What you probably don’t hear is that, at the moment, having renewables may also mean having at least a little bit of fossil fuels.
If that sounds counterintuitive to you, you’re probably not alone. But think about it: sunlight and wind are not constant, and we like our electricity to be continuous. So, at night or when it’s calm, those solar panels and wind turbines can’t be used to generate electricity — we need something else to provide as much electricity as we use or might need. This is what grid operators and utilities call “balancing the grid.”
At the moment, generators or maybe even power plants often fill those gaps created by the inherent variability of renewables. Some utilities, however, are increasing their flexibility in providing power from different sources with batteries, which are becoming less expensive to produce and big enough to store electricity to fill the minutes or hours without wind and sun, according to Nathanael Greene, a renewable energy expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, but are still not quite cost-effective enough. (There are also a few other storage options, like pumped hydroelectric storage, compressed air energy storage, among others.)
So utilities are turning more and more to natural-gas or oil-fired reciprocating engines to provide this flexible electricity. These internal combustion engines work like the ones in our cars, quickly providing relatively small amounts of power. In the last two decades, about three times as many of these engines have been added to the grid as were in the 50 years prior, and most of them are in states with large and growing renewable electricity capacity — like Texas, California and Kansas — according to a report from the Energy Information Administration.
The need for stable, reliable electricity to balance out renewables is often played down in conversations about the transition to clean energy, according to Mark P. Mills, a physicist, engineer and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank, who recently wrote a report that calls ambitions for a transition to 100 percent renewable electricity as an exercise in “magical thinking.”
However, according to both Mr. Greene and Mr. Mills, these reciprocating engines may actually be an improvement, both in terms of efficiency and fossil fuel reduction. Typically, the way to balance the variability has been to keep a traditional coal or gas fired power plant running at part load so that there’s no interruption. These reciprocating engines, by contrast, can go from zero to full power in as little as two minutes. (Combined cycle turbines, another type of generator, can take much more time to start up, usually more than 30 minutes, so they are sometimes kept in “spinning reserve,” which means they’re using fuel but not producing electricity. In that way, they’re less efficient, but they’re bigger and can produce more electricity.)
Antelope Station, a 165 megawatt electricity producer in Texas, has 18 reciprocating engine generators to balance out wind variability, and can get to full operating capacity in 5 minutes. They can be run individually or together, depending on how much electricity is needed, and, according to their website, save a significant amount of water, which is important in parts of Texas. (Golden Spread Electric Co-Op, which owns Antelope Station, did not respond to an email requesting comment.)
What renewable-energy advocates like Mr. Greene are waiting for is a drop in the price of batteries to make them more cost-effective than natural gas, or increased flexibility in the grid market, like in the western grid’s Western Energy Imbalance Market, which, among other things, enables excess renewable electricity to move where it’s needed. To Mr. Greene, these solutions are imminent. To Mr. Mills, they’re unrealistic.
Either way, it’s worth remembering that without some investments in battery technology, grid flexibility, and innovative storage ideas, renewable electricity won’t be enough on its own, and may almost always be dependent on fossil fuels. SOURCE
Sweden is aggressively going green, but progressive crusaders are facing an inconvenient truth of their own. Even before shutting down the rest of their nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources, Sweden’s cities are already threatened by power shortages due to inadequate energy infrastructure.
According to Bloomberg, Sweden’s third largest city, Malmö, was on the brink of blackouts during the past winter. During an especially cold week, power costs spiked from an average 0.28 kroner per kilowatt hour in 2017 to 0.63 kronor.
Sweden is still growing. Energy demands in major cities are surging as their populations increase. Power shortages are limiting the ability of Swedes to build housing, subways, and businesses needed to keep their lives in motion. In Stockholm, new daycare centers have had to wait months for power, and a bread factory in Malmö was denied a license to expand because it would consume too much power. And it’s not just small businesses that suffer. Sectors from high tech to mining require huge amounts of affordable energy to remain feasible.
How did this happen?
A dry summer had depleted the country’s hydro power supply to its lowest levels since 2016. Calm conditions rendered wind farms useless, coal production was sharply reduced due to new regulations, and two nuclear power reactors were shut down due to a 1980 bill to phase out nuclear energy.
It was a perfect storm of sub-optimal weather conditions that highlighted the greatest weakness of renewable energy sources. If the weather doesn’t cooperate, they simply don’t work.
Even with optimal conditions, the usefulness of Sweden’s wind farms is limited because they’re clustered in northern Sweden, far from the largest population centers. Infrastructure to transport energy from these productive regions is inadequate, and adequate supplies of foreign energy can’t be imported for the same reason.
Some Swedes have described the current energy policy as “madness” because of the destabilizing impact on the country’s power supply. Power shortages would unquestionably undermine the country’s economy, which has benefited from cheap power, largely because of its abundance of hydro and nuclear power. Sweden’s generous welfare system cannot function without a strong economy and very high levels of wealth.
Bureaucratic and technical barriers to improve wind and solar energy infrastructure will take at least a decade to navigate, but the current Swedish government is firmly against reversing course on nuclear shutdown. A coalition of opposing political parties will force them to reconsider, though. Energy supply has become the center of public discourse in recent months.
And things could still get a lot worse. Sweden’s grid operator warned in 2017 that the country will need to add 2.6 gigawatts (GW) of power generation by 2040–enough to power 1.1 million households. (Sweden had 4.7 million households in 2018). And that estimate didn’t even factor in the impending loss of the country’s five remaining nuclear reactors, which will be phased out by 2040, a loss of another 5.5 gigawatts.
Henrik Bergstrom, head of affairs for the Swedish power company Ellevio, has stated that Sweden has “reached a point where we no longer can connect all the changes the society is facing.” Upcoming waves of new technology like 5G and will require massive amounts of data processing, which will require massive amounts of energy. Sweden has continually been on the cutting edge of technology, but inadequate power will undermine its competitiveness.
Even the green movement itself is threatened by power shortages: a federally subsidized surge in electric car sales led to a spike in demand for electricity, exacerbating supply problems.
Ultimately, the limits of Sweden’s current power infrastructure will force authorities to pick and choose who can access their artificially limited power grid.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Nuclear energy is not without its own environmental hazards, but it’s still an extremely efficient energy source with very low carbon emissions. And while solar and wind make sense in many contexts, especially in very sunny or windy areas, they simply can’t compete with fossil fuels for reliability and efficiency.
Policy makers with “green tunnel vision” fail their constituents by refusing to recognize the shortcomings of their good intentions. The passion of environmental alarmists needs to be tempered by a humble and realistic exploration of the limitations of green technology. SOURCE
But experts say there is no silver bullet to protect the climate — and that keeping fossil fuels in the ground is the surest known way to prevent further warming.
Average temperatures have risen by 1 degree Celsius since countries first industrialized and are projected to rise about 3 degrees Celsius above that baseline by the end of the century without sharp, severe cuts to CO2 emissions.
A report from the Global Carbon Project found in December that while coal-burning has largely plateaued, the rise of oil and natural gas is pushing the planet further away from its climate goals.
How can technology help governments get there? Here are four innovations that energy experts told us hold promise for slowing the march of climate change.
Solar panels and wind turbines
What may be the biggest innovation to combat climate change has been around for decades.
Solar panels and wind turbines turn sun and wind into electricity without releasing greenhouse gases. As the technologies have scaled up and converted energy more efficiently, they have come down in price to become cheaper than fossil fuels globally.
“Solar and wind being cheap and reliable and performing well opens up a lot of possibilities,” said Gregory Nemet, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has written a book on how solar energy became cheap. “Even as we’ve had 30 years of politicians dithering and not as much progress as most people would have hoped, in the background, technology has been progressing.”
But generating clean energy is one thing — storing and distributing it is another. This is particularly important for renewables that cannot generate electricity without the sun shining or wind blowing.
Three things suggest innovation is overcoming these hurdles, said Nemet. “That’s renewables getting better, batteries allowing you to store electricity and then information in the system allowing you to manage it better.”
A floating solar plant near Santiago, Chile
Wind turbines south of Nairobi, Kenya
Batteries for electric vehicles
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded three scientists a Nobel prize in October for their work in developing lithium-ion batteries, which they say have “revolutionized our lives since they first entered the market in 1991” — and continue to advance.
Lighter and smaller than earlier rechargeable batteries, lithium batteries can also be charged faster and more often. As their weight and price continue to fall, they are playing an increasingly pivotal role in decarbonizing the transport sector by making electric vehicles cheaper.
“Battery storage will be critical,” said Joao Gouveia, a senior fellow at Project Drawdown, a research organization that analyzes climate solutions. “It will allow the integration of more and more renewable tech. We cannot have 70% [of renewable energy by 2050] coming from wind and solar if we don’t apply battery storage systems.”
Holding batteries back are aging electricity grids and costs that, despite falling each year, remain high.
But electric vehicles could act as a storage system, said Gouveia, with owners buying electricity at night to charge their cars and selling it to the grid when demand is high and cars are parked, idle, during the day. “We are finding new lithium reserves because this is a tech for both markets, so we’re innovating more and more.”
While the global electric vehicle fleet has grown rapidly — passing 5 million cars in 2018, data from the International Energy Agency shows — this progress has been dwarfed by a rise in larger and less efficient SUVs that run on fossil fuels. Four in 10 new cars sold globally in 2018 were SUVs.
A fully electric Mercedes car on display in Stockholm, Sweden
Lithium iron batteries could help decarbonize transport
Another way to store renewable energy is using electrolyzers to extract hydrogen from water. The process, also known as power-to-X, is a way of storing energy in different forms. Engineers run an electric current through water and collect the hydrogen molecules that break off. These can be burned for heat, stored in fuel cells or turned into chemicals such as methane for processes that require fossil fuels.
“It’s a great way to decarbonize the heating, mobility and chemical sector,” said David Wortmann, a board member of Energy Watch Group, a German NGO. “It’s scaleable — the tech is all there. The industry is young, you have manufacturers out there to produce an electrolyzer. But the demand is not there yet, the regulations are not in place.”
Hydrogen could also help decarbonize a high-polluting sector that has mostly been overlooked: heavy industry.
The high heat needed to process industrial materials — such as concrete, iron, steel, and petrochemicals — is responsible for about 10% of global CO2 emissions, according to a report from the Center on Global Energy Policy in October. The cement industry alone is responsible for about 8% of CO2 emissions, mostly in production. This is more than three times the CO2 emissions of the aviation industry.
Burning hydrogen from renewable energy sources could meet industrial heating needs cleanly, said Jeff Rissmann, head of modeling at Energy Innovation, a research firm. “Moving to hydrogen can have a huge impact across many sectors, and would be one of the biggest ways to decarbonize the global economy.”
Capturing CO2 from power plants is seen as increasingly necessary to reach emissions targets
Carbon capture and storage
Even under optimistic scenarios for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say we will not meet targets to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius without removing some of the CO2 we have already emitted. The IPCC projects between 100 billion and 1 trillion tons of CO2 would need to be removed this century.
Trees and plants that extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into oxygen through photosynthesis are one way of doing this. But they take up large tracts of land — which is needed for other purposes such as growing food — and are not a secure way of storing carbon, because they may be felled for firewood or burned in forest fires.
