Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on January 12, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Despite the Hype, Batteries Aren’t the Cheapest Way to Store Energy on the Grid

There are many different kinds of energy storage technologies, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Lithium ion batteries are the most popular form of storage at the moment, but according to Roger Dargaville, Deputy Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute, they are not always the cheapest option. Nevertheless, lithium ion will probably be the dominant option, not because of economics, but because of human behavior. Courtesy of The Conversation.

Storage is the word of the moment in the energy industry. Since Tesla unveiled its Powerwall, politicians, commentators and industry have hyped storage – and particularly batteries – as the solution for getting more renewable energy into electricity grids and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

The concept of storage is simple. A storage system takes power off the grid or from a local generation source and puts it back onto the grid or uses it locally later. It seems like a good idea if you have too much energy, or it is cheap at some times of the day and expensive at others.

So could storage be the answer, and how much would it cost?

The costs of storage

Of course storage isn’t free. It comes with both a capital cost (buying it in the first place) and a running cost, which is related to the cost of electricity to charge the battery and the round-trip efficiency – how much power is lost in the charging and discharging cycle.

To be a sensible economic investment, the benefits have to outweigh the costs. In other words, the savings on your energy bill have to be greater than the capital costs plus the running costs.

There are many different kinds of storage technologies, each with different characteristics. Lithium ion batteries are attractive as they operate effectively at small scales, are lightweight and have good round-trip efficiency. But they are currently expensive per unit of storage capacity.

Pumped hydro at the other end of the scale operates at very large scales, has good round-trip efficiency and is very cheap per unit.

Flywheels (or rotors) have low round-trip efficiency and don’t store a lot of power, but are able to dispatch lots of power in a short time and can also contribute to frequency stability.

Other storage technologies include compressed air, cryogenic (liquid air) energy storage, flow batteries and hydrogen. Each has its respective pluses and minuses.

Dargaville 1

Each of these technologies will have an appropriate place in the grid to be installed. Lithium ion batteries are a logical choice for a small-scale distributed application, while pumped hydro will work best at the large scale for grid management.

Flow batteries, liquid air and compressed air are in-between technologies in terms of scale, and flywheels and capacitors are most useful at the substation level for voltage and frequency control.

Batteries versus hydro

Let’s focus on lithium ion batteries and compare them to pumped hydro storage.

Lithium ion batteries are coming down in cost at a significant rate. Bloomberg has plotted the costs of lithium ion alongside solar PV. This shows the two technologies share a similar cost curve gradient, with lithium ion reducing from US$1,200 per kilowatt hour to US$600 per kWh in five years (not including installation costs).

Dargaville 2

As more batteries are built, the price gets cheaper. Bloomberg New Energy Finance

So where does lithium ion need to get to be cost-effective? Imagine a home with a 4.5kW rooftop PV system and variable electricity rate (for instance off-peak cost of 20c, shoulder of 26c and peak of 40c, similar to this tariff).

In such a home a 7kWh battery needs to cost less than A$7,000 fully installed to actually save the homeowner money. In other words, the cost per kWh of storage should be roughly A$1,000 to break even. Currently, batteries cost A$1,000-3,000 per kWh, so they are on the cusp of being cost-effective.

However, there is an important catch here. Retail electricity rates tend to exaggerate the true range in costs between peak and off-peak. The difference in the wholesale market (where retailers buy their electricity) is around 5-10c per kWh, much less than the 20c range in current variable rates. If retailers begin to lose market share, they may respond by reducing or removing these variable rates. That would make peak rates cheaper and mean that batteries would need to be correspondingly cheaper to be cost-effective.

For instance, a flat electricity rate of 25c per kWh means that batteries would need to cost around A$300 per kWh to be cost-effective. That’s less than a third of their current costs.

You could argue that using batteries also reduces the cost of the network itself. By reducing loads at peak time, we can reduce or even remove the need for infrastructure upgrades (substations and additional power lines, for instance).

But this is only true if electricity demand is growing. If demand is flat or falling, then distribution networks will tend to be under-used. Therefore reducing peak demand will not result in any savings.

Overall demand in the National Electricity Market has declined significantly since 2009, so the benefits of storage on the grid will be negligible other than in high-growth corridors. Demand has rebounded in 2015-16 and it will be interesting to watch and see if this is a resumption of the steady increase or if the demand stays low.

Dargaville 3

Demand in Australia’s National Electricity Market has been falling.

Pumped hydro, on the other hand, is a relatively inexpensive storage technology (already at around A$100 per kWh) as it can store large amounts of energy using a very inexpensive material.

All you need is some water and the means to pump it uphill. So while it can’t be used everywhere, there are many places in the National Electricity Market where it is possible. There are already 1,500 megawatts of pumped hydro in the market (Shoalhaven, Wivenhoe and Tumut 3).

This would be a more logical solution – cheaper and easier to control by the market operator. But in the same way that rooftop PV has gained more popularity than large-scale solar (even though the latter should be cheaper), distributed storage in the form of lithium ion batteries may be the eventual winner, not because of economics but because of human behaviour.

by

This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission.

