battery energy storage systems life cycle costs case studiesdvr emc esd gto lcc mp&l o&m...

CONTSAND98-

Unlimited

RACTOR REPORT1905

Release

Battery Energy Storage Systems Life CycleCosts Case Studies

Shiva Swaminathan, Nicole F. Miller, and Rajat K. SenSENTECH, Inc.4733 Bethesda AvenueSuite 608Bethesda, MD 20814

Prepared bySandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550

Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation,a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department ofEnergy under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Printed August 1998

(i@Sandia National laboratories

IMAGEING

This report was scanned from the best available copy.

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United StatesDepartment of Energy by Sandia Corporation.

NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govern-ment, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of theircontractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, expressor implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or processdisclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theUnited States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors orsubcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarilystate or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, orany of their contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced, directly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors fromOffice of Scientific and Technical InformationP.O. Box 62Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401

Available to the public fromNational Technical Information ServiceU.S. Department of Commerce5285 port Royal RdSpringfield, VA 22161

NTIS price codesPrinted copy: A04Microfiche copy: AOI

s

.

SAND98-1905Unlimited Release

Printed August 1998

Battery Energy StorageSystems Life Cycle Costs

Case Studies*

Shiva Swaminathan

Nicole F. Miller

Rajat K. SenSENTECH, Inc.

4733 Bethesda AvenueSuite 608

Bethesda, MD 20814

Abstract

This report presents a comparison of life cycle costs between battery energy storage systems andalternative mature technologies that could serve the same utility-scale applications. Two of thebattery energy storage systems presented in this report are located on the supply side, providingspinning reserve and system stability benefits. These systems are compared with the alternativetechnologies of oil-fired combustion turbines and diesel generators. The other two battery energystorage systems are located on the demand side for use in power quality applications. These arecompared with available uninterruptible power supply technologies.

* The work described in this report was performed for Sandia National Laboratories under Contract No. AV-5396.

●

iv

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their significant input into this report. Discussionswere held with the following persons in preparation of this document:

1.2.

3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.

Rafael Ruiz, BES Plant Manager, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.William Monriog, Generating Planning Division, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.

George Hunt, GNB Technologies.Chris Loeffler, Applications Engineer, Best Power.Gene Abraham, Sales, Best Power.Phil Annery, Sales, Liebert Corporation.William Nerbun, AC Battery Corp.Robert Hall, Marketing, Holec Power Protection.Mark Baldwin, Baldwin Technologies.Pat Pietz, Architect Engineer.Charles Ward, Power Quality Engineer, Enervision.Bradford Roberts, Director of Sales, Omnion Power Engineering Corporation.

v

—

BA7TERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

CONTENTS CASE STUDIES

Contents

1. Introduction ...... .......................................................... ................................ ...... ....................................................l.l .1.1 Cost Categories Adopted for Computation of LCC ........................................................... .... .................. ..l.l1.2 Methodology of Computation .......... .................................................................................. ........................l.2

1.3 Assumptions ......... ............................. .. .............. .......... ................... ............................................................ 1-3

2. The PREPA Project ...................... ........................................ ...... ..........................................................................2.l

.

2.1 Project Rationale ... ............... ...................... ..................... ............................ ...............................................2.l2.2 Technology Options .... ................................................ ...............................................................................2.l2.3 Project Description ..... ........................ .......................................................................................................2.l2.4 System Installation and Operation .... .. ................. ....... .................... ...........................................................2.2

2.5 LCC Analysis .................. ............................................................. .... ........... ......... ......................................2.32.6 Discussion ........................................................................................ ................ ..........................................2.3

3. The MP&L Project ......... ........... ............................................ ...... ..................... ....................................................3.l3.1 Project Rationale ..... .................... ...... .. ............................................ ...................................... .....................3.l3.2 Competing Technologies .......................... ........... ......................................................................................3.l3.3 Project Description ..................... ...... .. .......................................................................................................5.l3.4 System Installation and Operation ...... ...... ....................................... ................ ............................ ..............3.23.5 LCC Analysis ........ .................................. .............................. ............ .........................................................3.23.6 Discussion ............................. ...................... ................................................... ............................................3.3

4. GNB Technologies Vernon Lead Smelting Facili@ ................................. .. .... ......... ...........................................4.l4.1 Project Rationale ...... ...... ................................................ ..................... ....... ................................................4.l4.2 Competing Technologies ................. ....... .............................. ............................... ......................................4.l4.3 Project Description ......... .................... .................................. .....................................................................4.14.4 System Installation and Operation ...... .... ............................................ ............. ..........................................4.l4.5 LCC Analysis .................. ................. ... ...... .............. .............. ......... ............. .... ...........................................4.24.6 Discussion ......................................... .. .................... ........................ ...........................................................4.2

5. Oglethorpe’s Power Quality System ......................................... ................ ..........................................................5-1

5.1 Project Rationale .......... .. .................................. .............................. ................... ................. ........................5.l5.2 Competing Technologies .................... ................. .................................. ....................................................5.l5.3 Project Description ...... ......................................................................... ....... ..............................................5.25.4 System Installation and Operation ..... ........ ........................................................................ ........................5.35.5 Discussion ................... ........................................ ....................................... ...............................................5.3

6. Impact of Future Cost Reductions ....... ..................................................... .............. ........... .................................6.l

7. Conclusions .................................................................... .... ........ ...........................................................................7.l

8. Endnotes ....................................................................................................... ........................................... ............. 8-1

2-1.2-2.3-1.3-2.4-1.

5-1.5-2.

Figures

Single Line Diagram of Sabana Llana BESS .............. .............. .... .....................................................................2.2Components of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS & Combustion Turbine (in $M) ...................................2-4

Simplified One-Line Diagram of the MP&L System. ............. ......................... ..................................................3.2Components of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M). ......................................3-4Components of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M). .....................................4-3Line Diagram of PQ2000 Power Quality System. .............................................................. ...................... ..........5.2 ,Components of Discounted LCC Ogiethorpe Power Quality Systems (in $M). ...... ........... ................................54

*

vi

BA77’ERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES CONTENTS

Tables

2-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS and Combustion Turbine ........,..., ................ ..............2.3

3-1. Comparison of Performance Data for MP&L 1996-1997 ................... ............................................................3.33-2. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator ....................................... ...........344-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator .......................... .......... ... ...........4.25-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe Power Quality Systems .... ................ .......................... ...............546-1. Comparison of Current and Projected Costs for BESS Technologies and Competitive Options (in $M) ........6-I

vii

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCONTENTS CASE STUDIES

Acronyms

AGC

BESS

DVR

EMC

ESD

GTO

LCC

MP&L

O&M

p.s.

Pcs

PREPA

SMES

SocT&D

UPsVRLA

automatic generation control

battery energy storage system

dynamic voltage restorer

Electric Membership Cooperative

electronic selector device

gate-turn-off

life cycle cost

Metlakatla Power and Light

operation and maintenance

per annum

power conversion system

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

superconducting magnetic energy storage

state of charge

transmission and distribution

uninterruptible power supply

valve-regulated, lead-acid

.Vtll

BAi’TERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The life cycle costsscale battery energy

Executive

(LCC) of four operating, full-storage systems (BESS), were

determined and compared with the LCC of alternativemature technologies that could serve the same appli-cations. Two of the BESSS are located on the supplyside, providing spinning reserve and system stabilitybenefits. The remaining two BESSS are located onthe customer side ensuring that high quality, reliablepower is available to critical loads during unplannedevents that could cause power quality problems.

For the two supply-side applications, oil-fired com-bustion turbines and diesel generators are the alterna-tive technologies. In both cases, the LCC analysisshows that the BESSS, at current capital costs, had acompetitive advantage over the alternatives even

though the capital cost for battery energy storage wassubstantially higher. At Puerto Rico Electric PowerAuthority (PREPA), the LCC of the BESS was $25.2miliion (M) which was about $4M lower than thealternative, while at Metlakatla Power & Light(MP&L) the LCC of the BESS was $3.44M, ap-proximately $ I M lower than the commercially avail-able alternative. There are special circumstances thatenhance the value of battery energy storage for thesetwo applications. These are:

1. Island utilities unable to economically intercon-nect with other utility grids.

2. Combustion turbines and diesel generators op-

erating at partial loads (thus inefiiciendy) toprovide spinning-reserve and load-following ca-pabilities.

3. Fuel prices substantially higher than the nationalaverage.

The two applications studied thus represent highvalue-added niche markets for BESSS.

In customer-side applications, unintem.sptible powersupplies (UPS) are routinely used to protect specificequipment but are typically not sized to provide fa-cility-level protection. This has opened opportunitiesfor consumer installation of utility-scale BESSS for

Summary

power quality applications. For one of the customer-side applications studied, Oglethorpe, the conven-tional alternative was to connect two commercial 200kVA UPS units in parallel to provide up to 5 minutesof protection. The alternative technology for the

other customer-side application, Vernon, was a small,conventional flywheel-based UPS system with abackup diesel generator. In both cases, the LCC forthe BESS and for the alternative were very close. AtVernon, the LCC of the BESS and the alternativewere both around $6.3M, while at O#ethorpe LCCSwere around $1 .65M for both systems. Thus, theBESSS were fully competitive with the commerciallyavailable alternatives for these types of applications.

BESSS considered in this report use different types oflead-acid batteries, a mature technology. Significantcost reductions for lead-acid batteries are not ex-pected. However, the power conversion system(PCS) and integration of BESSS are candidates foroptimization and cost reduction. In this analysis, a15?70capital cost reduction is assumed to be achiev-able for large, optimized, and mass-produced BESSSfor installations such as PREPA, MP&L, and Vernon.This report assumes that BESSS for power qualityapplications of the type installed at Oglethorpe couldbe reduced in price by 20% as the system is opti-mized and produced in quantity. When these lowercapital costs are introduced, the LCC of BESSS sys-tems for all four applications favor the BESS optionover the competition. The assumption, of course, is

that comparable cost reductions for the conventionaloptions do not occur to the same extent over the sametime horizon.

In conclusion, this comparison of LCC for BESSS andthe commercially available alternatives show that fortwo of those applications, the BESS is favored at to-day’s prices. The LCC of the BESSS and that of thealternative technologies are very close for the tworemaining applications. As capital cost reductions arerealized for BESSS through improved PCS technolo-gies, better systems inte=wation, and volume produc-tion, the are expected to be economically advanta-geous for all four of the applications considered inthis report.

ES-1

BA7TERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE STUDIES

Intentional] y Left Blank

,

*

ES-2

BAITERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

Utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESSS)are entering initial stages of acceptance in the mar-ketplace. Four BESSS are currently in operation,serving a variety of needs. Two of the projects are onthe electricity supply side installed by utilities toprovide dynamic operating benefits. They are:

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA): The20-MW/l 4-MWh BESS provides spinning re-serve and frequency control. The system is lo-cated near San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Metlakada Power and Light (MP&L): The 1-MW/1 .4-MWh BESS serves repeated demandspikes and provides voltage, frequency, and sys-tem stability and control. The system is locatedin Metlakatla, Alaska. on the Annette Island Re-serve in southeast Alaska.

The two other BESSS are installed on the customerside of the meter. These systems provide reliable highquality power to prevent customer financial lossesdue to power disturbances and unplanned outages ofthe electricity supply system. These projects are:

GNB Technologies’ Vernon Lead Smelting Factory:The 5-MW peak/3 .5-MWh BESS provides pro-tection for the sensitive emissions control loadsin the facility. The system provides power for upto one hour to allow for orderly shut-down of theplant during an unpianned power outage. TheBESS can also be used for demand peak-shaving.

The system is located in Vernon, California,about ten miles from downtown Los Angeles.

Oglethorpe Power’s Lithograph Plant Customer: The1-MW/l O-second system has the capability toprovide ride-through for up to 10 seconds duringvoltage sags and momentary outages. The sys-tem is capable of repeated discharges over ashort period of time. The system is located inSomerville, Georgia.

This report provides a short historical overview andthe rationale used to justify each of the four projects.The report also analyzes the life cycle costs (LCC) ofthe BESSS for the four projects and compares themwith the LCC of competing technologies that were

considered as alternatives to BESSS to meet the sameapplication needs.

LCC methodology provides a basis by which prod-ucts with different capital and operation and mainte-

nance (O&M) costs can be compared equitably. Thecomputation of LCC considers both the initial capitalcosts and all subsequent costs incurred over the life ofthe product. i Despite the uncertainties inherent inprojections of costs 20 to 30 years into the future,LCC provides a fair basis of comparison for twoproducts capable of serving the same needs of theconsumer.

During this study, the owner-operators and designer-integrators of the four systems were contacted. Dis-cussions were held to ascertain operational experi-ence, costs incurred, and benefits from each energystorage system. The four projects have different lev-els of operational experience, and as a result, the dataavailable from the different projects varied. The stor-age systems at MP&L and Oglethorpe became opera-tional in 1996/97, while the Vernon BESS has been inoperation since earl y 1996 and the PREPA BESSsince late 1994. The lack of availability of some ofthe operational data and projected costs were due totheir proprietary nature.