Some companies are experimenting with capturing CO2 from power plants and storing it deep underground. By doing this with biomass plants — where recently-grown plant matter is burned and not ancient fossils — then power can be produced while reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But with just 19 facilities running such systems, its deployment is not happening quickly enough to meet emissions reductions targets, according to a report from the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
The increasingly competitive dynamic duo of solar photovoltaic plus battery storage is taking energy markets by storm
Photo courtesy of FPL / Douglas Murray.
The energy dynamic around renewables is changing so quickly in Colorado that Zach Pierce, a senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club, can hardly keep up with it. “I feel like we’re having to rewrite the talking points on the drawing board every month in Colorado,” he says.
In December, the state’s largest utility — Xcel Energy — released a short report summarizing the responses to the solicitation it had issued to power suppliers for bids to bring new sources of electricity to the grid. The utility received 430 bids, and 350 of those were for renewable energy projects.
That was remarkable on its own, but what surprised people even more were the bids for projects that added battery storage to the mix. They were cheaper than anyone expected.
“It’s a testament to how quickly the market is changing,” Pierce says.
For years, renewable energy advocates have pushed utilities and regulators to consider adding battery storage to their electrical generation portfolios for flexibility and to reduce intermittency problems that come with solar and wind. Until recently, it wasn’t considered a realistic option: Batteries were expensive and largely untested by utilities, and risk-averse regulators mostly let grid managers ignore them in their bids, statements and long-term planning documents.
Analysts say that’s starting to change as batteries come down in price, as momentum builds behind renewables and as renewables create a natural market for storage. Utilities are increasingly looking at batteries as a tool for leveling out power available over the course of the day and for replacing bulky and expensive peaking power plants that have high costs but only occasionally run at or near full capacity to meet peak demand (in the Southwest, this might be one hot day in the summer when everyone has their air conditioning turned up).
Some see the Xcel Energy report as the most recent case in a growing trend. Xcel’s preliminary analysisfrom December (a more thorough report is expected to come out June 6) showed that the median bids for battery storage projects coupled with solar and wind generation came in at about US$36 and US$21 per megawatt-hour, respectively. The prices of projects that combined solar or wind with storage, according to the report, were still more expensive than conventional fuels but only marginally more expensive than bids for standalone solar or wind projects. What it shows, analysts say, is that utilities can use batteries without adding huge costs to renewable projects.
Kate McGinnis, the Western U.S. market director for Fluence Energy, a global battery storage provider that Siemens and AES Corporation launched last year, says it’s clear that attitudes toward storage are changing. “We’re seeing utilities talk directly to us to learn more about what storage can do and how it can help them to meet the various grid challenges they are experiencing,” McGinnis says.
But she also offered the following warning: The Xcel numbers, as medians, reveal difficulties in comparing different energy storage projects. Batteries are diverse and complex. Different batteries have different capacities — some might be able to hold enough energy so they could discharge power over five hours. Others might be able to store enough for 10 hours.
“If you compare them on price alone, you are probably comparing apples to oranges to blackberries,” McGinnis says.
Boosting Efficiency, Replacing Gas
Abig driver of the shift in energy storage is cost, says Yayoi Sekine, an analyst for Bloomberg New Energy Finance. She notes that the price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped from about $1,000 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to about $209 per kWh in 2017. The decreases came as more batteries were produced at a more efficient scale to accommodate a growing electric vehicle market.
“That’s a massive decrease in prices over not that long of a period,” she says.
Utilities, Sekine says, see an opportunity to use storage to make the grid more efficient. Adding more solar to the grid has created big issues for how grid operators manage a utility’s generation portfolio, the biggest of which is commonly known as the “duck curve” (the name comes from the a graph of net load on the grid; it forms what looks like the outline of a duck). It occurs when so much solar power is produced during the day that it creates a slew of issues for meeting demand at night. The thinking is that if some of that solar power were stored in a battery, it could be dispatched with more flexibility and deployed more gradually to better balance supply and demand.
Others want to take storage and solar a step further. They believe that, as prices become more competitive, the two together can obviate the need for some natural gas plants. According to a new report from Greentech Media, solar and storage together are expected to compete directly with natural gas peakers — plants built to meet peak electricity demand — by 2022.
“That is an application where we think [battery] storage can be highly competitive,” says Ravi Manghani, an industry analyst who directs Greentech Media’s energy storage research.
The industry still faces some headwinds. Analysts say costs need to decrease even more for batteries plus renewables to compete head-on with most conventional fuels. David Hart, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author on a recent working paper on energy storage, says that more research and development is necessary. He proposes that government mechanisms encourage innovation, especially research in battery types other than lithium-ion.
Another challenge, Hart says, is the fact that electricity prices vary based on time and location.
“It’s a pretty complex and diverse market that is going to emerge,” he says.
But if the adoption of a new technology looks like a hockey stick — where things start slowly and then suddenly boom, Manghani says the energy storage industry is somewhere near the inflection point.
“We are at a point in the industry where adoption is expected to go up significantly,” he says. SOURCE
Batteries were increasing carbon emissions (d’oh!), but new regulations and tech have fixed it.
These batteries have been behaving badly. Andrew Francis Wallace/Toronto Star via Getty Images
In the popular imagination, energy-storage technologies like batteries are a key part of the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and fight climate change.
But storage has something of a dirty secret:Its net effect is often an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The full causes and dynamics behind this are complex, having to do with what energy is being stored, what energy is being displaced when it is released, and what energy makes up for the energy lost (roughly 20 percent) in the round-trip journey to battery and back. If you want the full details, I wrote a deep-dive post on this last year.
Today I have a happier story to tell — about how California realized that its enthusiastic deployment of batteries was increasing emissions and figured out a way to solve the problem.
