U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
Part II of a two-part series on the development of electric energy storage. Part I addressed the storage we need. Here, we look at the technologies and the political challenges they face.
There are now four classes of electric storage technology products — mechanical, magnetic, thermal and electrochemical — but only one sub-class is deployed in a more than minimal way.
Typifying mechanical storage is the pumping of water uphill and its later release to drive a turbine. Superconductors store energy in magnetic fields. Thermal storage uses heat. Electrochemical storage uses reactions in devices like batteries and fuel cells to store and release energy.
As the first article in this series argued, storage is an essential component of a low-carbon economy, but it is mostly not ready for commercialization. The following snapshots focus on the technology with the largest current application, mechanical storage, and the technology with the most near-term promise, electrochemical storage.
"The market for utility scale storage will grow from $329 million in 2008 to approximately $4.1 billion in 10 years. While pumped hydro and CAES [compressed air energy storage] should persist as options and gobble up large amounts of dollars for a small number of projects, advanced Li-ion batteries will be the volume leader and the one technology with a clear and possibly astronomical growth trajectory." —Clint Wheelock, Managing Director, Pike Research
MECHANICAL STORAGE
Water and air can be mechanically pumped into storage areas. As needed, they can be released in ways that use their kinetic force to drive electricity-making turbines. A third mechanical storage technology, fly wheels, makes a related use of mechanical inertia.
Pumped Hydro: Nearly all of the energy storage in use today consists of pumped hydro. Its capacity equals 3% of global electricity generation. Being one of the storage technologies that delivers, very quickly, small amounts of power, it is used primarily to support power performance. There are nearly 40 operational U.S. facilities. However, there are few suitable unused reservoirs remaining near (as they must be) points of energy generation or of energy usage.
Compressed Air: Worldwide, there are only two operational Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) facilities. They work by pumping air into salt rock caverns, using off-peak priced energy; and then as needed releasing this air at high demand periods to drive turbines. When built two decades ago, they cost too much and delivered too little to make CAES a mainstream tool. However, the value proposition is getting better as CAES technology improves and as the cost of bulk and dispatchable energy rises. Wind farms may find CAES, in fact peaker plant technology, to be an effective complement that evens out wind's intermittence.
Flywheels: A flywheel storage system is essentially a rotating, magnetically levitated cylinder connected to a motor. It is established technology that, with enough investment, can be made better and more cheaply. It already has low life cycle costs and is nontoxic, sturdy, and capable of many recharges. Flywheels can support both grid performance (small, quick burst of energy) and grid efficiency (slower, longer-lasting discharges of energy). Large storage capabilities can perhaps be achieved through flywheel farms.
ELECTROCHEMICAL STORAGE
"... present electrochemical systems are too costly to penetrate major new markets, still higher performance is required, and environmentally acceptable materials are preferred. These limitations can be overcome only by major advances in new materials whose constituent elements must be available in large quantities in nature; nanomaterials appear to have a key role to play .... Transformational changes in both battery and capacitor science and technology will be required to allow higher and faster energy storage at the lower cost and longer lifetime necessary for major market enlargement." —M. Stanley Whittingham, 2008 Materials Research Society Energy Issue
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next page »
SMES- SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETIC ENERGY STORAGE
Your articles on storage is very good . However, batteries,and flywheels ,etc will not beable to address any large 100MW to1000MW energy storage levels . Your article missed a technology that has been over looked and forgotten, which is the self supported superconducting magnetic energy storage . This technolgy came to standstill in 1996 after attempt to build a SMES demonstration unit of 1MWh storage with 500MW power discharge for transmission enhancement at San Diego &Gas Electric. The Self supported SMES unit design successfully tested over 15 major components with a CICC at 200,000amps and proved 5 new manufacturing processes at full scale parameters. This SMES technology was designed and tested for energy storage but in 1996 there was no driver for energy storage and DOE didn't want to particpate .
We are in the progress of upgrading our previous design and moving forward on the SMES- 1 technology.
However batteries, flywheels and waiting for HT superconductors still appears to be the US direction .
electricity storage
It seems that thermal storage in order to later produce electricity through either stiling or steam turbine, is 6 times less expensive than photovoltaic production.
Does this ratio aso apply to storage?
For 1 kWh of electricity production, i.e. # 3 kWh of thermal energy storage, the cost of storage + heat drain not including heat to electricity means, is close to 250 €/350 U$.
Funding for energy storage must be performance based
While energy storage is poised to provide critical grid support services that enable a greater deployment of renewables on the system, it is essential that policies aimed at supporting these technologies be framed in terms of these goals. The funds for demonstration projects go along way toward reducing near term technology risk, but looking forward toward long-lived subsidies for these technologies it is critical to base support on the extent to which they provide a path forward for an increased role for renewables on the grid. If not, we risk providing support that looks like energy storage for the sake of energy storage. These technologies could potentially provide an increase of baseload coal capacity to displace natural gas peakers just as well as providing a path forward for renewables unless we frame policies in the right way. More on my blog http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ssuccar/
what about supply-side efficiencies?
Samir,
I outlined the application areas, including renewables, in Part 1. Do you agree that, in addition to renewables integration, storage plays a key role in supply-side efficiencies and corresponding CO2 reductions?
efficiency is only part of the picture
The efficiency benefits are there and it certainly doesn't make sense to ramp old coal plants to follow the fluctuations in demand. However, if shifting electricity production from peak to off-peak times drives a switch from natural gas peakers to coal, thats a factor of two increase in emissions that will be difficult to overcome regardless of how big the efficiency benefits of running the coal plant at full output. The reality is its hard to know what the net result will be (on a system where baseload power comes from nuclear, the same load shifting could provide an emissions imrpovement), and that makes it all the more important to craft policies that result in the right kinds of outcomes. Performance-based incentives ensure that anticipated benefits are met; they don't specify the destination (or "pick winners"), but they pick the direction (low emissions, renewables). Otherwise we are hitting the gas, but forgetting to steer the car.
More about Hydrogen ?
Thank you for your review of the challenges and solutions around electricity storage.
We are working on hydrogen production from renewable and nuclear and hydrogen fuel cells as a solution to feed long distance vehicles and buses of the future. We believe that this solution could also provide some middle-term alternative storage capacities to electrical grid. (see a study published by EHA - European Hydrogen Association http://www.h2euro.org/2009/01/173)
What advantages/disadvantages do you see in that alternative ?
Post new comment