In order to compare the LCC of the four storage proj-ects with those of competing technologies, vendors ofalternative technologies were contacted. The esti-mated costs of the competing technologies were ob-tained from vendor quotations and discussions withsystem operators. Technical guides, input from ex-perts, and operational experience from other energystorage systems were used to estimate cost parametersthat were not available by other means.

The vendors who supplied data were given an oppor-tunity to comment on the analysis and computationsmade to ensure that the information provided wasused in the proper context.

1.1 Cost Categories Adoptedfor Computation of LCC

Life cycle costing is a method of calculating the totalcost of ownership over the life span of an asset.~ Ini-

tial cost and all subsequent expected costs of signifi-cance have to be included in the calculations. In ad-dition, computation of the LCC includes disposalvalue and any other quantifiable benefits at the end of

the equipment life.

1-1

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSINTRODUCTION CASE STUDIES

I

Costs associated with acquiring, utilizing, and dispos-ing of an asset can be classified into several cost

categories, such as:3

Capital or First Cost-Cost of getting a project

started and equipment operational. These costsfor the four projects are known with a high de-gree of certainty because they have been incurredand were tracked while the projects were imple-mented. This report breaks down the capital costinto its constituent components as given by theOpportunities Analysis report.4

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs-These

costs are experienced continually over the usefullife of the equipment and include O&M labor;fuel and power costs; O&M supplies, spares, andrepair parts, costs of insurance and taxes; and as-sociated overhead costs. The burden these costswill impose over the life of the equipment are, toa large extent, estimates. For the four projectsstudied, we were able to ascertain the costs di-rectly attributable to the projects in the recentpast and those projected for the next fiscal year.These costs were then extended to cover the lifeof the equipment. In most instances, they wereassumed to be constant (in real dollars) over thelife of the plant; however, under certain condi-tions they were escalated. The relevant assump-tions are explained for each of the four LCC es-timates.

Fixed and Variable Cost—Fixed costs are generally

made up of such cost items as depreciation,maintenance, taxes, lease rentals, interest on in-vested capital, and administrative expenses.Variable costs may include fuel usage, electricityto recharge batteries, watering, etc. Costs ascer-tained for this analysis included many items inthe variable category. At times, segregatingO&M costs between fixed and variable costs be-comes subjective. For example, the equipmentmaintenance and consumables were estimated tobe -$70K per annum (pa). Since most of it wasfixed and some variable, $50K p.a was allocatedas fixed cost and the balance as variable cost (seeTable 2.1 for another example).

Incremental or Marginal Cost—The relevant cost for

establishing the LCC for maintaining a certainlevel of service is often incremental. For examp-le, even though a diesel generator may operatemost efficiently at continuous rated output, itmight also be operated at a lower, suboptimallevel to maintain spinning reserve capability. Theincremental cost associated with inefficient op-eration of the engine for this purpose is properly

allocated towards the cost of maintaining spin-ning reserve and should not be associated withenergy generation.

Direct and Indirect CostAnly direct costs associ- “

ated with the O&M of the plant have been in-cluded in the analysis. Indirect costs associatedwith management, legal, payroll, and procure- ‘ment services have not been considered.

Sunk or Past Cost—Because only future conse-

quences of investment alternatives can be af-fected by current decisions, costs incurred in thepast have to be disregarded. However, there is aninstance in the analysis where terminating the useof an existing diesel generator and investing in astorage system were justified on the basis ofgreater cost associated with the O&M of the die-

sel engine. In that case, the capital cost incurredto purchase the diesel engine is relevant to com-paring the LCC of the two options.

1.2 Methodology of Computa-tion

Initial capital costs are incurred in Year O, just beforethe plant became operational. Total O&M costs were

segregated into fixed and variable O&M costs. Somecosts, such as battery replacement, which depend both

on usage pattern as well as age, do not clearly fallinto one of the two categories. When cost categorieswere not clear, the method of allocation is explained.

However, the total O&M cost considered all relevantcosts experienced continually over the useful life ofthe plant.

With the exception of diesel fuel (inflated at170/year), inflation was considered to be zero andcosts are thus in constant dollar terms. Costs wereextrapolated for 20 years of operation since ail plantswere assumed to have a useful life of 20 years, End-

of-life costs in decommissioning the equipment werenot considered due to their uncertainty. Their inclu-sion would have a minimal effect on the LCC of thesystems because of the significant discount factor atthe 20-year point.

After developing the relevant costs for each of thefour systems during the 20-year life, the out-yearcosts were discounted using a 10% discount factor to .compute LCC.

1-2

BAITERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION

1.3 Assumptions

1.

7-.

3.

4.

A discount rate of 10% was used. The dis-count rate was selected to represent a valuebetween the cost of borrowing and the returnon capital for a company installing suchsystems.A system life of 20 years and battery life of10 years were assumed.Battery replacement costs and O&M costswere assumed to remain the same in realterms throughout the 20-year life.All costs are given in 1997 dollars.

1-3

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

INTRODUCTION CASE STUDIES

Intentionally Left Blank

.

1-4

BA?TERY STORAGE SYSTEIWS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES THE PREPA PROJECT

2. The PREPA Project

PREPA installed a 20-MW/14-MWh BESS at theSabana Llana transmission substation located nearSan Juan, Puerto Rico. Ground breaking for the proj-ect occurred in July 1993 and the system became op-erational in November 1994, PREPA is an investor-owned utility responsible for generation, transmis-sion, and distribution of electricity to the entire islandof Puerto Rico. The self-contained PREPA gridserves approximately 3,500 square miles and a popu-lation of approximately 3.5 million. Generation islocated in the southern ‘part of the island, while de-mand is concentrated in the north, around the city ofSan Juan.

2.1 Project Rationale

The Puerto Rican grid is an isolated island system. Toguard against unplanned generator outages and sys-tem disturbances, PREPA has to maintain its ownspinning reserve and load-following generation units.The system at present has a peak load of approxi-mately 2.7 GW.

Responding to rapid demand growth in the 1960s,PREPA installed about 2,500 MW of generation,essentially doubling its generation capacity. Most ofthese units were 400-MW, oil-fired combustion tur-bines. To minimize unplanned outages, spinning re-serve on the order of 400 MW is maintained by op-erating some of the combustion turbines under partialload. During unplanned outages, frequency generallydropped to unacceptable leveis and loads had to beshed to bring the system back to stable operation. Thesluggish response of the combustion turbines duringoutages, the cost of operating these turbines to pro-vide the spinning reserve, and public outcry during

the frequent load shedding led PREPA to search foralternative ways of providing instantaneous spinningreserve capability.

2.2 Technology Options

PREPA required instantaneous reserves at powerratings of 10-100 MW for durations of approximately15 minutes in the form of spinning reserve. This timebuffer was adequate to have other generators take upthe lost load. BESSS are well suited to meet theserequirements.

An alternative technology that could be used to pro-vide the same service is the oil-fired combustion tur-

bine. However, in order for the combustion turbine tosupply power instantaneously, the turbines must bekept operating suboptimally at 60% of full-load ca-pacity for approximately 12 hours each day. A 36%plant factor (or capacity factor) and the inefficientmode of operation imposes substantial cost ineffi-ciencies. An oil-fired combustion turbine exhibits aheat rate of 10,200 Btu/lcWh5 at full load but requires13,300 Btu/kWh at 60% load. At a fuel cost of

$5.67 /MBtu, these inefficiencies translate into a sub-stantial cost penalty. Thus, in comparing the twotechnology options, one must assess the higher initialinvestment of a BESS against the lower initial costand inefficient operation of the oil-fired turbines. ALCC comparison of the two technology options doesexactly that.

2.3 Project Description

A BESS for the provision of spinning reserve wasauthorized by the PREPA governing board in 1990,and the design work began in 1991 for a 20-MW/14. 1-MWh system.G The facility constructionwas completed in October 1993. After a year of ex-tensive testing and debugging, the system commencedcommercial operation in November 1994. Figure 2.1illustrates the single line diagram of Sabana LlanaBESS.

The battery consists of 6,000 cells arranged in six

strings containing 1,000 cells each. Three such stringswere connected in parallel to a 2,000-VDC bus andthen connected via a 10-MW PCS to a 13.8-kVACbus. The 13.8-kVAC bus has two such systems con-nected to it, and the bus is then connected via a trans-former to the 115-kV substation.

C&D Charter Power Systems supplied the 6,000 bat-tery cells, racks, watering system, electrolyte agitationsystem, and other battery-related equipment. GeneralElectric supplied the PCS. The software for the con-trol algorithm was implemented by Max ControlSystems, Inc. PREPA, with the help of United Engi-neers and Contractors, was the system integrator andmanaged the project.

2-1

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSTHE PREPA PROJECT CASE STUDIES

T115 WAC

40 MVATransformer

13.8 WAC

PCS-1A10 MVA

$

PCS-1 B10 MVA

P

Figure 2-1. Single Line Diagram of Sabana Llana BESS.

A two-story, reinforced concrete building was con-structed to house the equipment. The building has an

external dimension of 172 feet x 95 feet, with the six

battery strings occupying a total floor space of 24,700square feet. The seismic activity in Puerto Rico andthe weight of batteries required a reinforced concretestructure. A 100,000-gallon water tank is located justoutside the building to be used in cases of accidents.The PCS, DC switchgear, and control room occupyclose to 4,000 square feet of floor space, which is air-conditioned. A carbon dioxide storage tank is avail-able to be used in this portion of the building in caseof fire.

2.4 System Installation and Op-eration

The BESS has been in operation since November1994. AS of April 1997, the plant has operated 38times providing instantaneous reserve. The systemcontinuously provides frequency regulation and volt-age stability. On average, close to 1 MWh of enerb~circulates through the plant every day when operatingin the frequency regulation/voltage control mode.

The batteries are recharged to 100% state of charge(SOC) every three days. The recharging begins atmidnight and follows a designated recharge algo-rithm. The recharging time varies depending on theSOC when the recharging begins. In addition, a con-stant trickle charge is applied when the SOC is be-tween 70% and 90’%, in order to try to maintain theSOC at 90%. Whenever, the SOC falls below 70%, “arecharging cycle begins. All of these processes areautomated.

In addition, the electrolyte agitation system operatesfor 15 minutes every six hours, and watering of the6,000 cells is done every six months. Cell voltagesand temperatures are monitored constantly with buiit-in alarms. When cell voltages and/or temperaturesdeviate beyond acceptable limits, an alarm signalappears in the control panel. Voltages are monitoredin groups of four cells. If any given four-cell groupexhibits a voltage variation of greater than 0.2 V

(nominal group voltage equals 4 x 2 volts, or 8 volts)

from the average of the other 8-V groups of cells in .the 2000-V string, an alarm is set off and that particu-lar four-cell group is investigated. The plant isstaffed eight hours a daylfive days a week by a plant.manager, an electrician, and unskilled general help.

The plant manager is constantly on call, if required.

2-2

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES THE PREPA PROJECT

2.5 LCC Analysis

The LCC analysis of the BESS and the combustionturbine option for the PREPA application is shown inthe appendix in Tables A2- 1 and A2-2. The PREPAPlant Manager and the staff of the Generating Plan-ning Division provided all the cost information. TheBESS was designed to reduce the number of oil-firedturbines operating under suboptimal conditions. TheBESS was not designed to supply all the spinning-reserve generation capacity, rather the BESS with itsability to supply 20 MW of power for 15 minutes,provides PREPA the opportunity to bring its gas tur-bines on-line. This analysis assumes that spinningreserve duty by the PREPA BESS equates to a 30~0capacity credit for the purpose of calculating the LCCof the alternative (6 MW of the 20-M W-rated BESS).PREPA planners did not consider capacity credit forBESS in their initial analysis but now agree with the30% estimate.

To assess an alternative technology to the BESS, thisanalysis evaluates a peaking, oil-fired combustionturbine. The plant data for the 83-MW, No. 2 oil-tiredAsea Brown Boveri turbines, three of which beganoperation by PREPA in July 1997, are used for thiscomparison. The total capital cost of this 240-MWproject was $ 160M.7 This is equivalent to $666/kW.The three turbines are being operated at 60% of fullload for -12 hours fday, with a projected annual ca-pacity factor of -36%. This mode of operation im-

poses a substantial penalty in terms of inefficient heatrates. The plant exhibits a heat rate of 10,200Btu/kWh at full load and 13,300 Btu/kWh at 60%load. At a fuel cost of $5.67 /MBtu, this inefficiencytranslates into a substantial cost penalty. Hence, theLCC of this alternative to the BESS is the avoided

cost of operating oil turbines inefficiently and theBESS’s ability to displace 6 MW of oil turbine ca-pacity.

A detailed LCC comparison of the two options (TableA2-I and A2-2) is located in the appendix. This in-formation is summarized below in Table 2-1. Thenotes given below Tables A2- 1 and A2-2 in the ap-pendix explain the basis on which the numbers werederived and the costs included. All costs incurredover the 20-year life of the two systems have beendiscounted to Year O ( 1997$).

Figure 2-2 presents the data in Table 2-1 graphicallyto highlight the capital intensive nature of batteryenergy storage compared to the combustion turbine.Investing up-front capital to achieve O&M savingsover time clearly requires detailed technical and eco-nomic analysis before such investment decisions aremade.

2.6 Discussion

PREPA is an island utility that must maintain its ownspinning reserve. Unscheduled outages of baseloadgenerating units result in a very rapid drop in fre-quency, which results in load shedding. Reserve unitsmust come on-line almost immediately in order toavoid shedding load. Maintaining oil-fired gas tur-

bines as reserve units that are capable of supplyingpower instantaneously is very expensive since the fuelcost of $5.76/MBtu for oil in Puerto Rico is high.

The capital cost of the BESS is much higher than thatof equivalent combustion turbines. However, theBESS has relatively low O&M costs. In contrast, the

Table 2-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESSand Combustion Turbine

Cost Category BESS Combustion Turbine

CAPITAL COST ($K}

Total initial cost 21,400 3,960

O&M Cost ($K\

Discounted fixed cost 2,445 84

Discounted variable cost 255 25,470

Discounted battery replacement cost 1,050 --

Total-Life Cycle Cost $25,200 $29,500

2-3

RATTER Y STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

CASE STUDIES OGLETHORPE’S PO WER QUALITY SYSTEM

I

Figure 2-2. C

Ibustion

-,... . .... .ftxed cost Discounted 1~

variable cost Oiscoumedbanery Life cycle cost

replacementcost

!omponents of Discounted LCC of the PREPA BESS & Combustion Turbine (in $M).

fuel costs for the combustion turbine are high, and asTable 2-1 and Figure 2-2 show, more than offset thehigh capital cost of the BESS plant. Clearly, lowerfuel costs will make the combustion turbine optionlook more competitive with the BESS. The break-even point is when the fuel price is between$4.50/MBtu and $5.00/MBtu.

The average fuel price in the 48 contiguous states ofthe U.S. was approximately $3.16/MBtu in 1996.swhich is lower than the break-even price of

$4.50/MBtu to $5.00/MBtu. This underscores thefact that the BESS at PREPA addresses the needs of amarket with higher-than-average fuel prices.

The batteries for the PREPA BESS carry a 10-yearwarranty, and the LCC analysis was therefore doneassuming battery replacement every 10 years. TheBESS will be less favorable from an LCC stand-pointif batteries have to be replaced earlier and PREPAhas to bear the cost of such replacement. This analy-sis finds that battery life must drop to 4.5 years inorder for the LCC of battery energy storage to be-come equivalent to that of the combustion turbines.

The discount rate also plays a significant role in de-termining the LCC of the two systems. The resultspresented in Table 2-1 are at a 10’7. discount rate. At

and com-a 14% discount rate, the LCC of the BESSbustion turbines drop to $24.3 million and $23.7 mil-lion, respectively, making the two options roughlycompetitive in this case. As expected in LCC analy-

sis, higher discount rates have greater impact on sys-tems with heavy front-end costs (the BESS), andlower discount rates have greater impact on systemswith substantial out-year costs (the turbine). A dis-count rate of 10% was chosen as the average betweenthe cost of borrowing and the return on capital ex-pected by industrial customers in today’s economy.

The BESS at PREPA has now been in operation for alittle more than three years. To date, the O&M costwith the BESS has been on track with originalPREPA projections. Major O&M deviations upwardor downward could have negative or positive effects,respectively, on the BESS LCC.

2-4

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES THE MP&L PROJECT

3. The MP&L Project

Metlakatla is an island on the southern tip of the Al-exander Archipelago in Southeast Alaska, adjoiningthe northwest corner of British Columbia. The Met-lakatla Indian community has a population of ap-

proximately 1,500 and its electricity needs are servedby a compact 12.5-kV network of hydroelectric anddiesel generation. MP&L, the local utility, serves theIndian community, several relatively small commerc-ial loads, and a large sawmill. The peak load of thesystem is about 3.5 MW, with approximately one-third of the total being associated with the sawmill.The system has an installed hydrogeneration capacityof 4.9 MVA and a large 5-MVAJ3.3-MW diesel gen-erator.

3,1 Project Rationale

The biggest load in the MP&L system is the sawmill.The chipper in the sawmill has a spiking load, withload swings of 600 kW and up to 900 kW at times.This caused substantial fhtctuations in system voltageand frequency in the 3 .5-MW grid system. Thoughthe hydroelectric units have adequate capacity to sat-isfy the average active and reactive power needs, aswell as the energy requirements of the system, theylack the speed of response required to follow the loadfluctuations.

The utility purchased the 3.3-MW diesel generator in1987 in order to meet the demand of the chipper,which comes on-line for 10 seconds every three min-utes, 14 hours a day. The diesel was operated at 809’0load, with the remainder of its capacity (700 kW)held in reserve to respond to load swings and short-term fluctuations in baseload. The generator had to beoversized and operated 14 hours a day in order tosatisfy the response rate requirement, though the hy-

droelectric units had sufficient energy generation ca-pability.g

The fuel and maintenance cost of operating the dieseiunit to provide adequate capacity to meet the loadswings was proving to be expensive, especially whensufilcient energy and capacity was available fromMP&L’s hydroelectric units.l” In 1992, the utility

started exploring other technology options capable ofresponding to the large load swings.

3.2 Competing Technologies

The technologies required to perform the function ofresponding to the spiking load of the chipper had tohave a quick response time, within l/20th of a sec-ond, and had to be able to provide sufficient amountof energy at high power levels. Battery energy stor-age, superconducting magnetic energy storage

(SMES), flywheels, and capacitors, coupled withhigh-responsepcs are all theoretically able to pro-

vide the 1-MW 10-second ( 10-MJ) energy burstsrequired every three minutes. However, the ability to

discharge the necessary amounts of energy everythree minutes for 14 hours a day requires substantialamount of energy storage, which only battery energystorage has proven to provide.’1


The initial inquiry to explore the suitability of a stor-age system was made by MP&L with the Energy

Storage Systems Program at Sandia National Labora-tories in 1992. After considering different manufac-turers, the utility approached GNB Industries andGeneral Electric to conduct a techno-economic fea-sibility study that compared battery energy storage toother options using only the existing hydroelectricand diesel units. The study suggested that a 1-MWI1 .4-MWh battery energy storage could providethe spinningreserve, frequency control, and power

quality improvement that MP&L needed.lz The proj-ect was estimated to cost $ 1.6M with a benefit: costratio of- 1.5:1.

After the competition of the final engineering cost.estimates and environmental assessment, the turn-key

project contract was signed in December 1995. Thesite construction began in May 1996, and check-outienergization was completed in November 1996.The commissioning tests started in December of1996, and the plant has been in operation since Feb-ruary 1997.

The system consists of a PCS, an automatic genera-tion control (AGC) System, batteries, racking andcables, and a butler-building-style shelter that housesall the ecmipment. The PCS, based on gate-turn-off(GTO) ~yristors, allows hi-directional power flowbetween the AC system and the battery in less than aquarter cycle. The storage batteries consist of a string

3-1

BA lTEI?Y STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

THE MP&L PROJECT CASE STUDIES

of 378 GNB Absolyte 11P, series-connected, valve-regulated, lead-acid (VRLA) cells. The BESS is ca-pable of supporting a continuous load of 800 kVAand handles pulse loads up to 1200 kVA. A 900-kVAfilter bank removes the harmonics and compensatesthe voltage of the electrical signal. The AGC ensuresoptimum integration of BESS response and hydroe-lectric operation. The steel butler building housing

the equipment is 40 feet x 70 feet and sits on a con-

crete pad at the 12.47-kV substation for MP&L’s

main diesel generator. Figure 3-1 illustrates thesimplified one-line diagram of the MP&L system.


Since operation began in February 1997, improvedefficiency in both the diesel and hydroelectric unitshas been achieved. A 60% increase in fuel-use effi-ciency has been noted. Within a month after opera-tion, the BESS operated for 45 minutes when a 1-MW load was rejected and tripped one of the hydroe-lectric units. The only time the diesel operated in themonth of February 1997 was to recharge the battery.The diesel unit will still be required to operate whenthe hydroelectric units undergo maintenance; how-

ever, the engine efficiency is high in this mode ofoperation. MP&L saved $39,100 in diesel fuel costsin March 1997.

,

Since the battery is a source of energy when the load

jumps higher than average and acts as a sink for en-ergy in the subsequent period, the net output for the .hydroelectric plant is nearly constant, with the batter-ies requiring very little additional charging from thediesel. The BESS has demonstrated automatic, unat-tended operation, including charge, discharge,

standby, ready, synchronization, disconnect, and

black-start capability.

3.5 LCC Analysis

With the installation of the BESS. the 3 .3-MW dieselunit has been relegated to a standby mode of opera-tion. The diesel unit will not have to be operatedwhen all the hydroelectric units are available withadequate water reserves to provide the energy re-quirements of the system load. Previously, the ex-pensive diesel had to operate, despite the availabilityof the hydrogeneration capacity, in order to maintainsystem stability. The BESS now provides adequate

—.—— .—..-————.-...——.—.-. .— . . . .. . . . —.PURPLE LAKE HYDRO

~

CHESTER 1.111MVAHYORO 99% PF

416 kV3[

P

1.26 MVA95% PF

g

DIESEL 5 MVA96% PF

12.47W 416 kV

/?=

1-

system stability.

P1.25 WASW PF

2.4kV

I

L-J

ISAWMILL

‘ s,’]BESS LOAD

Figure 3-1. Simplified One-Line Diagram of the MP&L System.

I

:

!

!

I

--

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES THE MP&L PROJECT

With the operation of the BESS, an annual fuel sav-ings of $350,000 is projected. The amount of fuel

consumed in 1996, prior to the installation of theBESS, compared to the amount of fuel consumed in1997 when the BESS was in operation is shown inTable 3-1. The table also shows the percent contribu-tion of the diesel and the hydroelectric units in 1997.The contribution from diesel generation droppedfrom 24.4% in 1996 to 10.99’0 clearly demonstratingthe value of the BESS. 13As expected the contributionof hydroelectric generation increased from approxi-mately 759’o to 9070. Inadequate water reserves,combined with hydroelectric systems problems, led toa lower usage of hydroelectric generation thanplanned. Diesel generation had to be increased toaccount for the shortfall. Thus, the 10.970 contribu-tion from diesel in 1997 represents a higher use ofdiesel than planned with the BESS in place.

The diesel overhauls, which have to be undertakenafter every 20,000 and 40,000 hours of operation, at acost of $230K and $370K, respectively, are signifi-cantly delayed by the operation of the BESS. Thecosts incurred during the 20-year life of the BESS,and the costs of supplying the same load-followingcapability with diesel generation are given in the ap-pendix in Table A3-1 and Table A3-2, respectively.The notes given below each of the appendix tablesexplain the basis on which the numbers were derivedand the costs included.

A LCC comparison summary is given in Table 3-2,which summarizes the data from Table A3- 1 and Ta-ble A3-2. All costs incurred over the 20-year life ofthe two systems have been discounted to Year O(1997$).

Figure 3-2 graphically depicts the various discountedcost components of the two alternatives. The cost

distribution is very similar to that of the PREPA case(Figure 2-2). The high initial capital cost of theBESS is compensated for by the extremely high fuelcosts associated with the diesel generation system.

3.6 Discussion

A spiking load of -600 kw is a considerable loadswing for a 3.5-MW’ isolated electricity grid. MP&L

must meet such power demands repeated to serve thesawmill. The hydrogeneration and water storage fa-cilities provide adequate capacity to serve the island’syear-round energy demand, but the hydroelectricplant’s power capability and response time is not suf-ficient to meet the load spikes.

MP&L had two options-it could either install addi-tional generation or interconnect with adjoining utili-ties. Interconnection was not practical since exten-sive over-water transmission would be required.Thus, in 1987, MP&L installed a diesel generatingsystem. The diesel generator was used to provideload-following capability when the hydroelectric gen-eration was in operation and to provide full back-uppower for the island during the maintenance periodsof the hydroelectric system.

Partial loading of the diesel generator was requiredwhen serving the load-following function. Operatinga diesel generator at partial load is very inefficient.Furthermore, the delivered cost of diesel fuel to anisolated island in Alaska is as high as $5.70/Mbtu. *5As Table 3-2 shows, the high initial capital cost of theBESS is more than offset by the high cost of dieselfuel combined with the inefficiency of the diesel gen-erator operating at partial load. The break-even pointin this case comes when annual diesel fuel costs dropto $250K.

Table 3-1. Comparison of Performance Data for MP&L1996-1997’4

Performance Measure 1996 without 1997 with BESSBESS

Diesel fuel consumption (gallons) 476,188 143,957

Diesel Y. of net generation 24.4 10.9

Hydroelectric % of net generation 75 90


THE MP&L PROJECTCASE STUDIES

)iesel Generator for Spinning Reserve

with Diesel for Generation Rescue

‘<Coet

Figure 3-2. Components of Discounted LCC of the MP&L BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M).

Table 3-2. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the MP&LBESS and Diesel Generator

Cost Category BESS with DleSel Diesel Genera-Generator tor Alone

CAPITAL COST ($K).

Total initial cost 1,893 ..

Sunk cost-. 0

OtlM Cost ($K\

Discounted fixed cost 849 907

Discounted variable cost 425 425

Discounted fuel cost savings-- 2,980

Discounted battery replacement cost 274 00

Total-Life Cycle Cost $3,440 $4,300

3-4

BAITERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

CASE STUDIES

A significant O&M cost associated with the dieselgenerator is regular] y scheduled overhauls. As Table3-2 shows, it amounts to $230K or $370K every three

years. If the BESS eliminated the need for the diesel,this cost factor would also be eliminated. However, inreality, the diesel generator is still in service in astand-by mode. When the hydroelectric units are notall available. the diesel generator must operate toprovide the shortfail. The presence of the BESS,however, allows the diesel to be operated at full loadinstead of a partial load, and it is also operated forshorter periods. Thus, in the LCC analysis of theBESS, one cannot completely eliminate the dieseloverhaul cost. However, the new combined systemhas not operated long enough to know how often suchoverhauls must be made to the diesel. If we make the

THE hlP&L PROJECT

conservative assumption that the overhaul cost willnot change but the time between overhauls will bedoubled, the LCC of the BESS/standby diesel anddiesel-only options are $3.97M and $4.3 lM, respec-tively. In this case, the LCC of the BESS is stilllower than the diesel option, although the BESS ad-vantage is somewhat reduced.

Since its installation, the BESS has demonstratedbenefits that were not realized during the projectplanning phase. Noise reduction has resulted fromthe infrequent use of the diesel generator, a benefitthat is significant and greatly appreciated by the is-land residents. Moreover, the presence of the BESShas conrnbuted to system stability and better man-agement of the hydroelectric resources.


THE MP&L PROJECT CASE STUDIES

.

.


3-6

13AI’TERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD

CASE STUDIES SMELTING FACILITY

4. GNB Technologies Vernon Lead Smelting Facility

A lead smelting and recycling center operated byGNB Technologies is located in Vernon, California,10 miles southeast of downtown Los-Angeles. The

facility processes over 10M used-car batteries annu-ally, reclaiming approximately 100,000 tons of lead.The plant power is fed from a 4. 16-kV feeder fromthe local municipal utility and has a typical load ofapproximately 3.5 MVA.


The BESS was installed at the smelting center toprovide emergency power for critical loads, primarilythose dealing with environmental controls. The BESS

can provide protection for most of the factory’s 3.5-MW load for up to one hour, which provides suffi-cient time for orderly shutdown of the plant if thepower outage persists. Prior unplanned power out-ages caused unintended lead emissions which, in

addition to health hazards, resulted in air quality vio-lations and fines.

In addition, the system provides peak shaving of to500 kW when the facility demand exceeds a presetthreshold. Limiting the maximum power drawn fromthe grid will reduce the factory’s annual electricitydemand charges by approximately $50,000. TheBESS, while maintaining high levels of power qualityand reliability, also provides power factor correctionby supplying reactive power.


GNB is a manufacturer of lead-acid batteries and hasa strong interest in participating in the emerging mar-ket for BESS for electric utility applications. TheVernon plant provides GNB with an excellent oppor-

tunity to showcase the performance of their ownBESS. Consequently, GNB did not consider com-petitive technology options in great detail as theyselected the BESS.

A rotary, on-line power protection system coupied toa diesel generator was considered to be the competingtechnology in this assessment. This system continu-ously conditions utility power through a motor-generator pair. The motor-generator pair has enoughinertia built into the system conventional (flywheel)to carry the load for 3-5 seconds during a power out-

rage, which provides sufficient time for the stand-by

diesel unit to come on line and supply the load. Dueto the on-line protection capability of this motor-

generator power protection system and the need tomaintain the water jacket temperature of the diesel,the parasitic electricity consumption is about 7’%0ofthe system’s 1.6-MVA rating. Two such systems inparallel will be required to displace the BESS at thesmelting factory.


The lead smelting facility at Vernon is required toadhere to the strict emission standards of the SouthCoast Air Quality Management District. The largefans used to recover the lead dust generated by thefactory are susceptible to outages and may result inthe factory releasing lead dust into the atmosphere.

In order to avoid further risk of lead emissions, GNBdecided to install a UPS based on its own battery,with the PCS supplied by General Electric. The proj-ect was announced in November 1994, and construc-tion began in January 1995. The construction andinstallation phase were completed in August 1995,and commissioning tests were completed in Novem-ber 1995.

The BESS utilizes GNB ABSOLYTE 11P VRLAbatteries and contains 2,268 ceils (756 modules/3 cellper module) capable of supplying 3.5 MWh at theone-hour rating. The GTO-based General ElectricBC2000 12-pulse PCS consists of three, 1.25-MVAunits.

4.4 System Installation andOperation

The BESS has been in operation since early 1996.The system is designed to operate for 10 seconds at amaximum plant demand of 5 MVA immediately aftertakeover and has a continuous rating of 3.0 MVA.Upon sensing a loss of utility voltage:

● The incoming circuit breaker will open and theBESS will supply the entire load,

4-1

GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

SMELTING FACILITY CASE STUDIES

● The control system will shed all but the criticalloads, and

● The BESS will carry the critical loads at 3.0NIVA for one hour.

In addition to the power quality protection function,the system has performed in a peak shaving mode forsix hours daily, periodically since April 1996 to pro-vide power cost savings. However, its main function

still remains providing backup power.

4.5 LCC Analysis

The Vernon BESS is an off-line system with a start-up time of less than 1 second. The installed cost ofthe BESS was about $4.2M, which protects all thefactory loads tied to the 4, 160-V substation bus.

Two containerized rotary power quality systems,rated at 1.6 MVA each, cost approximately $2.5M.Given the output voltage of 480 V, the necessarystep-up transformer to 4,160 V adds another $2M tothe equipment cost. However, this $4.5M powerquality system can provide continuous power condi-tioning and backup generation, while the interactivebattery-based UPS can provide protection for only anhour. The rotary power quality system alternative hasa parasitic load of about 79Z0of its rated output. Thecost of this parasitic load, which is on the order of200 kVA for the 3.2-MVA system, is about $100,000per annum.

The detailed LCC analysis of two systems are givenin the appendix in Tables A4- 1 and A4-2. Table 4-1

compares the two systems on the basis of discountedcosts. The notes given below the appendix tables ex-plain the basis on which the numbers were derived

and the costs included. ,

Figure 4-2 graphically represents the various compo-

nents of the two technology options. The capital cost .for the two technologies are comparable and the LCCfor the two options are close enough that one couldnot be selected over the other, based on cost alone.

4.6 Discussion

The Vernon BESS protects environmentally sensitivecritical loads in an urban area. The BESS and thecommercially available alternative appear comparablein performance and cost. The diesel genera-

toriflywheel storage system can carry the factory loadbeyond the one-hour capacity of the BESS, althoughthere is no obvious need for such longer durationsupport for the critical loads of the plant.

The initial capital cost for the diesel genera-tor/flywheel is slightly higher while the O&M cost forthe BESS is slightly higher. As a result, the LCC of

both systems are essentially equivalent. Battery re-placement for this application is expected to be everyeight years. If we assume a battery life of 10 years,

the LCC cost for the BESS drops to $6M. Althoughit is now slightly smaller than the diesel/flywheelstorage system, the difference is still not significant.

Table 4-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESSand Diesel Generator

Cost Category BESS Combustion Turbine

CAPITAL COST ($K\

Total initial cost 4,245 4,500

O&M Cost ($K]

Discounted fixed cost 852 1,703

Discounted variable cost 426

Discounted fuel cost

Discounted battery replacement cost 821 --

Total–Life Cycle Cost $6,340 $6,200

4-2

BAi’TERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS GNB TECHNOLOGIES VERNON LEAD

CASE STUDIES SMELTING FACILITY

.1

7.00

6.00-

5.00

I

—

)YG,el ,ator

,“=, *U=,

banery Life cycle costsavinas.

replacement

cost

Figure 4-1. Components of Discounted LCC of the Vernon BESS and Diesel Generator (in $M).

4-3

Intentionally Left B1ank

.

4-4

BATTER Y STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

CASE STUDIES OGL.ETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM

5. Oglethorpe’s Power Quality System

A 1-MW/l O-second battery-based power quality SyS-tem is located at a lithograph plant in Somerville,

Georgia. The plant is served by the Slash Pine Elec-tric Membership Cooperative (EMC). Slash PineEMC, headquartered in Somerville, has approxi-mate] y 4,500 consumers/members, with the litho-graph plant being the largest among them.

Oglethorpe Power Corporation was formed by 39EMCS, including Slash Pine, in Georgia in 1974 toprovide generation and transmission services, givingthe local EMCS a measure of control over the sourceof electricity delivered to their customers throughtheir own distribution system. Oglethorpe Power alsoprovides services such as power quality assessmentsand solutions to their member EMCS. The 39 EMCScombined serve 72% of Georgia’s territory and ac-count for 23% of Georgia’s peak load.


oglethorpe Power initiated examination of large

power quality systems (in the 1–2 MW range) at thecustomer end when voltage sags were experienced bymany of its EMC members and their customers. Thetypical sags were a maximum of 70 V and lasted 2seconds.

There were multiple causes for such disturbances.Southern Georgia is a region with high incidence oflightning and occasional hurricanes, which can cause

surges and short circuits in the lines. Line damagefrom trees and animals also contributes momentarysupply disruptions. While momentary disturbances

are not critical for most consumers, certain manufac-turing facilities and commercial establishments couldsuffer serious financial losses.

The necessary customer-end protection against suchoccurrence was envisaged to have the following char-acteristics:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

At least 1 MW in capacity,

Ride through of at least 5 seconds,

Capability of many discharges over a short pe-riod of time,

Fast transfer time,

Compact footprint,

Outdoor installation, and

Economical and long life.

The system ultimately selected was AC Battery Cor-poration’s PQ2000. The 2-MW system provides upto 10 seconds’ worth of load protection. The systemwas designed for outdoor installation and has built-in

heating and cooling systems. The system is scaleablein 250 kVA units up to the 2-MVA size. This systemwas selected because of the high power rating, the

small parasitic load, and the capability of being con-figured to meet the required 2-MW size.


In its search for systems to meet the desired character-istics, Oglethorpe Power investigated various tech-nologies including:

● Statcom,● Dynamic Voltage Restorer (DVR),● SMES,● Active Power Line Conditioner,● Statordyne, and● Standard UPS.

A questionnaire covering a wide range of issues wassent to each manufacturer and the answers were arta-Iyzed. Questions dealt with:

● Projected commercial cost,● Research and development needs,

● Installation needs,● Footprint and system sizing,● Input and output voltage,● Switching time, and● Fault current limitations.

The evaluation of the different products against theneeds of customers was carried out by Oglethorpe,but the detailed analysis is not in the public domain.However, it is known that Westinghouse’s Statcomand DVR provide protection for very short durations,in the range of a few cycles, and would not be suffi-cient for the specified requirements. Though Super-conductivity, Inc., was at that time in the process of

developing larger SMES magnets for longer durationprotection, the magnets then available could provideprotection only for 2–3 seconds for a 2-MW load.

The UPSS, which in most instances are battery-powered, are used in a wide range of industrial appli-

5-1

OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM

cations. They come in sizes ranging from the smaller

1–2 kW systems up to 100-200 kW and provideprotection for durations of minutes to hours. How-ever, of the UPS system manufacturers, (which in-cluded Best Power; Exide Electronics; GNB Tech-nologies, Inc.; Liebert Corporation; WestinghouseElectric Corporation: Interrnagnetics General Corpo-ration; Superconductivity, Inc.; MGE UPS Systems;and Statordyne, Limited Liability Corporation) noneof these companies had systems available in the MW

range. Some of the UPS manufacturers were willingto supply MW-range systems by connecting theirsmaller units. One manufacturer said that nine 220-kVA units could be connected in parallel to achievethe 2-MW rating.

This multiple-parallel system is considered to be thealternate to the PQ2000 for this application. Theproduct line offered by this manufacturer is able toprovide protection for up to 5 minutes, longer than

the 10 seconds offered by the PQ2000. Detailedequipment capital and operating cost data were ob-tained from this manufacturer and they were com-pared to that of the projected LCC of the system inplace at the lithograph plant. Because the batteries inthis competing system were oversized for the specifi-cations, adjustments were made to take this into con-sideration. Detailed comparisons of the LCC of thesetwo systems are analyzed in Section 5.5.

utilityService

Drop

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES


The equipment for this project was supplied by ACBattery Corporation (Omnion Power Engineering) of IEast Troy, Wisconsin. PQ2000 is the trademark nameof the company’s 2-MW system providing protectionto connected loads for up to 10 seconds. .

The installation work began in May 1996 and con-

sisted of laying conduit, pulling over 1 mile of cable,designing and pouring a foundation, installing aground .~id, and crimping approximately 250 lugs. 1bA redundant termination cabinet was installed to by-pass the entire PQ2000 system, though such a bypassswitch already exists within the PQ2000 system. Thecontainerized equipment was delivered by truck inJuiy 1996. It was lifted off the truck with a 60-toncrane and installed on the constructed concrete pad.The acceptance tests were completed, and the systemhas been in operation since December 1996. A sim-ple line diagram of the system is provided in Fig-ure 5-1.

PQ2000 Power Quality System1 MVA-10 Sscond Rating

<“’JT—

,Sma.,wlsmv

T

1

!1

1

1_-

11

I

I

--- -2

Figure 5-1. Line Diagram of PQ2000 Power Quality System.

5-2

BA 7TERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES OGLETHORPE’S PO WER QUALITY SYSTEM

The system consists of three pieces of equipment anda utility termination cabinet. The modular container-ized equipment is suited for outdoor installation. Thesystem container is capable of housing eight, 250-kVA modular battery strings and its charger and in-verter bridge. The main container also houses the

system controller. The system container at the SlashPine site has four battery strings capable of carryingup to 1 MVA of criticaI load. The site at present has aload of approximately 650 kVA.

The battery modules and associated PCSS are con-nected to an electronic selector device (ESD) throughan isolation transformer. The ESD continuouslymonitors the utility service and switches to battery

power when it detects undesirable distortions in thesupply waveform. The transfer occurs within % to 1AHertz, thus providing seemingly uninterruptiblepower to the connected loads.


The system has been in operation since December1996 and has protected the factory against SUPPIY

disturbances more than 50 times as of July 1997.

The footprint of the three pieces of equipment com-bined is -175 square feet.1’ Including equipmentseparation spaces, a total of only 400-500 square feetof outdoor space is required for installation. Thecompact design for the 2-MW/l O-second system andthe outdoor installation capability lowers the installa-tion cost and provides siting flexibility.’8

Many power quality systems use the on-line mode,which regenerates the incoming sine wave, to control

power quality. In contrast, the PQ2000 uses a line-interactive concept for conditioning the raw utility

power and switching to battery power only when thedisturbance is acute. Since the PQ2000 system doesnot continuously regenerate the supply waveform, itdoes not protect against harmonic distortions. HOW-ever, line-interactive systems have lower operatingcosts compared to on-line systems because of theirsmaller parasitic loads. This becomes a major cost-saving advantage for large systems. The ESD in thePQ2000 system, which continuously monitors thesupply voltage, has a continuous loss of -1% (aparasitic load of 20 kVA). Corresponding on-linesystems typically have a continuous loss of -4%.]9

After analyzing numerous commercially available

systems, a 1-MVA/5-minute, battery-based UPS sys-tem was chosen as the closest alternate to thePQ2000. It was assumed that two such systems wouldbe connected in parallel to achieve the 2-MW powerrating. When there was a deficiency in data for com-puting the LCC of this alternative system, relevantdata obtained by the Energy Stora2e Associationzofrom other equipment manufacturers were used.

It was found that the alternate system had a lowerinitial capital cost but had a higher operational andmaintenance cost, mainly due to higher parasiticlosses in the system. Overall, the LCC of both sys-tems is about the same (when discounting the costs at10%). Organizations with a lower cost of capital willfavor the equipment with the higher capital cost andlower O&M cosc the PQ2000 system, in this case.Similarly, organizations with a higher cost of capitalwiIl favor the alternate system which had lower capi-

tal cost.

The detailed LCC analysis of the PQ2000 and thecompeting system are given in the appendix in TablesA5- 1 and A5-2. Both LCCS are compared in a sum-mary form in Table 5-1. The notes given below theappendix tables explain the basis on which the num-bers were derived and the costs included.

It is apparent from the table that initial capital costsfor the PQ2000 system are higher but are compen-sated by lower electricity costs and cell replacementcost. Overall, the LCC for the two systems are quitesimilar.

Figure 5-2 illustrates the various components of thediscounted LCC of the two systems.

5.5 Discussion

The PQ2000 is an innovative product that receivedthe coveted R&D Magazine’s R&D 100 award in1997. The innovative features include a large powerrating, batteries optimized to provide short-durationprotection, modularity, outdoor installation, andtransportability. It is the first battery-based powerquality system designed for providing facility-levelprotection. Conventional UPS systems tend to be

used for equipment-specific power quality protection.

The PQ2000 is an off-line system that maintains line-interactivity through a static switch. The result is that


OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM CASE STUDIES

Table 5-1. Comparison of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe PowerQuality Systems

Cost Category PQ2000 Alternate PW System—UPS

Capital Cost ($KI

Site Preparation and Installation

Interconnect Equipment

Equipment Cost

Taxes and Permits

Setup Cost

Total Initial Cost

34 5 *

49 49

873 650

67 46

34 15

1,057 765

O&M: Cost (SK)

Maintenance Cost

Insurance and Taxes

Electricity Cost

Cell Replacement

Total O&M Cost Over 20 Years

Life Cycle Cost ($K)

348 341

73 56

127 358

50 182

598 937

$1,650 $1,700

I180H

-1

1,60-

4

1,40 -

1 20 -

— !‘

1

nate PQ Svsiem -UPS

Figure 5-2. Components of Discounted LCC Oglethorpe Power Quality Systems (in $M).

5-4

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES

parasitic losses with the PQ2000 are significantlysmaller than those with a UPS. The battery replace-ment cost for the PQ2000 is substantially lower aswell. The PQ2000 uses inexpensive lead-acid batter-ies that are mass-produced for vehicles start-ing/lighting/ignition applications. In contrast, thealternative UPS system in this study current] y uses

more expensive VRLA batteries. The set-up costs forthe PQ2000 are greater than that of the UPS competi-tion because the system requires a crane and a crew tounpack and mount the equipment. The set-up costsare less for the alternate UPS because the equipmentcomes in smaller containers and the cost of a craneand a crew to install the system is not incurred.

Battery life is assumed to be 5 years for both opera-tions. However, this has not yet been demonstrated.Shorter battery life will have an adverse impact on the

OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM

LCC of both systems, with the impact being moresevere for the UPS system. A four-year battery liferesults in LCCS of $ 1.68M and $ 1.79M for thePQ2000 and the UPS alternative, respectively.

Omnion Power Engineering Corporation, the succes-sor of AC Battery, reviewed a draft of this LCCanalysis of the PQ2000 system. Comments suggestthat both capital and operating costs have droppedsignificantly when compared to the Oglethorpe SyS-

tem. Such price decreases are to be expected in a newtechnology as the developer improves the efficiencyof manufacturing. LCC of a similar system today isexpected to be approximately $ 1.3M as opposed toabout $ 1.65M shown in Table 5-1. The economicattractiveness of the PQ2000 unit clearly improves asits capital cost is decreased.


OGLETHORPE’S POWER QUALITY SYSTEM CASE STUDIES


,

.

5-6


CASE STUDIES IMPACT OF FUTURE COST REDUCTIONS

6. Impact of Future Cost Reductions

A previous repor?] analyzed the capital cost of thefour BESSS considered here. That analysis also sur-veyed the BESS vendors regarding the cost reduction

potential on similar BESSS. Table 6-1 shows currentand projected capital costs for the four BESSS. Thetable also shows the impact of achieving the projected

cost reduction on the LCC.

As expected, capital cost reductions do have a favor-able impact on the LCC of BESSS and enhances theircompetitive position. Table 6-1 assumes that no

capital cost reduction will occur with the competitivetechnologies. This assumption is predicated on thefact that the competitive options are generally maturetechnologies and further cost reduction will be incre-mental and negligible. The lead-acid batteries in theBESS are a mature technology as well and furthercost reductions will be modest. However, optimiza-tion of the PCSS in BESSS, as well as improving sys-tems integration, will likely play an important role inthe anticipated cost reduction of BESSS.

Table 6-1. Comparison of Current and Projected Costs for BESS Technologiesand Competitive Options (in $M)

System Current Projected Current Projected LCC of CompetitiveCapital Cost Capital Cost?2 LCC LCC23 Option

PREPA 21.40 18.19 25.2 21.99 29.5

MP&L 1.89 1.61 3.44 3.16 4.30

I Vernon \ 4.25 I 3.61 I 6.34 \ 5.70 \ 6.20 I

I Oglethorpe I 1.06 I 0.85 I 1.65 I 1.44 I 1.70 I

6-1

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSIMPACT OF FUTURE COST REDUCTIONS CASE STUDIES

.

*


.

6-2

BATTERY STOIZ.4GE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES CONCLUSIONS

7. Conclusions

The two BESS projects installed by PREPA andMP&L on the supply-side to improve dynamic op-erating benefits have unique attributes, namely:

1. Isolated, island utilities with high fuel oil prices,which are two to three times the national average.

2. Combustion turbines and diesel generators thatare operated inefficiently under partial loads,thus increasing expensive fuel consumption.

There are other sites in the U.S. and elsewhere in theworld that have the same characteristics. BESSS atcurrent costs enjoy a competitive advantage for such

applications. These applications represent a highvalue-added but a somewhat limited market. Utility-scale battery energy storage is an emerging technol-

ogy and system vendors must rely on these highvalue-added niche markets to achieve system costreductions that will enable them to supply cost-competitive systems to the potentially large marketsthroughout the electric utility industry.

The two other battery energy storage projects helpcustomers solve power quality problems. The power

quality issue has become increasingly important in

recent years. Several estimatesz4 indicate that pro-ductivity losses nationally due to power quaiityproblems are enormous. This analysis shows that forthe two applications considered, the BESSS are com-petitive with commercially available alternatives.The LCC estimates are based on current costs ofBESSS. As BESS costs are reduced with time, itscompetitive position will improve.

Operational experiences with the four BESSS varyfrom several months to a few years. Projections ofO&M costs based on such limited data are difficult.Vendor interviews have been used to obtain actual

O&M costs. The cost data on the competing tech-nologies considered for the two power quality appli-cations were also developed on the basis of vendorestimates. Clearly the LCC estimates will change ifthe O&M costs deviate substantially from those con-

sidered here.

As expected, capital cost reductions do have a favor-able impact on the LCC of BESSS and enhances theircompetitive position.

7-I


CONCLUSIONS CASE STUDIES

.


.

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES ENDNOTES

8. Endnotes1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.14.15.16.

1kobert Brown and Rudolph Yanuck, L$e CycleCosting.. Practical Guide to Energy Managers.

I’he Fairmont Press, Atlanta, GA, 1980.Fabrycky Welter, Life Cycle Cost and Economic

4nalysis. Prentice Hall International Series,1991.

Sydney Reiter, The Financial Evacuation of En-ergy Costs and Projects. Van Nostrand ReinholdCompany, New York, 1985.Paul Butler, Battery Energy Storage for Utility

Applications: Phase 1 - Opportunities Analysis.

Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 94-2605,UC-212, October 1994.Information provided by discussions withPREPA Generating Planning Division.W. Torres, Economic Benefits of the PREPA 20

MW Battery Energy Storage Facility in Proceed-

ings of the Fifth International Conference onBa~teries for Utility Energy Storage. San Juan,Puerto Rico, July 1995.Due to the need for extensive piling at site, theoriginal project cost of $ 130M was revised to

$ 160M. Without the need for piling the per-unitcost would have been $540ikW. Piling, or shor-ing up the concrete pad,was necessary because

the ground was unsteady and needed additionalunderground support.Department of Energy/Energy Information Ad-ministration, Cos~ and Quali~ of Fuels forEiec-

rric Utility Plants 1996. DOWEIA-0191 (96),July 1997.Nicolas Miller, et al., A VRLA Battery EnergyStorage System for Metlakatla, Alaska, in Pro-

ceedings of the Energy Storage Association No-vember 1996 Meeting. Amelia Island, FL, May1997,Demarest et al., Battery storage all but eliminatesdiesel generator. Electrical World, June 1997.George Hunt, Battery Energy Storage Systemsfor Metlakatla, Alaska, in Proceedings of the En-

ergy Storage Association Spring 1997 Meeting.Washington, D. C., May 1997.

George Hunt, Design and Commissioning ofVRLA Battery Energy Storage Systems forBacking-up Critical Environmental Loads inProceedings of the Fif!h European Batte~ Con-

ference. Barcelona, Spain, September 1996.Information provided by MP&L.Data provided by MP&L.Information provided by MP&L.Power quality workshop sponsored by

1

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

[nstitute, Industry Power Quality Solutions:PQ2(lj(j Demonstration and Field Test. Amelia

[sland. FL, November 1996.

System container = 7 feet x 16 feet, ESD = 5 feet

<10 feet, Isolation transformer = 4 feet x 4 feet

The footprint is comparable to those designed byLiebert Corp., Best Power Technology Inc, andothers. However, all of these systems are re-quired to be housed indoors.The comparison was made with UT3220, the220-kVA on-line system manufactured by BestPower Technology Inc., Necedah, WI. This sys-tem has a on-line-mode efficiency of 969’o andeconomy mode (line-interactive mode) efficiencyof 9770.Richard Schweinburg of Southern CaliforniaEdison, Database on Large UPS Systems presen-tation, and Renewable Energy and Energy Stor-age: A partnership That Makes Sense presenta-

tion in Proceedings of Energy Storage

Association Meeting, Washington, D. C., April30-May 1, 1997.Abbas Akhil, Shiva Swaminathan, and Rajat K.Sen. Cost Analysis of Energy Storage Systems

for Electric Utility Applications. Sandia NationalLaboratories, SAND 97-0443, UC- 1350, Febru-ary 1997.Projected capital costs were based on the CostAnalysis of Energy Storage Systems for ElectricUtility Applications, which determined that largeBESSS would achieve cost reductions of 10-209Z0. Thus, in this analysis, a rate of 15% costreduction was used for PREPA, MP&L, andVernon. The same report projected that BESS

power quality systems would achieve cost reduc-tions of 20%. This formula was applied whendetermining the projected cost reductions forOglethorpe.The same method for determining projectedcapital costs was used for determining projectedLCC, although O&M costs were assumed to re-main constant with only capital costs being re-duced by 15% or 20%. (See footnote 24).Power quality workshop sponsored byOglethoqe power and Electric Power Research

Institute, Industq Power Quality Solutions:PQ2000 Demonstration and Field Test. AmeliaIsland, FL, November 1996.Power quality workshop sponsored byog]etho~i power and Electric Power Research

Institute, Industry Power Quality Solutions:Oglethol-pe power and Electric Power Research

.-. .6-1

BAITERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTS

ENDNOTES CASE STUDIES

PQ2000 Demonstration and Field Test. AmeliaIsland, FL, November 1996.

.

8-2

Detailed Life Cycle Costs

BAi’TERY STORAGE SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COSTSCASE STUDIES APPENDIX A

A2- 1.

A~-~.

A3-1.

A3-2.

A4- 1.

A4-2.

AS-1

A5-2,

Tables

Life Cycle Cost of the 20-MW/14. I -MWh Battery Energy Storage System at the Puerto Rico ElectricPower Authority

Life Cycle Cost of Oil-Fired Combustion Turbines for Spinning Reserve-Puerto Rico Electric Power ●

Authority

Life Cycle Cost of the Battery Energy Storage System at Metlakatla Power & Light

Life Cycle Cost of Operating Diesel Generators for Load Following at Metlakatla Power & Light

Life Cycle Cost of the Battery Energy Storage System at the GNB Technologies Vernon Lead SmeltingFacility

Life Cycle Cost of Diesel Standby Generator with Induction Coupling for Power Quality Applications forVernon Lead Smelting Facility

Life Cycle Cost of Oglethorpe Power’s PQ2000 Power Quality Battery Energy Storage System

Life Cycle Cost of UPS Power Quality System for Oglethorpe

A-2

NOTES (information provided by PREPA Battery Energy Storage Plant Manager, Rafael Ruiz, and by William Monriog of the PREPA Generating Planning Division)

A.

B.

c.D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

1.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

o.

P.

o.

Includes transformer, protection gear, and other interconnect equipment.

Includes the reclifiedinverter bridge, AC and DC switchgear.

Installed cost of 6,000 cells, racks, watering system, electrolytic agitation system, temperature measurement, etc.

Facility monitoring computers, software, and associated equipment.

Cost of building and amenities, access road, landscaping.

Finance cost during construction.

Transportation cost included in individual equipment prices.

Taxes.

Project management expenses include design, specifications, bid evaluation, construction management, etc.

Costs associated with start-up.

Salaries and wages of four employees at location: plant manager, electrician, general help, and office assistant working one 8-hour shift, five days per week.

Site vehicle maintenance and travel allowances.

Includes as needed contracts with GE, C&D, and Max controf systems. It also includes switchyard maintenance and waste disposal contracts.

Portions of the costs associated with consumable and supplies are variable. Includes replacement of failed cells, battery maintenance, PCS & switchyard maintenance, and office supplies.

During standby frequency regulatiorr/voltage control mode of operation passes approximately 1 MWh through the BES daily. Assuming a round-lrip efficiency of 70% and electricity cost of$60/MWh, annual cost is -$7K. Considering 30 times a year plant operates, in rapid discharge mode, recharge electricity consumption and air conditioning loads, and other parasitic loads, theelectricity consumption totals -$1 OK annually. Battery cells are topped up with demineralized water every six months. Though demineralized water has a commercial value, the BES facilityobtains it from PREPA’s purchases, and it is not charged to the BES.

Portions of the costs associated with consumables and supplies are fixed. Includes replacement of failed cells, battery maintenance, PCS & switchyard maintenance, and office supplies.

The 6.000 cells are warranted for 10 vests and are exDected to be redated once in Year 11 at a cost of $500/celi.

A-4

●

ar of Operation o ‘f 2 3 rfcg ? 9 f ‘fO If 12 ‘f? ‘N m ~6 f? 79 ~~ 20

\PITAL COST ($K)

Capital Cosl 3,960 I I I)TAL INITIAL COST

3,960

O/MW-week)for 6MW

riable Costs

Fuel cost

ITAL O&M COST

ITAL COST ($K)

;count Rate

;count Factor

;counted total cost ($K)

‘E CYCLE COST ($K)

2,555 2,345 2,153 1,977 1,615 1,667 1,530 1,405 1,290 1,185 1,068 999 917 842 773 710 652 596

3,960

549 5C

I I

(M COST ($K)

ed Costs-

From production cost data 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

2,800 2,826 2,656 2,685 2,913 2,943 2,972 3,002 3,032 3,062 3,093 3,124 3,155 3,187 3,219 3,251 3,283 3,316 3,349 3!3

2,810 2,838 2,866 2,695 2,924 2,953 2,982 3,012 3,042 3,072 3,103 3,134 3,165 3,197 3,229 3,261 3,293 3,326 3!359 303

I I 2,810 2,838 2,866 2,895 2,924 2,953 2,982 3,012 3,042 3,0721 3,103 3,134 3,165 3,197 3,229 3,261 3,293 3,326 3,359 3,3$

[

1o%

1.01 0.91 I 0.831 0.751 0.68[ 0.621 0,561 0.51 I 0.47 0.421 0.391 0.351 0.321 0.291 0.261 0,241 0.221 0.201 0.181 0.16 0.

kwl~ (information provided by PREPA Battery Energy Storage Plant Manager, Rafael Ruiz, and by William Monriog of the PREPA Generating Planning Division)

Battery Energy Storage cannot continuously supply power indefinitely because of its limited energy supply capability. However, 20 MW of battery energy storage capacity is better able to provide

20 MW of spinning reserve capacity than 20 tvfW of combustion turbines due to the fast response of the BESS. Thus, the presence of the 20-MW BESS diminishes the need to build spinning

reserve generation. Because the BESS cannot carry 20-MW loads indefinitely, a partial, 30%-capacity credit will be assigned to the BESS plant. A cost of approximately $3.9M

may be avoided assuming 6 MW of $660/kW gas-turbine generation capacity can be eliminated with use of the BES.

Obtained from production costing modef for the 83-MW turbine.

The 83-MW plant is expected to operate at 36% annual pfant factor, generating 262 GWh of electricity a year. Operating at 60% of full load, the plant produces this energy at a heat rate of

13,300 Btu/kWh. If the plant were able to produce that energy with 10,200 Btu/kWh (full load heat rate), the annual cost saving is $4.6M. Prorating, (since the 60% of full load

operation of the 83-MW plant is able to provide 33 MW of spinning reserve), the finel cost saving with operation of the 20-MW battery is $2.8M. Assuming fuel costs

increase by 1% per annum in real terms, the fuel cost saving discounted over 20 years is $25.5M.

A-5

A. Batteries& installation

B. Power conditioning system

C. System monitoring/control

D. Filters

E. Engineering services

F. Transportation & taxes

G. Facilities

TOTAL INITIAL COST

O&M COST ($K)

Fixed Costs

H. Salaries& consumables

Variable Cost

1.Battery replacement cost

J. Equip & software maint:

TOTAL O&M COST

TOTAL COST ($K)

Discount Rate

Discount Factor

Discounted Total Cost

LIFE CYCLE COST ($K)

570

361

209

171

323

50

209

1,8931 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

400 400

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 550 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 550 150 150 150 15

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 550 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 550 150 150 150 15

1o%

1.0 0.91 0.83 0,75 0.68 0.62 0.56 0.51 0,47 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.1

I 1,893 136 124 113 102 93 85 77 257 64 58 53 48 43 39 36 120 30 27 25 2

IINOTES (information provided by GNBTedrnologies, George l-funt)Includes racking, fuses, etc.Includes isolation transformers, fuses, CTS, PT, etc.Station control, battery monitoring, outloop control, data acquisition, etc.Filters and HV end of switchyard: capacitors, fuse contractors.Project Management, systems study and design, site construction management.Transportation of batteries to site. No taxes incurred.Foundation, building, HVAC, lighting, auxiliary equipment.Installation capable of remote operation. An annual cost of -50Wyear is estimated.Batteries are expected to be replaced after 8 years.1.

J. Maintenance of the equipment, facility, and software.

A-6

b

wc113-2, (.4d?7A(?@#44@.’ M%&fw@’Mw’lw #J4M&w?&w+@-PMtivy

‘ear of Operation

;APITAL COST ($K~

(. Sunk Cost

“OTAL fNITIAL COST

)&M COST ($K)

‘ixed Costs

1.Overhauls-SpinningMode

Standby Mode

fariable Cost

;. Savings of diesel fuelcost

). Other O&M cost

‘OTAL O&M COST

“OTAL COST ($K)

)iscount Rate

)iscount Factor

)iscounted Total Cost

.IFE CYCLE COST ($K)

o

I I I I

[ I I I

230 - - 370 - - 230 - - 370 - - 230 - 370 - -

350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

630 400 400 770 400 400 630 400 400 770 400 400 630 400 400 770 400 400

630 400 400 770 400 4001 6301 400 400 770J 400 400 630 400 400 770 400 400

10%

1.0 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.62 0,56 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.39 0.351 0.32 0.291 0.26 0.241 0.22 0.20 0.18

573 331 301 526 248 226 323 187 170 297 1401 127 1821 105 96[ 168 79 72

m~

~ (information provided by MP&L, Dutch Achenbach)

i. The 3-MW diesel is already in place and operating.

1. The diesef units require minor overhauls every 20,000 hours of operation and major overhauls every 40,000 hours. Major and minor overhauls cost -$37oK and -$230K, respectively

;. It is estimated that @$ O.78/gallon, 450,000 gallons of diesel fuel could be saved.

). It is estimatad that all other O&M cost savings associated with the operation of the diesel is -$50K p.s.

CAPITAL COST ($K)

A. Batteries & accessories

B, Power conversion/controls

C. Balance of Plant

D. Transportation & packing

E. Taxes

TOTAL INITIAL COST

O&M COST ($K)

Fixed Costs

F, Salaries& consumables

Variable Cost

G. Battery replacement cost

H. Equipment and facilitymaink

TOTAL O&M COST

TOTAL COST ($K)

Discount Rate

Discount Factor

Discounted Total Cost

LIFE CYCLE COST ($K)

1,375

825

1,500

195

350

I 4,2451 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1

1,200 1,2001 1 , , 1 , , t ,

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

150 150 150 1, , *

I1

1501 1501 1501 1501 1501 1501 1501 1,3501 1501 1501 150! 1501 1501 1501 150] 1,350-

I 150[ 150[ 1501 1501 1501 150] 150/ 1,3501 150/ 1501 1501 1501 1501 150] 1501 1,3501 1501 1501 1501 1

10%

1.0 0.91 [ 0.83 0.751 0.68 0.62 0.56 0.511 0.471 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.291 0.261 0.24 0.22 0.201 0.18 0.161 0

4,245 1361 124 1131 102 93 85 771 6301 64 58 53 48 431 39] 36 294 301 27 25]

.m.,,NOTES (information provided GNB Technologies, George Hunt)A. Battery installation, racking, monitoring, etc.

B. Power conversion system and control systems.

C. Butler building, foundation, facility equipment, project management, etc.

D. Factory to site transport and packaging.

E. Taxes: state, municipal.

F. The BES facilily is not staffed and requires only periodic maintenance, estimated to cost not more than -50K per annum.

G. Battery expected to be replaced in Years 8 and 16.

H. Estimated”equipment and facility maintenance cost.

A-8

t

Year of Operation

CAPITAL COST ($K)

A. Equipment cost 2,500

B. Step-up transformer 2,000

TOTAL INITIAL COST

fl&M COST ($K)

Fixed Costs

C. Parasitic electricity charges

D. Maintenance contracts

Variable Cost

TOTAL O&M COST

TOTAL COST ($K)

Discount Rate

Discount Factor

I 4,5001 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

I I 200] 2001 2001 200] 2001 2001 2001 200] 2001 200] 200] 200! 2001 200] 200] 200] 2001 200 I 200

1070

1.01 0.91 I 0.831 0.751 0.681 0.621 0.561 0.51 I 0.471 0.421 0.391 0.351 0.321 0.29[ 0.261 0.241 0.22] 0.201 0.18] 0.16

Discounted Total Cost\

4,500] 1821 1651 1501 137] 1241 1131 103 I 931 851 771 701 641 581 531 481 441 401 36] 33

LIFE CYCLE COST ($K)m

NOTES (information provided by Holec Power Protection, Robert Hall)

A. Containerized equipment to cost $1 .25M each for the 1.6 MVA units. Uncontainerized wilt cost -$1 M.

B. The step-up transformer to step up the voltage from 480 V to 4,160 V at the substation serving Ihe facility.

C. Constant perasitic load of 200 kVA for a year at an electricity cost 5 cents/kWh is -$1 OOK p.s.

D. Maintenance contract to maintain two 1.6-MVA units is -$100K Da.

A-9

~ar of Operation

APITAL COST ($K)

Site Preparation & Install:

Interconnect Equipment

Equipment Cost

Taxes & Permits

Set-up Cost

>TAL INITIAL COST

KM COST ($K)

xed Costs

Maintenance Cost

Insurance & Taxes

idable Cost

Electricity Cost

Cell Replacement

)TAL O&M COST

)TAL COST ($K)

scount Rate

scount Factor

scounted Total Cost

FE CYCLE COST ($K)

1 34

49

873

67

34

I 1,0571 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4

10 10 10 10 10 to 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 I

38 38 38

66 66 66 66 104 66 66 66 66 104 61 61 61 61 99 61 61 61 61 6

[ I 661 66] 661 661 1041 661 661 661 661 104 I 61] 611 611 611 991 611 611 61] 611 6

t

1070

1.01 0.91 I 0.831 0.75] 0.681 0.621 0,561 0.51 I 0.47 0.421 0.391 0.351 0.32 0.291 0.261 0.241 0.221 0.201 0.181 0.161 0.1

m,—,

A-iO

* .

II II

NOTES (information provided by AC Battery, William Nerbun, and by Omnion, Brad Roberts)A. Estimate made by AC Battery Corp. Includes cost associated with grounding grfd, concrete pad, cable ways, and fencing.B. Estimate made by AC Battery Corp. Includes cable, current and potential transformer, safety eyewash, shower, and monitor station.C. Delivered cost of equipment, estimated by AC Battery Corp.D. Estimated to be 7% of equipment and installation cost by AC Battery.E. Estimated cost for crane and crew to unpack and mount equipment, training, and connection of equipment.F. AC Battery estimates customers to incur $7 K/year for in-house maintenance and a $34 fVyear extended warranty charge.G. Estimated to be 1YOof initial equipment cost for the first 10 years and 0.5% of equipment cost in the last 10 years.H. Continuous power loss of 20 kVA in the electronic selector device @ 6 cents/kWh’= $1 0.5 Wyear. Corresponding air-conditioning foad $3K/year. HVAC cost

additional $1 .5Kfyear.I Battery replacement cost of $38K every five years.

‘ear of Operation

:APITAL COST ($K)

k.Site Preparation & Install:

1.Interconnect Equipment

:. Equipment Cost

). Taxes & Permits

:. Set-up Cost

oTAL INITIAL COST

I&M COST ($K)

ixed Costs

Maintenance Cost

i, Insurance & Taxes

‘eriable Cost

1.Electricity Cost

Cell Replacement

OTAL O&M COST

OTAL COST ($K)

Iiscount Rate

IIscount Factor

discounted Total Cost

IFE CYCLE COST ($K)

5

49

650

46

15

I 7651 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

115 15 15 15 115 15 15 15 15 115 15 15 15 15 115 15 15 15 15 1

7.6 7.6 7,6 7,6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 7.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 4.2 42 42 42 42 4150 150 150

165 64 64 64 315 64 64 64 64 315 60 60 60 60 310 60 60 60 60 t

I –i 0%1I

1.01 0,91 I 0.831 0.75] 0.681 0.621 0.56] 0.51 I 0.47] 0.421 0.39] 0.35] 0.321 0.291 0.261 0.241 0.22] 0.201 0.181 0.161 0.1

1 7651 1501 531 481 44] 1951 361 33] 301 271 1231 21! 19] 17] 16] 751 131 121 Ill Iol

m

W.& AS-2, 1+ (?@ CU’dt+ UPSPaw’1Q* Sy?k #1’1U* GA?h@f)

~ (information provided by Best Power, Chris Loeffler)

ft is assumed that the power quality system will be installed indoors in an existing building. Thus, the cost in this category is minimal. The opportunity cost of the

space occupied is considered under maintenance cost. It is estimated that additional wiring and grounding will cost $5K.

This estimate is idenficaf to that made by AC Battery. Most of the power quality suppliers require focal contractors to carry out installation.

Delivered cost of two 5-minute, 1-MVA systems was estimated to cost $300K. Paralleling equipment to cost -5oK.

Estimated to be 7?!. of equipment cost—identical to the AC Battery estimata.

Visit by a service person from equipment supplier for training & start-up. Because equipment comes in smaller containers, cost of crane and crew required for PQ2000 is not needed.

Preventive maintenance contract cost for a 220-kVA, 5-minule system was obtained. Nine such systems can be connected to achieve 2-Mw capacity. The preventive

maintenance contracts for a 220-kVA system is $16K (for 5 years) for the PCS, and $6.5K (for 5 years) for the batteries. Assuming a volume discount of 250/~

for the nine systems, the 5-year maintenance contract cost for the complete system is -$145K. In-house maintenance cost Is estimated to be -$1 OK/year.

In addition, the opportunity cost of occupying 500 square feet of indoor space is assumed to be $5 K/year.

Estimated to be 1% of initfaf equipment cost for the first 10 years and 0.5% of equipment cost in the last 10 years.

A constant parasitic loss of 4% of equipment rating is experienced by on-line systems but is lowered to 3% under economy mode of operation (line- interactive).

The parasitic fess of this system is assumed to be three times that of the PQ2000 system. This loss of 60 kVA at 6 cents/kWh h amounts to an cost of $31 .5Wyr.

The corresponding air-conditioning loads to cool equipment is $OK/year.

Battery replacement cost of $150K for a 2-MW, 5-minute battery. Battery expected to be repfaced every 5 years.

A-13

Distribution

ABB Power T&D Co., Inc.Attn: P. Danfors

16250 West Glendale DriveNew Berlin, WI 53151

American Electric Power Service Corp.Attn: C. Shih1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, OH 43215

Applied Power Corporation

Attn: Tim BallSolar Engineering1210 Homarm Drive, SELacey, WA 98503

Ascension Technology

Attn: Edward Kern

Post Office Box 6314Lincoln Center, MA 01773

Anchorage Municipal Light & PowerAttn: Meera Kohler1200 East ls’ Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99501

Bechtel Corporation

Attn: W. StokeP.O. BOX 193965

San Francisco, CA 94119-3965

Berliner Kraft und Licht (BEWAG)Attn: K. KramerStauffenbergstrasse 261000 Berlin 30

GERMANY

Business Management ConsultingAttn: S. Jabbour24704 Voorhees Drive

Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

C&D Charter Power System% Inc. (2)Attn: Dr. Sudhan S. MisraAttn: Dr. L. HoldenWashington & Cherry Sts.

Conshohocken, PA 19428

Argonne National Laboratories (2)

Attn: W. DeLucaG. Henriksen

CTD, Building 2059700 South Cass AvenueArgome, IL 60439

Arizona Public Service (2)Attn: R. Hobbs

Herb Hayden

400 North Fifth Street

P.O. BOX 53999, MS-8931

Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999

AVO InternationalAttn: Gary Markle510 Township Line Rd.Blue Bell, PA 19422

Babcock & Wilcox

Attn: Glenn Campbell

P.O. BOX 785Lynchburg, VA 24505

California State Air Resources BoardAttn: J. HolmesResearch Division

P.O. BOX2815Sacramento. CA 95812

Calpine Corp.Attn: R. Boucher

50 W. San Fernando, Ste. 550

San Jose, CA 95113

Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (2)Attn: T. LovaS

J. CooleyP.O. BOX 196300

Anchorage, AK 99519-6300

Consolidated Edison (2)

Attn: M. LebowN. Tai

4 Irving PlaceNew York, NY 10003

Corn Belt Electric CooperativeAttn: R. StackP.O. Box 816Bloomington, IL 61702

Delphi Energy and EngineManagement Systems (3)Attn: J. Michael Hinga

R. Galyen

R. RiderP.O. Box 502650Indianapolis, IN 46250

International Energy Systems, Ltd.Attn: G. BarkerChester High RoadNester, South Wirral

L64 UE UKUNITED KINGDOM

Alaska State Division Of Energy (3)Attn: P. Frisbey

P. Crump

B. Tiedeman333 West Fourth Ave, Suite 220Anchorage, AK 99501-2341

East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.Attn: M. Stanton

Deka RoadLyon Station, PA 19536

EA Technology, Ltd.Attn: J. Baker

Chester CH1 6ES

Capenhurst, England

UNITED KINGDOM

Electric Power Research Institute (3)Attn: S. Chapel

S. Eckroad

R. Schainker

P. O. BOX 10412Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813

&@e-picher ]ndus~es

Attn: J. DeGrusonC & Porter StreetJoplin, MO 64802

Electrochemical Engineering Consultants, Inc,Attn: P. Syrnons1295 Kelly Park CircleMorgan Hill, CA 95037

ElectrosourceAttn: Michael Dodge

P.O. Box7115

Loveland, CO 80537

Eltech Research CorporationAttn: Dr. E. Rudd625 East StreetFairport Harbor, OH 44077

Electrochemical Energy Storage Systems, Inc.

Attn: D. Feder

35 Ridgedaie AvenueMadison, NJ 07940

Energy Systems ConsultingAnn: A. Pivec41 Springbrook Road

Livingston, NJ 07039

Energetic, Inc. (3)

Attn: H. LowittP. Taylor

L. Charles7164 Gateway Drive

Columbia, MD 21046

Firing Circuits, Inc.Attn: J. Mills

P.O. BOX 2007Norwalk, CT 06852-2007

Energetic, Inc. (4)Attn: M. Farber

R. ScheerJ. SchillingP. DiPietro

501 School St. SW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20024

Ener=~ and Environmental Economics, Inc.Attn: Greg J. Ball353 Sacramento St., Suite 1540San Francisco, CA 94111

General Electric CompanyAttn: N. MillerBuilding 2, Room 6051 River Road

Schenectady, NY 12345

General Electric Drive SystemsAttn: D. Daly1501 Roanoke Blvd.Salem, VA 24153

.

GE Industrial& Power ServicesAttn: Bob Zrebiec

640 Freedom Business CenterKing of Prussi% PA 19046

GNB TechnologiesWorld Headquarters

Attn: S. Deshpande’

375 Northridge RoadAtkmta, GA 30350

Giner, Inc.Attn: A. LaConti

14 Spring StreetWaltham, MA 02254-9147

Hawaii Electric Light Co.Attn: C. NagataP.O. BOX 1027

Hilo, HI 96720

Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.Attn: S. Haagensen

Box 71249758 Illinois StreetFairbanks, AK 99701

ILZRO (3)

Attn: J. ColeP. Moseley

C. ParkerP.O. BOX 12036Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

GNB Technologies (4)

Industrial Battery Company

Attn: G. HuntJ. %zymborski

R. MarescaJ. Boehm

Woodlake CoWorate Park

829 Parkview Blvd.Lombard, IL 60148-3249

Imperial Oil Resources, Ltd.

Attn: R. Myers

3535 Research Rd NW

Calgary, Alberta

CANADA T2L 2K8

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (3)Attn: E. Cairns

K. KinoshitaF. McLamon

University of California

One Cyclotron RoadBerkeley, CA 94720

Innovative Power Sources

AttrK Ken Belfer1419 Via Jon Jose Road

Alamo, CA 94507

Longitude 122 West

Attn: S. Schoenung1241 Hobart St.

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Lucent TechnologiesAttn: C. Mak3000 SkyIine Drive

Mesquite, TX 75149

Lucent Technologies, Inc.At&I: J. MorabitoDirector, Global Research and DevelopmentP.O. BOX 636600 Mountain AvenueMurray Hill, NJ 07974-0636

Metlakatla Power& LightAttn: H. Achenbach

P.O. Box 359Metlakatlaj AK 99926

Micron CorporationAttn: D. Nowack

158 Orchard LaneWhchester, TN 37398

ZBB Technologies, LTD.Attn: Robert J. Parry

Managing Director16 Emerald Tee.West PerthWestern Australia 6005

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (6)

Attn: L. FlowersJ. Green

S. Hock

R. DeBlasioB. StaffordH. Thomas

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

New York Power Authority

Attn: B. Chezar

1633 BroadwayNew York, NY 10019

NC Solar CenterAttn: Bill BrooksComer of German and WesternBox 7401 NCSURaleigh, NC 27695-740

Northern States PowerAttn: D. Zum414 Nicollet MallMinneapolis, MN 55401

NPA TechnologyAttn: Jack Brown

Suite 700, Two University Place

Durham, NC 27707

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (3)Attn: B. Hawsey, Bldg. 3025, MS-6040

J. Stoval, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070

J. VanCoevering, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070B. Kirby, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070

P.O. BOX2008

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Public Service Company of New MexicoAttn: J. NealManager, Premium Power ServicesAlvarado Square MS-BA52

Albuquerque, NM 87158

PEPCOAttn: Brad Johnson1900 Pennsylvania NWWashington, DC 20068

Oglethorpe Power CompanyAttn: C. Ward

2100 E. Exchange Place

P.0, Box 1349

Tucker, GA 30085-1349

Chief Technology Of%cerAttn: Robert Wills

Advanced Energy SystemsRiverview Mill

Post OffIce Box 262Wilton, NH 0308

Omnion Power Engineering CorporationAttn: H. Meyer2010 Energy DriveP.O. BOX 879

East Troy, WI 53120

Orion Energy Corp.Attn: Doug Danley10087 Tyler Place #5

Ijamsville, MD 21754

Public Service Company of New Mexico

Attn: R. F]ynnSenior Vice PresidentAlvarado Square MS-2838


International Business and TechnologyServices Inc.

Attn: J. NealAdministrator Research and Development

9220 Tayloes Neck Rd.Nanjemoy, MD 20662

Gridwise Engineering CompanyAttn: B. Norris

121 Starlight PlaceDanville, CA 94526

Pacific Northwest Laboratory (2)Ann: J. DeSteese, K5-02

D. BrownBattelle Blvd.

Richkmd, WA 99352

Power Technologies, Inc.Attn: P. Prabhakara1482 Erie Blvd.P.O. BOX 1058

Schenectady, NY 12301

Puerto Rico Electric Power AuthorityAnn: W. Torres

G.P.O. BOX 4267San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-426

Solar Electric Specialists Co.Mr. Jim Trotter232-Anacapa St.

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

ENERTECAttn: D. Butler

349 Coronation DriveAuchenflower, Queensland, 4066P.O. Box 1139 Milton BC Qld 4064

AUSTR4LIA

Southern Company Services, Inc. (2)Research and Environmental Affairs14N-8195Attn: B. R. Rauhe, Jr.

K. Vakhshoorzadeh600 North 18* StreetP.O. BOX 2625

Birmingham, AI 35202-2625

Trace Technologies (2)

Attn: Michael Behnke

W. Erdman6952 Preston Avenue

Livermore, CA 94550

TRACE EngineeringAttn: B. RoppeneckerPresident5916 195* NortheastArlington, Washington 98223

RMS CompanyAttn: K. Ferris87 Martling Ave.Pleasantville, NY 10570

Powercell Corporation (2)Attn: Reznor I. Orr

Rick Winter101 Main Street Suite 9

Cambridge, MA 02142-1519

Raytheon Engineers and ConstructorsAttn: A. Randall700 South Ash St.

P.O. BOX 5888Denver, CO 80217

Siemens SolarAttn: Clay Aldrich4650 Adohn Lane

Post Office Box 6032

Camarillo, CA 93011

R&D AssociatesAttn: J. Thompson

2100 Washington Blvd,Arlington, VA 22204-5706

California Energy CommissionAttn: Jon Edwards

1516 Ninth Street, MS-46

Sacramento, CA 95814

Sentech, Inc. (2)Ann: R. Sen

K. Klunder4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608

Bethesda, MD 20814

Sentech, Inc.Attn: Robert Reeves

9 Eaton RoadTroy, NY 12180

Santa Clara UniversityAttn: Charles Feinstein, Ph.D.

Deparbnent of Decision and InformationSciencesLeavey School of Business andAdministrationSanta Clara, CA 95053

SAFT Research& Dev. Ctr.Attn: Guy Chagnon

107 Beaver CourtCockeysville, MD 21030

Sa[t River Project (2)

Attn: H. LundstromG.E. “Ernie” Palomino, P.E.

MS PAB 357, BOX 52025

Phoenix, AZ 850’72-2025

Southern California EdisonAttn: R. N. Schweinberg6070 N. Irwindale Ave., Suite IIrwindale, CA 91702

Soft Switching Technologies

Attn: D. Divan2224 Evergreen Rd., Ste. 6Middleton, WI 53562

Solarex

Attn: G. Braun630 Solarex CourtFrederick, MD 21701

The Solar Connection

Attn: Michael OriansP.O. BOX 1138

Morro Bay, CA 93443

Trojan Battery CompanyAttn: Jim DriZOS12380-Clark StreetSanta Fe Springs, CA 90670

U.S. Department of Energy

Attn: C. PlattEE-12 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: K. Heitner

Office of Transportation TechnologiesEE-32 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: R. BrewerEE-10 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

SEIAAttn: S. Sklar122 C Street NW41hFloor

Washington, DC 20001-2104

SRI International

Attn: C. Seitz

333 Ravenswood Ave.Menlo Park, CA 94025

Stored Energy Engineering (2)

Attn: George ZinkJ.R. Bish

7601 E. 88* PlaceIndianapolis, IN 46256

Stuart Kuritzky

347 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10017

Superconductivity, Inc. (2)Attn: Jennifer Billman

Michael GravelyP.O. BOX56074

Madison, WI 53705-4374

Switch Technologies

Attn: J. Hurwitch4733 Bethesda Ave., Ste. 608

Bethesda, MD 20814

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: P. PatilOffice of Transportation TechnologiesEE-32 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: T. Duong

EE-32 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: J. DaleyEE- 12 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: A. JelacicEE-12 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

,*

a


Attn: N. RossmeisslEE-13 FORSTL

Washington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttm Jim RannelsPhotovoltaic ProgramEE-11 FORSTL1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20585-0121


Attn: J. P. ArchibaldEE-90 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttri: M. B. GinsbergEE-90 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585


Attn: G. BuckingharnAlbuquerque Operations OffIce

Technology Development DivisionP.O. Box 5400


TU ElectricR&D ProgramsAttn: James FangueP.O. Box 970Fort Worth, TX 76101

University of Missouri - RollsAttn: M. Anderson112 Electrical Engineering BuildingRoll% MO 65401-0249

U.S. Department of EnergAttn: R. EynonNuclear and Electrical Analysis Branch

EI-821 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

R. Weaver777 Wildwood LanePalo Alto, CA 94303


Attn: A. Hoffi’nanOffIce of Utility TechnologiesEE-10 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Navy

Attn: Wayne TaylorCode 83 BOOODChina Lake, CA 93555

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: A. G. CrawleyEE-90 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: P. N. OverholtEE-11 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: J. CadoganEE-11 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585

U.S. Department of Commerce

Attn: Dr. Gerald P. Ceasar

Building 101, Rm 623Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Virginia Power

Attn: Gary VemoInnsbrook Technical Center

5000 Dominion BoulevardGlen Ellen, VA 23233

Walt Disney World Design and Eng’g.

Attn: Randy BevinP.O. Box 10,000Lake Buena Visa FL 32830-1000

Yuas~ Inc. (3)

Attn: N. MagrnniF. Tarantino

G. CookP.O. Box 141452366 Bemville Road

Reading, PA 19612-4145

The Technology Group, Inc.

Attn: Tom Anyos63 Linden Ave.Atherton, CA 94027-2161

ZBB Technologies, Inc.

Attn: P. Eidler11607 West Dearborn ‘Wauwatosa, Wl 53226-3961


Am: R. EatonGolden Field OffIce

1617 Cole Blvd.

Building 17Golden, CO 80401

ECG Consulting Group, inc.Attn: Daniel R. Bruck

Senior Associate55-6 Woodlake Road

Albany, NY 12203

Westinghouse

Attn: Tom MattyP.O. BOX 17230Baltimore, MD 21023

Westinghouse STC

Attn: H. Saunders1310 Beulah RoadPittsburgh, PA 15235

W. R. Grace& Company

Attn: S. Strzempko62 Whittemore AvenueCambridge, MA 02140

Yuasa-Exide, Inc.

Attn: R. Kristiansen

35 Loch Lomond LaneMiddleton, NY 10941-1421

Crescent EMCAttn: R. B. S1oanExecutive Vice President

P.O. BOX 1831Statesville, NC 28687

HL&P Energy Services

Attn: George H. Nolin, CEM, P.E.Product Manager Premium Power ServicesP.O. Box 4300Houston, TX 77210-4300

UFTOAttn: Edward Beardsworth

951 Lincoln Ave.Palo Alto, CA 94301-3041

Distributed Utility AssociatesAttn: Joseph Iannucci1062 Concarmon Blvd.Livermore, CA 94550

SAFT Americ~ Inc.Attn: Oie Vigerstoi

National Sales Manager711 Industrial Blvd.Valdosta, GA 13601

Westinghouse Electric Corporation *

Attn: Gerald J. KeaneManager, Venture DevelopmentEnergy Management Division4400 Alafaya Trail

9

Orlando. FL 32826-2399

The Brattle GroupAttn: Thomas J. Jenkin44 Brattle Street

Cambridge, MA 02138-3736

Exide Electronics

Attn: John Breckenridge

Director, Federal Systems Division8609 Six Forks RoadRaleigh, NC 27615

Northern States Power CompanyAttn: Gary G. Kam, P.E.

Consultant Electric Services1518 Chestnut Avenue North

Mimeapolis, MN 55403

Frost & Sullivan (2)

Attn: Steven KraflDave Coleman

2525 Charleston Road

Mountain View, CA 94043

C&D PowercomAttn: Larry S, MeisnerManager Product Marketing1400 Union Meeting RoadP.O. Box 3053Blue Bell, PA 19422-0858

Tampa Electric CompanyAttn: Tern Hensley, Engineer

P.O. Box 11I

Tarnpa, FL 33601-0111

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: R. J. KingEE-11 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585


Attn: A. O. BulawkaEE-11 FORSTL


American Superconductor CorporationAttn: S. Amanda Chiu, P.E.Manager, Strategic MarketingTwo Technology DriveWestborough, MAO 1581

University of Texas at Austin

Attn: John H. Price

Research Associate

Center for ElectromechanicsJ. J. Pickel Research CampusMail Code R7000Austin, TX 78712

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: W. Butler

PA-3 FORSTLWashington, DC 20585


Attn: J. A. Mazer


VEDCO EnergyAttn: Rick Ubaldi

12 Agatha LaneWayne, New Jersey 07470

Intercon Limited (2)Attn: David Warar6865 Lincoln AvenueLincoh-iwood, IL 60646

Utility Photovoltaic GroupAttn: Steve Hester1800 M Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036-5802

U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: P. Maupin

ER-14G-3431GTNGermantown, MD 20874-1290

MS-0513, R. Eagan (1000)MS-0953, W.E.Alzheimer(1500)MS-0953, J.T. Cutchen (1501)MS-0741, S. Vamado (6200)MS-0212, A. Phillips, (10230)MS-0340, J.Braithwaite(1832)MS-0343, W. Cieslak (1832)

MS-06 13, A. Akhil (1525)

MS-0613, D. Doughty (1521)

Southern California EdisonAttn: N. PinskyP.O. BOX 800-2244 Walnut Grove Ave., Rm418Rosemead, CA 91770


Attn: D. T. Ton

EE-11 FORSTL


U.S. Department of EnergyAttn: J. Galdo


Queensland Department of Mines and Energy

Attn: N. Lindsay

Senior Project OfficerEnergy Planning DivisionGPO Box 194 Brisbane 4001, Qld. Australia

Utility Power GroupAttn: Mike Stem

9410-G DeSoto Avenue

Chatsworth, CA 91311-4947

Amber Gray-Fenner7204 Marigot Rd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87120

ABB Power T&D Company, Inc.Attn: H. Weinerich

1460 Livingston AvenueNorth Brunswick, New Jersey

MS-0613, G. Corey (1525)

MS-0614, G.P. Rodriguez, (1 523)

MS-0613, 1. Francis (1525)MS-0614, J.T. Crow (1523)MS-0614, T. Unkelhaeuser (1523)MS-0614, D. Mitchell (1522)MS-0614, K. Grothaus (1523)MS-0613, N. Clark (1525)MS-0613 R. Jungst (1521)

MS-0704, P.C, Klimas (6201)

MS-0708, H. Dodd (6214)MS-0752, M. Tatro (6219)MS-0753, C. Cameron (6218)

MS-0753, R. BOM (6218)MS-0753, T. Hund (621 8)MS-0753, W. Bower (6218)MS-1 193, D. Rovang (953 1)MS-0614, A Jitnenez (1523)

MS-0537, S. Atcitty (23 14)MS-0613, J.D. GuiIlen (1525)

MS-9403, Jim Wang (8713)

MS-0613, P. Butler (1525) (20)MS-0619, Review & Approval Desk For DOE/OSTI (12690) (2)MS-0899, Technical Library (4916) (2)MS-90 18, Central Technical Files (8940-2)

battery energy storage systems life cycle costs case studiesdvr emc esd gto lcc mp&l o&m...

Documents