California batteries have been increasing emissions
The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) has a program called the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which dates back to 2001 and the state’s energy crisis. Initially designed to reduce peaks in demand, the program has since been revised, reformed, and updated several times. In 2009, CPUC added the requirement that SGIP projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Though SGIP has always included a range of eligible technologies, from biogas to waste heat recovery to wind turbines, it has tended to focus on a few. In the early 2000s, SGIP mostly supported solar panels, spurring the enormous growth of that industry. Then, for a few years, it was big on fuel cells. In 2011, it made energy storage eligible. In 2017, it shifted the program’s funding so that 75 percent went to energy-storage projects, overwhelmingly batteries.
In 2015, the CPUC made explicit that the three goals of SGIP projects were to “improve reliability of the distribution and transmission system, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and lower grid infrastructure costs.” Note that’s an “and,” not an “or.”
The same year, the CPUC also boosted the required round-trip efficiency (RTE) of SGIP storage projects to at least 66.5 percent. The assumption was that batteries would be used to absorb excess renewable energy during the day and discharge it at night — in other words, reduce emissions — and thus, RTE was seen as a rough proxy for emission reductions.
But that is not how things went. As it turns out, if the only metric is financial benefit to the battery owner, batteries tend to charge with cheap, dirty power at night and discharge during the day for peak reduction (to reduce commercial demand charges) — that is, they tend to be operated in a way that increases emissions.
To the CPUC’s credit, it did not ignore the problem. It brought in research firm Itron to do a formal 2016 storage-impact evaluation (released in 2017). It found that while SGIP projects had reduced overall emissions, the storage projects had actually increased emissions. The net increase is relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things — less than 1,000 tons of emissions in a state with well over 700 million tons annually — but it clearly revealed that the program was not accomplishing one of its three goals with regards to storage.
When it comes to batteries and emissions, the report revealed that timing is everything. If they’re charging and discharging at the right times, even a low RTE will reduce emissions. If they’re charging and discharging at the wrong time, no RTE is high enough. In other words, RTE is not a good proxy for emissions impact.
A subsequent 2017 impact evaluation (released in 2018) confirmed the bad news was getting worse: It found that SGIP commercial-storage projects increased annual GHG emissions by about 1,436 metric tons, and residential-storage systems by another 116. Still relatively trivial, but still bad — that’s still a positive, not negative, growth in emissions.
CPUC figures out a fix — a combination of new rules and new data
Again to its credit, CPUC did not ignore the report. In 2017, it convened a working group to analyze possible solutions. (Here’s the group’s final report.) In May 2019, the CPUC issued an official decision approving the working group’s proposed changes, scheduled to go into effect in April 2020.
What are those changes, exactly? Remember, the problem is that battery operators are charging and discharging at the wrong times — they are optimizing for financial returns, which is not the same as optimizing for emissions reductions. They don’t have any incentive to optimize around emissions, and even if they did, they don’t have the information they would need to do so.
The solution is twofold: provide both the incentive and the information.
As for the incentive, under the proposal, new commercial-storage installations will still get the same amount of SGIP money — but only 50 percent will be paid up front. The other 50 percent will be paid out over five years based on demonstrated reductions in annual emissions, which must amount to 5 kilograms of CO2 for every kWh of capacity.
Residential-battery installations are eligible if they are paired with solar panels (from which they draw at least 75 percent of their charge), have a single-cycle round-trip efficiency of at least 85 percent, and are enrolled in some kind of time-varying rate program.
Legacy commercial projects will be subject to the same reduction requirements; legacy residential projects, meanwhile, are exempt if they join a time-of-use rate program.
That’s the incentive. But what about the information? That’s the really cool part.
The question is: Even if storage-project owners want to reduce emissions, how can they? How can they know when to charge and when to discharge? Sometimes there are more natural-gas generators online and the grid is dirtier; sometimes more solar and wind are online and the grid is cleaner. The exact mix is constantly changing.
After much discussion, the working group decided that what was needed is a “GHG signal” — real-time information about the carbon intensity, or dirtiness, of the grid, as well as a 24-hour forecast about the expected carbon intensity of the grid, available to all battery operators. That’s the information they need to plan their operations.
WattTime will make data on California’s greenhouse gas emissions available to everyone
The CPUC held an open bidding process to find the provider of the signal and the winner was WattTime, a nonprofit tech company that has, since 2017, been operating as part of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Faithful readers may find the name familiar. Earlier this year, WattTime rolled out Automated Emissions Reduction, a consumer-facing program that uses exactly this kind of real-time grid-emissions data to help customers better manage their distributed energy resources (DERs). Then, in May, it announced a program whereby it would use satellites and AI to track real-time emissions data at every power plant in the world, which could enable DER owners the world over to maximize their GHG impact.
WattTime uses EPA data on the emissions of power plants — combined with wholesale market prices, fuel costs, wind and weather data, various other inputs, and a whole bunch of AI — to produce day-ahead forecasts of grid intensity at a granular level.
Best of all, WattTime is making its work open source in California. There’s an API that battery operators can tap into for free, which means forecasts are automatically included in their operation algorithms. (WattTime wrote a piece on the program that is worth reading.)
The good news is, WattTime’s modeling found that optimizing battery operation around even a modest GHG signal led to a 32 percent improvement in emissions performance with less than a 0.1 percent reduction in revenue. A broader look at this same question (the trade-off between emissions performance and revenue) published in the journal Energy found that “marginal storage-induced CO2 emissions can be decreased significantly (25–50%) with little effect on revenue (1–5%).”
It’s clear that operating storage purely based on revenue tends to increase emissions. The hope of everyone in California, especially those who sell battery systems, is that operating storage based on emissions performance will only modestly reduce revenue. It’s difficult to know for sure until the SGIP changes go into effect.
