Battery Energy Storage Systems for Frequency
Regulation: Simplified Aging Evaluation
S. Canevese*, A. Gatti*, E. Micolano**, L. Pellegrino**, and M. Rapizza*
* Development of Energy Systems Dept., RSE S.p.A., Milan, (Italy)
** Materials and Generation Technologies Dept., RSE S.p.A., Milan, (Italy)
Abstract—The increasing exploitation of Renewable
Energy Sources (RES) is progressively displacing large
conventional power plants, thus reducing system operating
reserves and stability margins. Therefore new resources for
ancillary service provision are needed. Very fast and flexible
response capabilities make Battery Energy Storage Systems
(BESS) good candidates to this purpose. However, the
related cycling operation may cause early performance
degradation due to battery aging. Here, attention is focused
on primary and secondary frequency regulation by a BESS,
in a stand-alone configuration or supporting a RES-based
plant. The BESS response to the measured frequency error
and to the secondary control signal in mainland Italy is
simulated, in terms of power and energy exchanges and
State of Charge (SoC) dynamics. A simplified method is
proposed to evaluate battery aging due to such operation:
starting from typical characteristic curves Maximum
number of cycles to end of life versus Depth of Discharge
(DoD), a weighted average DoD, accounting for the actual
SoC transient, is computed; the battery expected life is the
ratio of the maximum number of cycles and the actual
number of partial cycles done, both evaluated at the average
DoD. This lifetime is finally compared to the BESS
investment pay-back period.
Index Terms--battery aging, battery energy storage
system, frequency regulation, number of cycles.
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years power system operation and planning
have been impacted by the significant increase of
generators based on Renewable Energy Sources (RES).
Such generators, often characterized by high production
variability and forecast uncertainty and by low or null
mechanical inertia, are displacing large conventional
power plants, which have always supplied power reserves
for Ancillary Services (AS). Besides, RES generators are
not usually required to supply AS, such as frequency
and/or voltage regulation, balancing, congestion relief.
Therefore, increased operating reserve requirements are
needed from dispatched conventional power plants left,
which are more and more stressed as they strive to
provide flexible AS.
In some countries [1]-[2], RES generators, e.g. wind
power plants, have already started to provide AS, also in
This work has been financed by the Research Fund for the Italian
Electrical System under the Contract Agreement between RSE S.p.A.
and the Ministry of Economic Development - General Directorate for
Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy and Energy Eƥciency in
compliance with the Decree of March 8, 2006.
978-1-5090-4682-9/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
normal operating conditions. Alternatively, such services
could be supplied by new kinds of resources, such as
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). These could
operate either in a stand-alone mode [3]-[5] or supply AS
partially, if not completely, in place of RES-based
generators themselves [6], thus enabling them to
participate in the AS, or of conventional power plants [7],
thus relieving their requirements. Anyway, services
involving active power exchanges, such as primary and
secondary frequency regulation, may require continuous
operation with differently wide and fast power excursions
(both upward and downward). This kind of operation may
be very distant from the reference slow full cycles of
BESS datasheets, since it implies differently wide and
fast variations of the battery State of Charge (SoC); these,
in turn, may seriously impact the battery charge/discharge
processes and consequently its aging. Aging is also
relevant from an economic point of view: although
decreasing, BESS costs are currently too high for an
immediate large-scale spread of such technologies:
investment Pay-Back Period (PBP) values are still of
several years in many applications [8]-[10].
Aging mechanisms and causes have been studied and
described according to different approaches, ranging from
mechanism models to statistical methods [11]-[12]. Some
semi-empirical models, in particular, are based on
extensive testing campaigns [13]-[14], carried out on
battery modules for instance, aimed at inquiring, and
expressing by means of correlations, the dependency of
calendar and cycle aging on sets of variables related to
the operating conditions, including temperature, voltage
level, charge and discharge rate, average SoC, Depth of
Discharge (DoD). Such models are rather accurate, but
they may be complex to employ, because they require
very precise knowledge of the individual BESS
technology technical data, and also of the operating
conditions for which they hold. Therefore, it can be
useful to search for simple, although approximate,
methods for one-shot aging evaluation, to assess the
overall long-term effects of cycling. In particular, the
number of equivalent cycles done due to actual operation
can be estimated and compared to the maximum number
of cycles allowed for a BESS technology.