Dr Roger Dargaville (@rogerd70) is the Deputy Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute. He is an expert in energy systems and climate change, specializing in large-scale energy system transition optimisation, and novel energy storage technologies such as seawater pumped hydro and liquid air energy storage. He has conducted research in global carbon cycle science, simulating the emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel and exchanges between the atmosphere, land and oceans as well as stratospheric ozone depletion. He leads a research group of PhD and Masters students working on a diverse range of energy related topics including disruptive business models, EROI, transmission systems, bioenergy, wave energy and high penetration rooftop photovoltaics systems. He coordinates the subjects Renewable Energy and Climate Modelling as part of the University of Melbourne’s Master of Energy Systems degree.

Energy Post



10 Comments on "Despite the Hype, Batteries Aren’t the Cheapest Way to Store Energy on the Grid"

  1. dave thompson on Thu, 12th Jan 2017 8:46 pm 

    Yea great, technology to the rescue. Batteries still have an expensive up front cost. Batteries still wear out in 5-7 years needing replacement. There has been no battery advancement in the past nor near future of any significance. Sorry Dr. Dargaville it ain’t gonna happen at scale.

  2. GregT on Thu, 12th Jan 2017 9:01 pm 

    “A green, rechargeable battery that is suitable for powering electric vehicles and stationary power storage applications, and that would survive tens of thousands of charge cycles in a useful life of 100 years without loss of capacity. What could be a better innovation for our times? Such a battery has been developed, and recently improved by Stanford researchers. Oh, one other thing. The battery was invented by Thomas Edison in 1901.”

    http://newatlas.com/scientists-give-new-life-to-thomas-edisons-nickel-iron-battery/23102/

  3. baha on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 6:28 am 

    I don’t know where this guy got his numbers, but the Tesla Powerwall 2.0 is 15 kw-hr and retails for $8000. Right where it needs to be.

    And why would I store grid power when I can make my own free solar power? You can keep your grid…

  4. Cloggie on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 6:33 am 

    And why would I store grid power when I can make my own free solar power? You can keep your grid…

    You live in Arizona, I presume?

  5. Davy on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 6:58 am 

    Batteries are a vital component to a coming energy disruptive time. The more batteries we can produce the better. The more we improve batteries the better. Even malinvestment in batteries is good compared to new highways and airports. I am happy to see Elon’s white elephant of a battery factory that will never turn a real profit. I am investing in solar and more batteries as we speak. Grid power is cheaper but I am still doing it. I am doing it because it is the future for anyone who wants to be prepared for a dangerously disruptive period ahead.

    Alternatives and batteries will not be systematically transformative like coal and then oil were. What we need now is transformative not exotic extenders. Alternatives and batteries do not stack up as transformative…yet…despite all the bold talk. I have yet to see the kind of growth rates and performance numbers that say alternatives and batteries will power a future as-is or even close. A world that is not as-is will not feed and clothe 7BIL. Looking at what needs to be done and what can be done by alternatives and batteries then you see a chasm of unmet needs. The economic productive capacity of industry is unrealistically huge to meet the scaling and the size to be transformative. Please spare me the techno optimism I want real and current reality not this or that in 10 years. Spare me the examples of sweet spots because the world is huge not a few sweet spots.

    We have a global economy broke and unable to invest at the scale needed to make all these exotic technologies a reality. These technologies are for the rich and rich nations. Most of the world is poor. The rich should not get confused and think they can continue to get rich as the world continues to fall off a poverty cliff. Most importantly alternatives and batteries are not going to run industrial agriculture as-is just like permaculture will never amount to much. I have done both and I can tell you get out of your fantasy world. They might extend and enhance industrial agriculture for a time to buffer the effects of dangerous peak oil dynamics and economic demand destruction. There are a whole range of issues for batteries and alternatives that have yet to prove they can scale up and in the time frame needed to be transformative. That said they are vital and a must for a world that should be building lifeboats for a global world coming apart at the seams.

  6. Cloggie on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 7:59 am 

    Batteries will only have 24h significance at best for private households once feed-in tariffs will be abolished.

    The real importance for an alt-energy system to work lies in mass pumped hydro-storage. And hydro storage is at least clean.

  7. aidan on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 1:16 pm 

    Compressed air looks a good one. Instead of fixing offshore wind turbines to the seabed, why not have them on huge flotation chambers and have the windmills either evacuating air from – or maybe compressing it into – those chambers which would then store the energy when the wind is blowing and release it through a turbine/generator when the electricity is needed? Or am I missing something?

  8. Southwest_PA on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 3:25 pm 

    Compressed air storage is much less efficient than pumped hydro. Industrial compressors typically run at 15% efficiency. So its use is limited to smaller applications like air cars…

  9. Davy on Sat, 14th Jan 2017 9:16 am 

    Here battery buffs:
    “Diamond Batteries Could Use Nuclear Waste to Generate Electricity for Millennia”
    http://tinyurl.com/gvc6f34

  10. Don on Mon, 16th Jan 2017 3:41 pm 

    Converting electrical power to methane using Hydrogen and Carbon dioxide (methanization)is another promising energy storage technology which is now under research: The methane gas ( CH4) can then be stored or converted for future energy use either thru conventional combustion or stationary fuel cells.
    Conceptually one could combine electolysis to produce hydrogen with the Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to produce methane

    http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/wcwxfh/technology

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *