Dale, Shane (2023) Balanced, controllable, distributed BESS, to assist with counteracting renewable generation fluctuations. [USQ Project]
![[img]](https://sear.unisq.edu.au/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (Project – redacted)
Dale_S_Helwig1_Redacted.pdf Download (2MB) |
Abstract
Given the increased investment in grid connected battery energy storage systems, that are controlled to minimise fluctuations in renewal generation, for grid stabilisation, could a 150 MW BESS be instead installed as distributed 5 kW installations, spread across 30,000 domestic and/or commercial properties, controlled in a similar manner to a battery farm, whilst delivering an individual profit comparable to the single installation? Mathematical modelling of history data from the 150 MW Hornsdale Power Reserve for the 2022 year, scaled to single 5 kW system, calculated with the AMEO price history, is used to determine an estimated annual income for the 2022 year. The estimated annual income for 2022 was extrapolated to evaluate the profitability of a standalone battery inverter system over it's warranted (serviceable) life. Which determined that the proposed design is not commercially profitable, as it does not return the capital investment cost within five years. It will return the initial cost in approximately eleven years, reliant on the additional five year or total of 15 year conditional factory warranty.
Lithium-ion is the standard battery chemistry for commercially sold products of this nature. Is there an alternative battery chemistry, that has a lower environmental impact at end of serviceable life, without compromising on serviceable performance? Using HOMER Pro, simulated a comparison between lithium-ion and lithium iron phosphate battery energy storage systems, with modelling based on history operating data captured from the 150 MW Hornsdale Power Reserve, to determine a superior battery chemistry for purpose. Simulation shows that lithium iron phosphate consistently maintains a higher average state of charge, peaking at twice the average monthly state of charge percentage, when compared to lithium-ion in December, however also has a 37% higher rate of storage depletion and losses. Literature review demonstrated lithium-iron phosphate to be the superior option environmentally, as there are no toxic materials after recycling of the battery at end of serviceable life, unlike both lithium-ion and lead acid.
Despite all of these factors, including improved performance over a shorter timeframe and environmental benefits that could be obtained through a change from lithium-ion battery chemistry, the benefits do not equate to an increase in profitability.
|
Statistics for this ePrint Item |
| Item Type: | USQ Project |
|---|---|
| Item Status: | Live Archive |
| Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: | Current – Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences - School of Engineering (1 Jan 2022 -) |
| Supervisors: | Helwig, Andreas |
| Qualification: | Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) (Electrical and Electronic) |
| Date Deposited: | 30 Sep 2025 03:55 |
| Last Modified: | 30 Sep 2025 03:55 |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | lithium-ion; renewable generation |
| URI: | https://sear.unisq.edu.au/id/eprint/52975 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Archive Repository Staff Only |