What a cool experiment, though!
By way of concluding, I want to briefly emphasize three themes that this story highlights.
1. In terms of emissions, the when-and-where matter
As more variable renewables and DERs come online, grid operation is becoming more fluid and complex, and the GHG impact of a given technology depends increasingly on time and place. Exactly when and where energy is being generated, stored, and released determines its effect on emissions.
Thus, maximizing emission reductions — not just for batteries, but for any flexible energy resource — crucially involves understanding the state of the grid on a minute-by-minute basis, what kind of energy is on it, what energy is available to it, and both its present and anticipated carbon intensity.
That’s the kind of information WattTime is making available. The company notes that forecasts — which it is working on extending to 48 or 72 hours — are somewhat easier in California, since there’s no coal or nuclear on the grid, only natural gas and renewables (which makes for fewer variables). It’s a more complex undertaking in other, more mixed grids, which is why the company charges a fee for access to that information.
But it is safe to say that this kind of information will eventually be available about all grids, representing a radical new level of transparency and empowerment for DER operators.
2. Storage isn’t a decarbonization technology
Eric Hittinger, a policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, makes a point in this Twitter thread about the SGIP changes (and in the papers linked therein) that is worth emphasizing: It’s a mistake to deploy batteries, or energy storage in general, as though they will inevitably reduce emissions. They might or might not. Indeed, it’s probably a mistake to think of them as emissions-reducing technologies at all.
Rather, it’s better to think of storage as akin to transmission lines. Wires can carry both clean and dirty energy; their impact on emissions depends on local circumstances. Their primary purpose is not to reduce emissions, though, but to make the grid run more smoothly. They’re a grid tech, not a decarbonization tech. The same applies to batteries.
As it happens, making the grid more stable will have the effect of allowing more renewables to be integrated, thus reducing emissions. But they are nonetheless distinct tasks, and batteries should be deployed mainly with the first task in mind.
After all, it may be that some battery installations in California will want to provide grid services, emergency backup, or functions other than emission reductions. Being forced to reduce emissions might make it more difficult for storage to pursue those other revenue possibilities.
To be clear, Hittinger and I both think these SGIP changes are for the better. It’s good to use whatever policy tools are at hand. But in the larger picture, clean-energy types need to rethink where storage is categorized in their mental model.
3. Computers allow us to substitute intelligence for stuff
A theme I have returned to in several recent posts is: A big part of the clean-energy transition is going to be using computing power to enable technologies and techniques that allow us to obtain the energy services we need (transportation, heat, etc.) using less labor and material.
Computing power is one of the few things in the modern world that consistently and reliably gets cheaper and more powerful. As it does, it helps us better understand and predict complex systems (like an energy grid) in real time, which in turn enables us to produce energy services more efficiently.
California’s SGIP solution is a great example. Before and after both involve the same stuff, the same machines. What was added were new rules and new information that allowed those rules to be followed. That type of information, the kind WattTime is providing, is a result of computing power and algorithms unavailable even a few years ago.
In the end, just as much as money or policy, it is information that will accelerate the clean-energy transition.
Cutting emissions relies on energy-storage technology coming of age
It sounds simple: lift heavy blocks with a crane, then capture the power generated from dropping them. This is not an experiment designed by a ten-year-old, but the premise of Energy Vault, which has raised $110m from SoftBank, a big Japanese tech investor. The idea has competition. A cluster of billionaires including Bill Gates, Jack Ma, Ray Dalio and SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son are backing other schemes to capture power. A firm incubated at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, wants to store electricity in molten salt. Such plans hint at one of the power business’s hardest tasks. Generating clean power is now relatively straightforward. Storing it is far trickier.
Solar and wind last year produced 7% of the world’s electricity. By 2040, that share could grow by over five times, according to the International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental forecaster. The trouble is, a lull in the wind leaves a turbine listless. Clouds have a habit of blocking the sun. That means that solar and wind cannot, on their own, replace coal and gas plants, which produce continual power reliably.
One answer is to store power in batteries, which promise to gather clean electricity when the sun and wind produce more than is required and dispatch it later, as it is needed. In 2018 some 3.5 gigawatts of storage was installed, about twice the amount in 2017, according to Bloombergnef, an energy data firm. Total investment in storage this year may reach $5.3bn, it estimates. As this grows it could drive an extraordinary expansion (see chart). However at present only about 1% of renewable energy is complemented by storage, reckons Morgan Stanley, a bank. There are still plenty of hurdles to clear.
The most common method of storage so far has been to pump water into an elevated reservoir at times of plenty and release it when electricity is needed. This type of hydropower is not the answer to providing lots more storage. Building a new reservoir requires unusual topography and it can wreak environmental havoc.
Batteries offer an alternative and availability should improve as electric cars become ever more popular. “The whole production supply chain for lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles is gearing up,” says Andrés Gluski of aes, an electricity company, “so we’re going to piggyback on that.” As greater demand led to greater manufacturing scale, the cost of batteries dropped by 85% from 2010 to 2018, according to Bloombergnef. That makes batteries cheap enough not only to propel mass-market electric cars but for use in the power system, too.
And as electric cars become more widespread their batteries could serve as a source of mobile storage, feeding power back into the grid, if required, when the vehicles are parked and plugged in. With the right infrastructure in place, fleets of electric cars could substitute for new dedicated storage capacity.
Batteries do a variety of things. A firm called Sunrun sells residential solar panels paired with batteries, a particularly appealing proposition for Californian homeowners desperate for an alternative to fire-induced blackouts. Within the broader grid, batteries can act as a shock absorber to deal with variations in supply from one minute to the next. Other uses include shifting electricity supply from the day, when solar panels often produce a surfeit of power, to the evening, when demand rises.
The growth of storage is becoming a headache for old-fashioned power generators that rely on gas or coal. NextEra Energy Resources, which builds clean-power installations, is increasingly pairing large solar farms with batteries. aes, which has battery-storage facilities in 21 countries and territories, runs a scheme in Hawaii that combines solar with storage to meet peaks in demand. The Rocky Mountain Institute, a clean-energy research group, warns that solar and battery projects, combined with measures such as smarter appliances to control demand, may turn gas-powered plants into stranded assets.
Nevertheless, the battery industry faces several barriers to broader deployment. To start with, if a battery overheats it can catch fire, producing gases that might explode. In the past year installations in South Korea have caught fire. A fire and explosion in April damaged a storage site in Arizona run by Fluence, a joint venture between aes and Siemens, a German engineering giant. The causes are still under investigation. As the industry matures, safety measures are likely to become more rigorous.
In the meantime, the industry will have to cope with a patchwork of other rules and regulations. South Korea has offered incentives for storage, in part to create a market for its domestic battery-makers, which are among the world’s leaders. Some states in America, such as New York and New Jersey, have mandated storage to help reduce emissions. In others, America’s federal electricity regulator is trying to open markets to storage, but the details of how that will work in practice are unclear. In Britain, batteries are deemed “generation assets”, which exposes storage developers to extra fees and costs, says Michael Folsom of Watson Farley & Williams, a law firm.
Even if electricity regulations were smoothed, lithium-ion batteries would eventually reach their limits. Breakthrough Energy Ventures (bev) is a fund backed by Messrs Gates, Ma, Dalio and other billionaires to invest in transformational technologies. The cost of lithium-ion batteries is falling quickly, but to store power for days let alone weeks “lithium-ion is never going to get cheap enough”, says Eric Toone, bev’s head of science.
Alternatives include flow batteries, that use electrolytes in tanks of chemical solution, as well as mechanical means such as Energy Vault’s falling blocks. Hydrogen can also be made using clean power and turned back into electricity in gas-fired power plants or fuel cells. In the future liquefied gases might provide a solution (see article). Unlike solar panels, which have become standardised, different batteries are likely to serve different purposes on a grid. “All batteries are like humans, equally flawed in some specific way,” says Mateo Jaramillo, who led storage development at Tesla, an electric carmaker.
Mr Jaramillo now leads Form Energy, a firm that is developing an electrochemical alternative to lithium-ion batteries. Investors include bev and Eni, an large Italian oil and gas firm. Mr Jaramillo declines to predict when his work will be commercialised. But the goal is clear. “If you can develop a long-term storage solution,” he says, “that’s how you retire coal and that’s how you retire natural gas.” SOURCE
NDP must push minority Parliament to accelerate transition to a green economy
The federal election results suggest that the first priority of the NDP must be electoral reform to bring to an end the politics of fear and the strategic vote, which favours the Liberals and Conservatives alike.
The second priority must be to engage Canada, for the first time, in an urgent migration to a green economy. The Liberal record on shifting to clean technologies is nothing short of insignificant, one of the worst records among developed countries. Meanwhile, China, and to a lesser extent, the European Union and California, are changing global economic, energy, and transportation paradigms.
Canada missing out
Canada has promising opportunities to be a part of a revolution in which batteries become the new oil. The country has both extraordinary lithium supplies in Quebec and an auto industry in Ontario. But while other countries are cashing in, Canada’s lack of government support for the research, development, and manufacturing requirements has thus far kept us out of the picture.
In order of importance, based on 2018 data, Australia is the world leader in lithium production at 51,000 tonnes, followed by Chile at 16,000, China at 8,000, and Argentina at 6,200.
It is heartbreaking that Canada is not on the preceding list because, in the next decade, there will be exceptional growth in the electric vehicle and energy storage battery markets. In 2020 alone, more battery manufacturing capacity will come on stream than the total capacity available in 2016. Global demand for batteries will double in five years and rise tenfold by 2030.
Electric vehicles are already the largest single market for batteries.
Lithium-ion markets are expanding faster than most projections, not only because of the growth of the electric vehicle market, but also because of energy storage associated with renewable energy production. Energy storage addresses the intermittent production of energy from solar energy and wind power, stockpiling surplus production for use during the low power-generation periods. The energy storage growth rate may become exponential since renewables, combined with energy storage, can now be delivered at less expense than the old formula of maintaining fossil fuel peaker plants for the time periods when energy demand is high.
The current principal obstacle to the growth of the lithium market is a shortage of supply at the production end. Hyundai’s and Kia’s production of electric vehicles cannot accommodate demand because of a lack of batteries. That is, automakers that outsource their battery inventory are at the mercy of a handful of electric vehicle battery manufacturers. The top five manufacturers responding to increasing demand for lithium-ion batteries, in order of production output, are LG Chem, CATL, BYD, Panasonic and Tesla.
And battery supply is also a function of research and development, with many automakers hesitant to invest in their own battery production because of the need to keep pace with technological improvements.
This is comparable to a conventional automakers not having in-house expertise on internal combustion engines and no production capability for these engines. Tesla has an advantage in this regard. It has an exclusive arrangement for research and development and its own, and the world’s largest, battery production capacity in collaboration with Panasonic. MORE
Form Energy, Antora, and others are trying to develop very cheap, very long-lasting storage to clean up the electricity system.
Here’s the problem: Solar panels and wind turbines are cheap, clean, reliable sources of electricity, right up until they’re not. The sun sets; the wind flags. They can’t power an electricity grid alone.