In this work, the services under investigation are the
combination of Primary Frequency Regulation (PFR) and
Secondary Frequency Regulation (SFR) [15], and SFR
291
alone, with particular reference to the Italian regulatory
framework. Section II. supplies some details about the
two regulations and the adopted BESS model. Section III.
proposes a simplified method to estimate the actual
number of partial charges/discharges done and the battery
life, by starting from characteristic curves relating the
maximum number of cycles to reach the End Of Life
(EOL) and the DoD. Section IV. describes the
simulations of the mentioned services, for a stand-alone
BESS and for a BESS coupled with a (PV or wind) RES
plant; results are reported in terms of energy exchanges
with the grid and of battery life, which is also compared
to the PBP. Some conclusions are drawn in Section V.
II. FREQUENCY REGULATIONS BY A BESS
The response of a BESS to PFR and SFR requests is
simulated here in open loop [15], since the related power
exchanges are negligible compared to the system overall
power. PFR requests are modeled like those for
conventional power plants [16], namely as a power set-
point variation obtained from a droop characteristic with
a dead-band around the reference frequency f0 (50 Hz
here). Similarly, SFR is provided with reference to a
power set-point variation, computed from a normalized
per cent level signal L% issued by a PI centralized grid
controller and sent to all participating units.
A simplified dynamic model is employed to describe
the SoC changes due to power exchanges related to the
two regulations and to a SoC management strategy
aiming at restoring it within a target range [SoCtgt,min,
SoCtgt,max]: when power variation requests from the
regulations are zero, and if the SoC is outside the range,
the BESS absorbs power (Prest,ch) from the grid or injects
power (-Prest,disch) into the grid.
III. EVALUATION OF BATTERY EXPECTED LIFE
Battery aging leads to a decrease of energy capacity
(and, to a smaller extent, of power capacity) with the
passing of time. The degradation rate is a nonlinear
function of stress factors including cell temperature,
charging/discharging rate, time, and also of the current
state of life itself [17], [11]. Here, we neglect calendar
aging and focus on cycling aging, in this case due to the
accomplishment of the services, and of the SoC
restoration process if present. Overall, cycling aging [17]
can be expressed as a function of the average SoC, cell
temperature and DoD in each cycle. Charging/
discharging rate [11] is neglected here, because its effect
on energy capacity fade is only few per cents if a battery
is not operated at full power regimes. In the presence of
an effective air temperature conditioning system, one can
also assume nearly constant cell temperature, thus neglect
its effects on aging. The effects of the average SoC on
battery life are neglected here as well, for simplicity, but
they should be inquired in future work. Summing up,
DoD effects only, as a first approximation, are analyzed
here. As a final remark, the method reliability is planned
292
to be tested against experimental results as future work.
For each battery technology, curves are available in
the literature relating the maximum number of cycles
which can be done to the DoD of the cycles: nmax(DoD).
Let En be the BESS nominal energy, T the time
interval under study, in years, and Ed the total energy
discharged in T due to the BESS operation. If the DoD
were always 1, then Ed/En would be the number of
equivalent whole half-cycles done in T and the BESS
would last nmax(1)T/(Ed/En) years (nmax(1) is the maximum
number of cycles allowed for DoD = 1). The average
DoD of the actual cycles done, however, is not equal to 1
in general. It can be estimated simply as follows, to
derive a more accurate life estimate.
