[LDES-coremodel] Battery storage cost projections

[Kenji Shiraishi]

Hi all,

I revised the battery storage document for tomorrow's meeting.
I changed capital cost data and now RESOLVE inputs are close to ATB capital
costs. Compared with ATB scenarios, SWITCH capital costs are significantly
higher.
As Sarah pointed out, setting a reasonable discount rate is important.
Therefore I calculated annualized capital costs for 7% and 2.5% (ATB case)
discount rates.

(FIY, ATB website provides excel and csv files, and the csv file, which I
used for the first analysis, has various problems such as lacking data.
I recommend using an excel file instead. )

Best regards,
Kenji

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:23 AM Kenji Shiraishi <kenjis at berkeley.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Sarah,
>
> Thank you very much for the critical points. I used the "CAPEX" (M10 to
> AR16), but I should have used power capital costs (such as AX20 through
> something like BT20), instead.
> The "CAPEX" that I used is the summary of both battery energy capital
> costs and battery power capital costs. I misunderstood the definition of
> CAPEX.
>
> I will revise the document tomorrow morning and send it to you. Annualized
> power capital costs will be much closer to the number of RESOLVE.
>
> Best regards,
> Kenji
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:02 AM Sarah Kurtz <skurtz at ucmerced.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Kenji,
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a super nice summary.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m getting somewhat different results from the ATB.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, we might talk about whether 7% is still the right number for the
>> discount rate.
>>
>> But, when I annualize the ATB numbers, I get substantially lower numbers
>> than you do.  I wonder if we are using different versions.
>>
>> I see Capex in $/kW for 4 hr battery and 2 hr batteries in cells M10 to
>> AR16.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *LDES-coremodel <ldes-coremodel-bounces at lists.ucmerced.edu> on
>> behalf of Kenji Shiraishi <kenjis at berkeley.edu>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 11:40 PM
>> *To: *"ldes-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu" <
>> ldes-coremodel at lists.ucmerced.edu>
>> *Subject: *[LDES-coremodel] Battery storage cost projections
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have summarized the battery storage cost projection of NREL ATB 2020 as
>> attached.
>>
>> It would be great if you could skim it before our regular meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Kenji
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Kenji Shiraishi
>>
>> Researcher,
>> Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL)
>> 450 Sutardja Dai Hall
>> Ph.D. student, Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP)
>> University of California, Berkeley
>>
>> https://rael.berkeley.edu/people/shiraishi-kenji/
>>
>> https://www.kenjishiraishi.com/
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-coremodel/attachments/20200923/ff525055/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Technology Projection 1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 1473927 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-coremodel/attachments/20200923/ff525055/attachment-0001.docx>