Coal and natural-gas plants can fill in the gaps today. But as climate regulations shutter more of these carbon-spewing sources, there will eventually be days or even weeks each year when renewables won’t be enough to keep the lights on. Something else will need to step in.
Form Energy is convinced that that something could be a battery. But it’d have to be a battery unlike any the world has seen.
To be as cheap, reliable, and flexible as natural gas, such a battery system would have to cost less than $10 per kilowatt-hour. Today’s best grid batteries, large lithium-ion systems, cost hundreds of dollars per kilowatt-hour (precise estimates vary). It could take decades even for that price to drop below $100.
It’s a huge leap. But Form’s founders think they could hit that target by developing big batteries that rely on extremely cheap, energy-dense materials. “We think we can get there,” says MIT professor Yet-Ming Chiang, cofounder and chief scientist at Form. “We think we can match technology to those requirements.”
A low-cost, long-lasting form of energy storage that could be built anywhere would be about the closest thing to a silver bullet for cleaning up the power sector. It would make the most of the sharply declining costs of solar and wind, without many of the environmental, safety, or aesthetic problems raised by other ways of balancing out fluctuating renewables.
The grid storage conundrum
Form, based in Somerville, Massachusetts, seized the attention of the battery world when it was created in 2017. Chiang is one of the world’s top battery scientists. He’s published hundreds of scientific papers, holds more than 80 patents, and has cofounded six startups. Several have earned valuations of more than $1 billion, including A123 Systems, which makes lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles.
The main storage need on the grid today is known as “intraday storage.” It provides quick bursts of electricity for a few hours to smooth out mismatches between generation and demand throughout the day and at least into the early evening.
A growing amount of that storage comes from lithium-ion batteries, which also power phones, laptops, and electric cars and are steadily getting cheaper and more powerful. The amount of grid energy storage installed globally rose almost 150% last year to six gigawatt-hours, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie. That’s nearly double the average rate during the preceding five years, and lithium-ion systems accounted for most of the increase.
Tesla, for instance, plans to build hundreds of its new three-megawatt-hour Megapack battery systems in Moss Landing, California. The project, which includes other energy storage developers as well, would replace a trio of decades-old gas plants at the site run by Calpine, a large American power company.
But the sun and wind don’t just fade for hours; sometimes they dip for days or weeks. If we want to shift mainly to renewables, we’re going to need a lot more storage that can last a lot longer.
With today’s battery technology, the costs would skyrocket, says Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor at Princeton who researches energy systems. It would require banks upon banks of lithium-ion batteries, many of which might be used only a few times a year. We’d also need to build more solar and wind farms to generate enough surplus electricity to charge them. (See “The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid.”)
The economics crumble in this scenario. “If these assets are supposed to lie idle for three-quarters of the year, you’ve just jacked up the effective cost by 4X,” says Don Sadoway, an MIT chemist who cofounded Ambri, which has developed a liquid-metal grid battery that lasts about an hour longer than lithium-ion ones.
But it’s actually even worse. We’d need to overbuild renewables and storage to meet demand during the rarest events: the prolonged ebbs in sun or wind that happen every few years, maybe even once a decade.
Regions don’t have to solve this problem entirely through storage. Meeting just a small share of total demand through other means would ease the cost targets that storage companies would need to reach, other research shows. That could include nuclear reactors, hydroelectric power, natural-gas plants with systems that capture carbon emissions, or long-distance transmission lines that can balance out renewables across time zones. But those options are politically unpopular, expensive, geographically constrained, or all three. Batteries have the advantage of not particularly bugging people.
We need to think about these future problems today because the necessary technologies could take years if not decades to develop. Areas with large shares of renewables, like California and Germany, already produce more solar or wind power than the grid can use during certain periods, undermining the economic incentives to build more. Many more regions are beginning to realize there’s a yawning gap that some technology will need to close if they hope to eliminate fossil fuels.
Developing cheap, long-duration batteries has stumped researchers for decades, mainly because the metals and chemicals that have worked best so far are expensive. Using them to meet longer storage needs means stacking up more and more of them. Form is guarded about its how it’s trying to sidestep these challenges, but part of the company’s approach is clear from a paper Chiang and colleagues published in the journal Joule in late 2017 (see “Serial battery entrepreneur’s new venture tackles clean energy’s biggest problem”).
All batteries contain two basic components: an electrolyte, usually a liquid chemical, and a pair of electrodes, the anode and the cathode, which are made of different materials (often, though not always, metals). Charged atoms, known as ions, carry current through the electrolyte between the two electrodes as the battery charges or discharges. In lithium-ion batteries, the electrolyte is some compound of lithium mixed with other chemicals.
In the 2017 paper, Chiang and his colleagues highlighted the potential of an “air-breathing aqueous sulfur flow battery.” A flow battery starts to get around the cost problem by separating the electricity-delivering components of the battery, including the electrodes, from the energy storage part, the electrolyte.
A standard flow battery has two different electrolytes, known as the catholyte and the anolyte, each of which can be stored in big, easily swapped tanks. So if you want more storage, you can just add larger tanks while those other pricey parts, including the electrodes, remain the same.
To make it really inexpensive, though, the electrolytes filling those giant tanks need to be cheap as well. The key to the flow battery in the Joule paper is to use a sulfur-based solution as the anolyte. Sulfur is among the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust as well as a by-product of fuel refining, so it’s extremely cheap and can store a lot of energy.
“Based on the charge stored per dollar, sulfur was more than a factor of 10 better than the next best thing,” Chiang told me in 2017.
Altogether, the chemical costs in such a flow battery could be as low as $1 per kilowatt-hour, according to the study.
But an electrochemical battery, whether based on sulfur or lithium-ion chemistry or something else, is only one way of storing large quantities of energy.
In early September, a group of engineers crowded around a squat, silver cylinder about the size of a grill tank in the back of a cluttered workshop at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, nestled in the hills looking over the San Francisco Bay. Aside from their intense gaze on the adjacent computer screen, the only hint that something was at work was an orange glow visible in a tiny window near the bottom of the device.
The researchers at Antora Energy are developing a new type of thermal storage. It’s a rarely used approach that retains energy in the form of extreme heat or cold in a variety of substances, like underground rocks or ice blocks. In Antora’s case, the substance inside the tank was a block of carbon that, at that moment, was running well above 2,000 ˚C.
The hope is they could use excess electricity from solar or wind farms to heat up that material, and then convert the heat back into electricity when it’s needed. Typically in thermal storage, this is still done in the highly inefficient 19th-century style: by creating steam that drives a turbine generator. But most of the energy gets wasted as a result of mechanical friction, steam leaks, and other issues.
Antora is testing a novel thermophotovoltaic system. It’s something like a solar panel, but it converts the infrared radiation coming off a hot object, rather than sunlight, into electricity. In late September, the researchers announced that they had set a new record by converting more than 30% percent of the heat flowing to the cell back into electricity in a lab experiment. They’re aiming to achieve more than 50% efficiency.
Mechanical methods offer another approach to grid storage. That includes pumping air into underground caverns, running rock-filled trains up hills, or transferring water between reservoirs at varying heights. All of these work in roughly the same way, using spare energy when it’s available to move something to a higher elevation or place it under pressure. Then when it’s released, we can harness the kinetic energy from the escaping air or descending trains or water to generate electricity.
Indeed, pumped hydro is by far our cheapest and most abundant source of grid energy storage today. The problem is you don’t always have enough water or hills near every power plant.
Under its “DAYS” program, ARPA-E has invested more than $30 million in 12 startups or research groups trying to crack the problem of grid storage. Those include Form’s flow batteries and Antora’s thermal system, as well as Quidnet Energy’s twist on pumped hydro: the San Francisco startup’s system pumps water into the gaps between confined rocks underground, creating pressure that forces the water back up and through a generator when electricity is needed.
Meanwhile, Japanese conglomerate SoftBank recently invested $110 million in the Swiss mechanical storage startup Energy Vault, which uses cranes and wires to stack up concrete blocks when renewables are generating excess electricity. It then drops those blocks back to the ground on those same wires, using their momentum to turn motors in the cranes in reverse and pump out electricity. (This video makes the concept clearer.)
The unconventional nature of some of these ideas shows just how difficult a problem it is for technologies to make that leap from storing a few hours’ to a few weeks’ worth of energy.
“If we’re talking about capturing, say, one month or two months’ worth of energy during the summer and having it available for one month or two months in the winter, those are gigantic sums of energy,” Sadoway says. “How many train loads of rocks do you have?”
Very big ifs
Most mechanical methods like trains or cranes require vast amounts of space. Thermal methods are inherently inefficient, since it’s hard to prevent the heat or cold from leaking away. And producing or burning most liquid fuels creates the very climate emissions we’re looking to avoid.
Batteries have the advantage of being clean, compact, mobile, and efficient. So if someone can make them cheap and long-lasting as well, they could plug into any grid. That’d enable wind and solar to provide far more of our electricity and, in turn, for clean electricity to meet much more of our total energy needs.
But those remain very big ifs. Some energy observers doubt Form can achieve its targets, or question how much natural gas such batteries would supplant even if they did. For their part, the company’s founders say it’s at least a decade-long project, with serious technical, financial, and market risks.
The rollout of the Green New Deal will hit some roadblocks. But its overarching theme is that the nation should go totally green by 2030 to avert the irreversible effects of climate change. It’s the latest volley in the war of energy ideas — one that must ultimately address jobs, the economy and cost.
The Green New Deal is not an “abstract” idea. Globally economies are trending toward cleaner energies — efforts initiated by public demands, improved technologies and forward-thinking policies: The sponsors are compelled to accelerate the pace — to not just help impoverished communities but to also prevent environmental catastrophe.
Think this wild-eyed? Think again. Wind costs have fallen by 67% since 2009 while utility-scale solar has dropped by 86% since that time, according to the financial adviser, Lazard. Prudence has been a virtue. But what green energy skeptics have learned is that the public incentives and the overall economics are adding up — progress that will only go forward, given that prices continue to fall while the quality continues to improve.
Getting to 100% renewable energy levels is a hard task under the best of circumstances. Step one, though, is to bring down the cost of energy storage. Once advanced batteries can be produced in sufficient quantities, the cost of manufacturing them will fall. Prices, in fact, are dropping because companies like Tesla Inc. have been investing billions into production facilities.
Orkney – Island of the Future | Fully Charged JUN 4 2015 BYMARK KANE
Orkney is the only place in the United Kingdom that generates its entire power supply from clean energy and has become one the most promising sites for low-carbon energy research in the world. Made up of seventy islands of which less than a third are inhabited, the 22,000 Orcadians who call the island group home long had to rely on the Scottish mainland’s coal and gas power plants for its energy. In 1980, the UK government decided to invest in wind power, designating Orkney as the first place to trial the new alternate power source.
The excess energy produced has led to a debate on how to appropriately use it. Although a cable connects to the mainland, it was designed to import energy to the islands and lacks the capacity to export all of the extra electricity generated. Many Orcadians have already traded in their diesel or petrol powered cars for electric ones, and several discussions were had regarding laying down new cables to the mainland to inject Orkney’s energy into the Scottish grid. But then they had an idea: why not turn it into fuel?
The excess energy produced by Orkney’s wind turbines has provided engineers with a rare opportunity to create and store hydrogen fuel on a larger scale than previously done before. MORE