Let DoDi be the DoD associated to the i-th partial half-
cycle, i.e. associated to SoC monotonic variation due to
the i-th continuous absorption or continuous injection of
energy by the BESS. When injection or absorption,
respectively, starts, the next, (i+1)-th partial half-cycle
begins, to which DoDi+1 is associated. Correspondingly,
on the nmax(DoD) characteristic, one can read that the
maximum number of partial cycles which can be done at
DoDi is nmax,i = nmax(DoDi), and the maximum number of
partial cycles which can be done at DoDi+1 is nmax,i+1 =
nmax(DoDi+1). Let N be the number of partial half-cycles
carried out over the reference time interval T. Then, the
expected maximum number of cycles which can be done
is here estimated as the weighted average
(¦ ) (¦ )
N N
nmax,exp = n
i =1 max,i
DoDi i =1
DoDi , (1)
The expected average DoD is the DoD corresponding
to nmax,exp on the nmax versus DoD characteristic curve:
DoDavg = arg( nmax,exp ) . (2)
Finally, neq = Ed /(DoDavg  En) is the equivalent number
of discharge cycles done at DoDavg in time T. Therefore,
the BESS is expected to last ny = nmax,exp /(neq/T) years.
Three BESS technologies are considered here: the
Sodium-Sulfur (later “NaS”), the Lithium-Ion (“Li”) and
the Sodium-Nickel-Chloride one (“NaNiCl2”). The
described computation is carried out for each of them,
starting from the SoC profiles obtained in the service
simulations, without and with SoC restoration strategy.
The adopted nmax(DoD) curves are reported in Fig. 1. To
be precise, for the NaS BESS, an analytic expression
approximating experimental points is adopted [18]:
7
10
Maximum number of cycles to EOL [-]
NaS
Li
6 NaNiCl2
10
5
10
4
10
10
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
DoD [-]
Fig. 1. Maximum number of cycles versus DoD curves adopted.
 nmax = 1.978 ⋅ 106 ⋅ DoD −1.73 + 3101 ; (3) obtained by dividing the maximum number of cycles at
DoD 1 by the number of equivalent full cycles.
for the Li BESS, to gain sensitivity without sticking to a The aging results are finally compared with the PBP,
particular technology, the geometric average between the i.e. the number of years necessary to recover the
LMO and the LiFePO4 curves reported in [17] is used; for investment costs thanks to the net revenues obtained from
the NaNiCl2 BESS, the curve reported in [19] is used. the regulations (combined with SoC restoration, if
present). The cost of each BESS is computed from unit
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS costs (reported in TABLE III. ) as
AS simulations here refer to the mainland Italian area
CMW ,BESS Pn + CMWh ,BESS En , BESS = Li, NaS , NaNiCl2 , (4)
(continental Italy), from 1st June to 20th December 2015.
For this 29-week (T = 29/52 y) time interval, system where the MW costs are for the power conversion
frequency data are available with 0.1 s sampling interval, system, the power control system and the balance of plant
and the secondary grid controller output signal L% with a equipment, and the MWh costs are for the battery and the
1 min sampling interval. Hourly renewable generation installation; fixed O&M costs are neglected here, for
curves are adopted for a 10 MW wind power plant and a simplicity. Unit costs have been derived by elaborating
10 MW PV plant. Two main study cases are considered, the values reported in [5] and [20]. Net revenues are
for a stand-alone BESS and a BESS coupled with a (PV computed by applying to the BESS the present Italian
or wind) RES plant, and with BESS rated active power Pn PFR remuneration scheme for conventional power plants,
depending on the service(s): imbalance rules for non-eligible units as to SoC
A) combination of PFR and SFR [15]: four (for restoration exchanges, and market rules for SFR, as
stand-alone BESS) plus four (for coupled BESS) described in [15]. Different values of the energy prices
values of Pn are considered (see TABLE I. ). Pn are considered for the SFR exchanges (the prices for PFR
is here the sum of the PFR and SFR Half-Bands and for SoC restoration are kept the same), for each
(HBs). In each of the four cases, the proportion quarter of an hour: i) the average price of upward SFR
of the two HBs is different. and the average price of downward SFR; ii) the maximal
B) SFR only: BESS Pn is equal to the SFR Half- price of upward SFR and the maximal price of downward
Band only, as reported in TABLE II. SFR; iii) the minimal price of upward SFR and the
A PFR droop characteristic with a ±20 mHz dead-band minimal price of downward SFR; iv) the maximal prices
is adopted, and with the whole ±HBPR_BESS reserve of upward SFR and the minimal price of downward SFR,
requested for ±100 mHz maximum frequency deviation. v) the minimal price of upward SFR and the maximal
For the NaS, Li and NaNiCl2 BESS respectively, price of downward SFR. The PBP is computed for each
typical values are assumed for the En/Pn ratio: 7.5 h, 2 h of these five price schemes, referred to as “avg”, “max”,
and 3 h; the adopted values for charging and discharging “min”, “max min”, “min max” scheme respectively.
efficiencies (assumed to be equal to each other, for
TABLE I. BESS SIZING IN PFR+SFR ANALYSES: BESS RATED
simplicity: ηch = ηdisch) are 0.866, 0.922 and 0.922 (the POWER PN AS THE SUM OF PFR AND SFR HALF-BANDS (PN,RES = 10 MW)
former two are according to state-of-the-art technologies, Stand-Alone BESS
Simul. Nr PFR HB: HBPR_BESS SFR HB: HBSR_BESS Pn [MW]
the latter one is according to foreseen technological 1 1.5% Pn,RES 6% Pn,RES 0.75
improvements). The values Prest,ch = Prest,disch = 20% Pn, 2 1.5% Pn,RES 15% Pn,RES 1.65
[SoCtgt,min,SoCtgt,max] = [0.4,0.6] are adopted for the SoC 3 10% Pn,RES 6% Pn,RES 1.6
restoration strategy. Initial SoC is set to 0. 4 10% Pn,RES 15% Pn,RES 2.5
BESS Coupled with a RES Plant
In each simulation, BESS absorption and injection PFR HB: HB1_PR_BESS + SFR HB: HB1_SR_BESS +
Simul. Nr Pn [MW]
energy exchanges with the grid are computed: 1) PFR HB2_PR_BESS HB2_SR_BESS
and/or SFR requests; 2) regulation requests actually 5 1.5% Pn +1.5% Pn,RES 6% Pn+6% Pn,RES 0.82
6 1.5% Pn +1.5% Pn,RES 15% Pn+15% Pn,RES 1.98
accomplished by the BESS; 3) regulation requests which 7 10% Pn +10% Pn,RES 6% Pn+6% Pn,RES 1.91
cannot be accomplished, due to SoC saturation to 1 or 0, 8 10% Pn+10% Pn,RES 15% Pn+15% Pn,RES 3.34
and so which are completely or partially “lost” for
TABLE II. BESS SIZING IN SFR ANALYSES: BESS RATED POWER
regulation purposes; 4) SoC restoration. PN COINCIDES WITH THE SFR HALF-BAND (PN,RES = 10 MW)
Besides, from the obtained SoC time profile, the Stand-Alone BESS
average DoD (DoDavg) and the equivalent number of Simul. Nr SFR HB: HBSR_BESS Pn [MW]
9 15% Pn,RES 1.5
partial discharge cycles done over the 29 weeks (neq) are BESS Coupled with a RES Plant
determined (see Section III. ), together with the number Simul. Nr SFR HB: HB1_SR_BESS + HB2_SR_BESS Pn [MW]
of years that the BESS is expected to last (ny). Then, neq 10 15% Pn+15% Pn,RES 1.77
can be compared to the number of equivalent full cycles,
TABLE III. BESS UNIT COSTS
obtained by dividing the overall energy discharged by the CMW,Li CMWh,Li CMW,NaS CMWh,NaS CMW,NaNiCl2 CMWh,NaNiCl2
BESS by the BESS En, i.e. as if the DoD were always 1. [M¼/MW] [M¼/MWh] [M¼/MW] [M¼/MWh] [M¼/MW] [M¼/MWh]
Similarly, the BESS life ny can be compared to the life 0.442 0.9946 0.38775 0.3883 0.426 0.8497

293
A. Combination of PFR and SFR
The three BESS technologies chosen are simulated in
each of the three considered configurations – stand-alone
BESS, BESS + a PV plant, BESS + a wind plant – both
without and with the SoC restoration mechanism. In case
a RES plant is present, PFR and SFR are activated only
when its power production PRES • 10% Pn,RES, where
Pn,RES =10 MW is its nominal power. If the BESS cannot
accomplish a downward request completely, then a
request is sent to the plant to supply the power variation
left which the BESS cannot carry out (this is why the
threshold has been introduced); upward requests, instead,
are assumed not to be allowed for the RES plant.
