyone the same questions and not try to collect specifics.\nI suggest that we start with the discussion about the survey that Noah and Rui circulated and then try to take a few minutes to talk about the complementary approach.\n\nFo r your reference\, here is what Russ drafted.\n\nDear Maximillian and Dani el\,\n\nThanks very much for your time on Wednesday to introduce the ETES technology to our team. It was very informative.\n\nIn order to accurately reflect the technology in our capacity planning software tools\, we will need information about the cost expectations and technical properties. I c an imagine several use scenarios:\n\n 1. Use as a daily cycle ~10-hour s torage for making “baseload” energy supply from solar + wind (mostly s olar) energy\n 2. Use as a multi-day storage facility with say 72-hours storage enabling such “baseload” systems to achieve steady power throu gh several days of bad weather\n 3. Use as a deep-winter interseasonal m ulti-GW facility\, in which it might need to store energy for 3 months and discharge almost continuously for a couple of weeks in mid-winter\n 4. Use as an off-taker for energy that would otherwise be curtailed\, and sup plying industrial process heat (leaving open the question of how the indus trial need can be satisfied in the winter when there is no such excess sol ar energy available\nIt would seem to me that for the first two cases\, ET ES competes with many other emerging storage technologies including batter ies\, flow batteries\, potential energy systems (off-river pumped hydro or moving weights)\, etc.\, whereas for the latter two cases ETES offers som e characteristics that those other solutions could not readily offer\, and would mainly compete with hydrogen or other electro-chemical storage appr oaches.\n\nI think our team would be happy to include ETES in capacity exp ansion scenarios for all of the cases above\, although #4 is particularly challenging because our model does not extend to non-electricity energy lo ads (but we could potentially account for it as a revenue flow from curtai led energy and thus capture the economic benefit). Thus far our team is f airly sure that the biggest challenge for a 100% carbon-free California el ectricity grid will be assurance of adequate capacity through the winter\, and that some type of interseasonal storage will definitely be needed\; a nd it also seems likely that there will need to be some remuneration of a generation facility operator for providing the winter reserve capacity\, s ince the system will be fully charged and discharged just once per year.\n \nCan you help us to assess the technology with the following data / forec ast of future ETES systems?\n\n * Capital cost\n\n * Needs to be divided into cost per GW of power capacity and per GWh of storage capacity \, and the storage capacity cost may need to be represented as a function of intended charge hold time (e.g.\, due to insulation costs).\n * N eeds to include a forecast of future costs through 2045 as the technology matures and production of components increases — this could be an estima ted learning curve or (better) specific forecasts in 5-year intervals thro ugh 2045\, accounting for both learning effects and market growth\n\n * Operational costs for maintenance\n * Power ramp rate\n\n * Outp ut power for dispatchability\n * Input power for initial energy capt ure (sort of reverse dispatchability)\n * Is there a difference in t he charge versus discharge rate? Or this is an engineered property?\n * Is the ramp rate a function of the size of the storage reservoir?\n\n * Self-discharge rate\n\n * What is the expected self-discharge r ate for the various applications? E.g. it might be reduced for the really long duration storage by better insulation\n\n * Depth of discharge\n\n * For electricity generation this would correspond to the minimum e xit temperature to operate the steam turbine\, compared to the maximum tem perature\n\n * Round-trip efficiency\n\n * This may be a function of the exit temperature and thus to the charge state\n * I think we also need the one-way efficiency to evaluate the industrial process heat option\n\n * Expected operational life of the system (which drives leve lized cost of storage) in years\, and/or in cycles\nI’m sure I’ve miss ed something even after this long list. We will welcome any data you can p rovided addressing the above needs\, as well as any comments or questions. \n\nI have one additional design question if you would care to comment: wh at considerations led you to choose air as a heat transfer fluid\, rather than water?\n\nBest regards\nRuss Jones ☼ Jones Solar Engineering ☼ +1-714-206-2556 (m) ☼ +1-310-469-9045 (VOIP worldwide)\n\n\n UID:040000008200E00074C5B7101A82E00800000000A788DD72FF6FD601000000000000000 01000000091BBB9154814F94AB880A0E2CF8FE999 RECURRENCE-ID;TZID=Pacific Standard Time:20201118T080000 SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-US:LDES Tech assessment meeting - Nov. 18 DTSTART;TZID=Pacific Standard Time:20201118T080000 DTEND;TZID=Pacific Standard Time:20201118T090000 CLASS:PUBLIC PRIORITY:5 DTSTAMP:20201116T005949Z TRANSP:OPAQUE STATUS:CONFIRMED SEQUENCE:10 LOCATION;LANGUAGE=en-US:https://ucmerced.zoom.us/j/4364884550 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:10 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:2118671783 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:TENTATIVE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:BUSY X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:3 X-MICROSOFT-DONOTFORWARDMEETING:FALSE X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE X-MICROSOFT-LOCATIONS:[{"DisplayName":"https://ucmerced.zoom.us/j/436488455 0"\,"LocationAnnotation":""\,"LocationUri":""\,"LocationStreet":""\,"Locat ionCity":""\,"LocationState":""\,"LocationCountry":""\,"LocationPostalCode ":""\,"LocationFullAddress":""}] BEGIN:VALARM DESCRIPTION:REMINDER TRIGGER;RELATED=START:-PT15M ACTION:DISPLAY END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR