Arevon fires up the first solar + storage peaker plant in the U.S.
Could solar-powered peaker plants eventually replace the need for thermal ones? The idea has been kicking around for a few years, and now proponents of the concept are celebrating a major milestone.
Renewable energy developer, owner, and operator Arevon Energy has started commercial operations at its $529 million Vikings Solar-plus-Storage Project in Imperial County, California, believed to be the first utility-scale solar peaker plant in the United States. Its very existence contradicts the notion that renewable energy is inherently unreliable, instead providing carbon-free electricity at specific times of critical need to support the grid and empower ratepayers.
The specs
Vikings will utilize a 157 megawatt (MW) solar array paired with 150 MW/600 MWh of battery energy storage to shift low-cost daytime solar energy to higher-cost peak demand periods, lowering the cost of electricity for nearly one million customers of San Diego Community Power, the project’s offtaker. The companies have also executed a commercial agreement for Arevon’s 200 MW Avocet Energy Storage Project located in the City of Carson, California, which is expected to start construction in early 2025.
Vikings’ battery storage system can rapidly adjust capacity in seconds to address changes in demand. The project features key components from domestic manufacturers, leveraging incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act to maximize value. They include Megapack battery energy storage systems manufactured by Tesla in Lathrop, CA, First Solar thin-film photovoltaic solar panels, and Nextracker smart solar trackers. San Diego-headquartered SOLV Energy led the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC).
“Vikings’ advanced design sets the standard for safe and reliable solar-plus-storage configurations,” said Kevin Smith, Arevon’s chief executive officer at last week’s ribbon cutting. “Its completion marks a significant milestone for Arevon.”
Typically, hybrid projects serve load when the sun is up and store the excess generation in their battery. That energy is then discharged in the evening during peak demand.
600 MWh / 150 MW = 4 hours of energy storage.
What happens if the period of high power demand lasts longer than 4 hours? Whose electricity gets shut off because the peaker plant doesn’t have any more juice in the battery?
No body gets their power shut off. These people are not stupid, and they do know how to run their peaking system. Most times peaking power is need when there is more demand during early evening. These peaks do not last more than a couple of hours. Utilities make more money on these peaks, so having batteries is much more economical than burning expensive natural gas to generate peak power as is currently done in the industry.
Construction costs would appear to be quite a bit higher than a natural gas power plant. The battery/solar plant cost $530 million. At 150 MW, that is $3.5 million per MW, or $3,500/kW. IIRC, a nat gas plant costs about $1,000/kW which makes this plant over three times more expensive.
True, but a cost differential of just under $400 million will buy you a lot of nat gas. In addition, we are talking peaker plant which means natural gas would only be needed for those same few hours a day as the batteries could service. The breakeven/payback time has to considerable.
Along with the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), the EIA also has numbers for the Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS). These costs are given in dollars per MWh of electricity, which is how you pay your monthly utility bill. It also takes into account fuel costs, maintenance and operating costs, as well as capital construction costs.
From Table 1b (page 9 of the pdf):
Total LCOE and LCOS
Natural Gas Combined Cycle: $39.94 per MWh
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine: $117.86/MWh
Battery Storage: $128.55/MWh
I am hesitant to post these figures, since the calculations can be easily manipulated to make one type of technology look good, and another type of technology look bad. For instance, the capacity factors used in the calculations (as shown on Table 1b) are 41% for onshore wind and 29% for solar. In reality, the capacity factors are 33% for wind (overall) and solar PV is actually 23% . These are the latest full-year capacity factors given.
Overestimating the capacity factors gives wind and solar lower LCOEs. There are other ways they have manipulated the calculations to make nuclear (for instance) look more expensive than it should. But, for what is it worth, you can look at what the EIA says the costs are.