Detailed results about energy exchanges can be found
in [15] (although for the Li and NaS technologies only).
In synthesis, the energy exchanges carried out for SFR
are in the range 425-1400 Pn h for a stand-alone BESS,
166-665 Pn h for a BESS coupled with a RES plant, while
the ones carried out for PFR are in the range 7-56 Pn h for
a stand-alone BESS and 2-22 Pn h for a BESS coupled
with a RES plant. Therefore, for a stand-alone BESS, the
exchanges actually carried out for SFR only and for PFR
only, respectively, are 2-3 times and 4-5 times the ones
actually carried out if the BESS is coupled with a RES
plant, due to the PRES,min threshold, because the BESS is
then requested to regulate for about half the time.
Comparing the two services, the energy exchanged for
SFR is about 25-60 times the one exchanged for PFR in
the stand-alone cases, about 30-80 times in the coupled
cases; on the whole, on average, the energy exchanged
for SFR is about 50 times the one exchanged for PFR.
The exchanges for SoC restoration are not relevant (some
Pn h) for a stand-alone BESS, but they are not negligible
if the BESS is coupled with a RES plant (20-105 Pn h for
the NaS cases, 15-50 Pn h for the Li ones, 15-75 Pn h for
the NaNiCl2 ones); charge and discharge for SoC
restoration amount each to some per cents of the total
much longer life than for the stand-alone BESS, again
due to the PRES,min threshold; this fact, anyway, is not
emphasized for NaNiCl2 in the average DoD approach,
for the same reason as before about the nmax(DoD) curve.
The PBP is shown in Fig. 3, with reference to the
North zone in the Italian balancing services market, since
this zone can be considered, on average, as the most
rewarding one: with the SFR average prices, e.g.,
possible net revenues reach 130-367 k/y for the
considered stand-alone BESS, 52-198 k/y for BESS
coupled with a RES plant. One can observe that, in case a
BESS is coupled to a RES plant, it takes tens of years (up
to 90) to return from the investment, once again because
the BESS works for a limited amount of time, due to the
PRES,min threshold; in case the BESS is stand-alone, the
PBP becomes less than half the previous values, and,
except for the simulations (nr. 3 and 7) with SFR HB <
PFR HB (their ratio is 6/10), the PBP is comparable to
the battery life computed with 80% or 100% DoD (see
Fig. 2), although it is smaller than battery life only for the
NaS technology (for the other two, high cycling prevents
investment pay-back before the battery EOL). However,
refining battery life computation via the average DoD
approach yields a PBP lower than battery life also for the
Li technology, although not yet for the NaNiCl2 one.
Life @Average DoD, without SoC 4rest.

Averag
Life @100% DoD, without SoC rest.
(PFR+SFR) energy exchange request.
ge DoD [%]

8
Life @100% DoD, with SoC rest. Life @Average DoD, with SoC rest.
2
Life @80% DoD, without SoC rest.6 Avg DoD - without SoC rest.
Results about the BESS life estimated according to Life @80% DoD, with SoC rest. Avg DoD - with SoC rest. 0
4 16 1 65 25
the “average DoD” approach are reported in Fig. 2, Fig. 2. PFR+SFR supply, without or with SoC restoration: different
together with the computed DoDavg itself (more details evaluations of battery life (left y-axis); DoDavg (right y-axis).
about DoDavg values are in Section IV. B. , in case of
SFR only). Since smaller power variations due to PFR are
superposed to the larger ones due to SFR, the main
effects on DoD and aging are related to SFR. In fact, the
power exchanges related to PFR are, on average, some
per cent of Pn, while the ones related to SFR are around
20-30% Pn; besides, with the assumptions made, the
former are delivered on a 100 ms basis, while the latter
are kept constant over 1 minute intervals; therefore, the
DoDs related to SFR are larger and smoother than the
ones related to PFR.
Fig. 2 also shows that, for NaS and Li, battery life, in
years, obtained with the average DoD approach is
p
significantly longer (about 3-4 times) than the life values
ROI [

NaNiCl2 + wind 60with SoC rest. - avg SFR prices

avg SFR prices
150max SFR prices 30with SoC rest. - max SFR prices
obtained by assuming 100% or 80% constant DoD, while 120min SFR prices 0with SoC rest. - min SFR prices
[years]

max min SFR prices 0.82

with SoC rest. -1.91
max min1.98 3.34
SFR prices
for NaNiCl2 it is on the whole comparable to such values; 90
60
min max SFR prices Pn max
with SoC rest. - min [MW]SFR prices

this because nmax(DoD) for small DoDs is very big for Fig. 3. North zone PBP for PFR+SFR, without or with SoC restoration.
NaS and Li, relatively small for NaNiCl2 (Fig. 1).
Besides, coupling each BESS with a RES plant yields

294
B. SFR Only
Fig. 4 reports the energy exchanges for SFR without
PFR, for all the BESS configurations and without/with
SoC restoration. The so-called “ideal” request is the one
which would be issued by the secondary regulator in the
absence of the PRES,min threshold, so for a stand-alone
BESS it coincides with the actual request. From the
figure, one can observe, e.g., that, as En/Pn increases, the
energy actually exchanged by the BESS for the service
increases, as expected. As remarked for PFR+SFR,
coupling with a RES plant reduces BESS intervention, so
that the energy actually exchanged is about half the one
exchanged in the stand-alone cases (and it keeps similar
in the different configurations): in absorption (top of Fig.
4), 750 Pn h versus 1100-1500 Pn h, while the ideal
request is 1880 Pn h; in injection (bottom of Fig. 4), 350-
500 Pn h versus 960-1160 Pn h, while the ideal request is
1200 Pn h. In the presence of SoC restoration, however,
coupling with a RES plant leads, for SoC restoration
itself, to 25-95 Pn h absorbed energy and 40-110 Pn h
injected energy, i.e. much larger than stand-alone cases
absorbed energy (5 Pn h) and injected energy (5 Pn h).
Fig. 4. Energy exchanges in case of SFR only, without or with SoC
restoration: (top) absorption, (bottom) injection.
Results about the number of equivalent cycles and
estimated BESS life are reported in Fig. 5 and compared
to the PBP computed for the North zone. The weighted
average DoD, DoDavg, (Fig. 5 (a)) is rather low, between
5% and 25%, so the maximum number of cycles which
can be tolerated nmax,exp is tens of thousands (between
10000 and 160000); the former increases (from around
5% to 18% to 23-25%) and the latter decreases (from
around 150000 to 64000 to 16000) if NaS, Li and
NaNiCl2 technologies are considered. As to NaS, DoDavg
is almost constant (4.5-5%) for all the configurations,
295
with and without SoC restoration, while nmax,exp reduces to
120000 in case the NaS BESS is coupled to a PV plant
and does SoC restoration too, because DoDavg slightly
increases. As to NaNiCl2, DoDavg is always about 4-5
times the NaS DoDavg, due to the lower En/Pn ratio (3 h
versus 7.5 h), while nmax,exp is about 1/10 of the NaS
value, due to the difference between the nmax(DoD)
curves. As to Li, although its En/Pn ratio is smaller than
the NaNiCl2 one (2 h versus 3 h, so the individual DoDi
are usually larger), its DoDavg is smaller, because nmax,exp
is much higher, due to the large difference between the
nmax(DoD) curves. For all the three technologies, in the
RES-coupled cases, SoC restoration causes a reduction of
nmax,exp and a slight increase of DoDavg; this impact is
more evident with PV than with wind, and with
increasing En/Pn. In the stand-alone cases, SoC
restoration effects are negligible. As to the number of
cycles done in 1 year (not reported, for brevity), the one
computed at DoDavg is higher, even by an order of
magnitude, than those computed for 80% or 100% DoD.
The PBP values computed with the average prices
(Fig. 5 (b)) are about 12-14 years for the stand-alone
BESS, 31-38 years for the coupled BESS (net revenues
amount to 300-350 k/y and 140-180 k/y respectively).
Comparison with the BESS life shows that coupling with
a RES plant yields a very long life, but also a big PBP,
because the BESS works less; in general, SoC restoration
affects life only slightly, by decreasing it if 80% or 100%
DoD is considered, by increasing it if DoDavg is
considered. If life is computed for 80% or 100% DoD,
return on investment cannot be reached before the BESS
EOL; if life is evaluated for DoDavg (accounting for the
low DoDavg implies that the estimated life increases),
instead, investment on NaS BESS appears to be
advantageous for all the BESS configurations, investment
on Li is advantageous only in the stand-alone cases,
investment on NaNiCl2 is never advantageous. In Fig. 5
(c), the PBP for the North zone is also computed with the
other price schemes mentioned: if the BESS life were
computed for 80% or 100% DoD, some chance of return
on investment would be present, but only for NaS BESS,
for the “max” or “max min” prices for SFR.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a simple method has been proposed to
estimate the expected duration of a battery undergoing
cycling trajectories which are far from the standard ones
prescribed by vendors. The method is based on the curves
expressing the maximum number of cycles which can be
done as a function of the DoD, so as to take into account
actual DoD variations, especially if they are rather small.
The methodology is applied here to the cycling due to the
supply of PFR and SFR together, or of SFR only, in the
mainland Italy system. In the simulated cases, for battery
technologies which can tolerate a lot of cycles at low
DoD, such as Li and NaS, the life thus estimated is
significantly longer than the one obtained by assuming
 100% or 80% constant DoD; this is not true for battery
technologies which can tolerate a moderate number of
cycles at low DoD, such as NaNiCl2, for which these
applications could therefore be critical.
For SFR only (without or with SoC restoration), with
the SFR average prices, no investment in the considered
stand-alone BESS or BESS coupled with a RES plant is
profitable if 100% or 80% DoD is assumed, while
investing on Li or NaS BESS can be judged to be
profitable if the average DoD approach is considered; for
PFR+SFR, similar considerations hold. On the whole,
one can conclude that the foreseen reduction of BESS
prices [20] could have a non-negligible impact on the
PBP. Useful synergies could also be obtained if, in the
future, BESS were allowed to participate in the Italian
ancillary service market, by adopting suitable bidding
strategies, especially combined with optimization of the
SoC restoration strategy.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. SFR only, without or with SoC restoration: (a) DoDavg and
expected maximum number of cycles; (b) number of years to end
of life, computed for different DoD values, and PBP for the Italian
North market zone with average SFR prices (scheme i)); (c) PBP
for the North zone with different SFR prices (schemes i)-v)).
REFERENCES
[1] EirGrid, Grid Code, Version 6.0, 22 July 2015. Available:
www.eirgridgroup.com.
296
[2] M. Dernbach, D. Bagusche, and S. Schrader, “Frequency
control in Québec with DFIG wind turbines”, 9th
International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of
Wind Power into Power Systems, Canada, 2010.
[3] German TSOs, Anforderungen an die Speicherkapazität
bei Batterien für PRL, 29 September 2015. Available:
https://www.regelleistung.net.
[4] National Grid, Enhanced Frequency Response - Invitation
to tender for pre-qualified parties, Version 2.2., 8 July
2016. Available: www2.nationalgrid.com.
[5] R. Benato, G. Bruno, F. Palone, R. Polito, and M.
Rebolini, “Large-scale electrochemical energy storage in
high voltage grids: overview of the Italian experience”,
Energies, vol. 10, no. 108, pp. 1-17, 2017.
[6] R. Lærke and P. Carne Kjær (Vestas Wind System A/S),
“Ancillary services provided from wind power plant
augmented with energy storage”, 15th European Conf. on
Power Electronics and Applications (EPE), 2013.
[7] J. Meléndez Cabañas, “Conversión de una central térmica
convencional en CT hibrida”, XIII ERIAC, Décimo Tercer
Encuentro Regional Iberoamericano de CIGRÉ, Puerto
Iguazú, Argentina,24-28 May 2009, XIII/PI-D1 -08, 8 pp.
[8] M. Benini, S. Canevese, A. Cavaliere, D. Cirio, A. Gatti, P.
Grisi, and A. Pitto, “Cost-benefit analyses of storage
systems applications for the provision of dispatching
services”, IEEE 15th Int. Conf. on Environment and
Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), Italy, 2015, pp. 319-324.
[9] G. Fitzgerald, J. Mandel, J. Morris, and H. Touati, The
economics of battery energy storage - How multi-use,
customer-sited batteries deliver the most services and
value to customers and the grid. Rocky Mountain Institute
Report, October 2015. Available: www.rmi.org.
[10] Lazard, Lazard's levelized cost of storage analysis —
version 1.0, November 2015.
[11] Y. Cui, C. Du, G. Yin, Y. Gao, L. Zhang, T. Guan, L.
Yang, and F. Wang, “Multi-stress factor model for cycle
lifetime prediction of lithium ion batteries with shallow-
depth discharge”, J. of Power Sources, vol. 279, pp. 123-
132, 1 April 2015.
[12] Cheng Lin, Aihua Tang, and Wenwei Wang, “A review of
SOH estimation methods in lithium-ion batteries for
electric vehicle applications”, Energy Procedia, vol. 75,
pp. 1920-1925, 2015.
[13] M. Ecker, N. Nieto, S. Käbitz, J. Schmalstieg, H. Blanke,
A. Warnecke, and D.U. Sauer, “Calendar and cycle life
study of Li(NiMnCo)O2-based 18650 lithium-ion
batteries”, J. of Power Sources, vol. 248, pp. 839-851, 15
February 2014.
[14] J. Schmalstieg, S. Käbitz, M. Ecker, and D.U. Sauer, “A
holistic aging model for Li(NiMnCo)O2 based 18650
lithium-ion batteries”, J. of Power Sources, vol. 257, pp.
325-334, 1 July 2014.
[15] M. Benini, S. Canevese, D. Cirio, and A. Gatti, “Battery
energy storage systems for the provision of primary and
secondary frequency regulation in Italy”, IEEE 16th Int.
Conf. on Environment and Electrical Engineering
(EEEIC), Italy, 2016, pp. 1-6.
[16] TERNA, Grid code - Annex A15. Rev. 01, 20 July 2008.
Available: www.terna.it.
[17] B. Xu, A. Oudalov, A. Ulbig, G. Andersson, and D.S.
Kirschen, “Modeling of Lithium-Ion Battery Degradation
for Cell Life Assessment”, IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid,
vol. PP, no.99, pp.1-1, June 2016.
[18] E.M.G. Rodrigues, G.J. Osório, R. Godina, A.W.
Bizuayehu, J.M. Lujano-Rojas, J.C.O. Matias, and J.P.S.
Catalão, “Modelling and sizing of NaS (sodium sulfur)
battery energy storage system for extending wind power
 performance in Crete Island”, Energy, vol. 90, part 2, pp.
1606-1617, October 2015.
[19] R. Benato, N. Cosciani, G. Crugnola, S. Dambone Sessa,
G. Lodi, C. Parmeggiani, and M. Todeschini, “Sodium
nickel chloride battery technology for large-scale
297
stationary storage in the high voltage network”, J. of
Power Sources, vol. 293, pp. 127-136, 20 October 2015.
[20] KEMA, Inc., Battery Energy Storage Study for the 2017
IRP - Energy Storage Technology Review, 22 August
2016. Available: www.pacificorp.com.