On Monday, the Danish minister of education and research, Tommy Ahlers, attended the official inauguration of a giant pilot facility that will use 600 degree hot stones to store energy. Speaking to dr.dk, he said: “This could be the missing link in our renewable energy transformation.” (It’s arguable whether there really is a missing link, but that’s another story.) High-temperature thermal energy storage (HT-TES) is the technical term. The basic concept of the project is that cheap, non-degradable, and environmentally friendly storage materials combined with known charging and discharging technology can reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of energy storage.

Imagine a big box of small black stones, the size of an IKEA warehouse, insulated on all sides, very big, but very easy to build. The idea is that when excess energy is produced by intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar, this energy is used to pump very hot air into the stone storage, where the energy in the form of heat can be stored for many days with very little loss on average. The process is reversed by forcing the hot air out of the storage, which in turn creates steam from water to drive electricity-generating turbines and produce hot water for district heating.

For future theoretical storage in Denmark, the technical university DTU has identified storage needs of 10% of 1.4 GW baseload in 2035: 830 hours per year at full capacity (>300 MWh stored and released on average per day). Storage requirements are equivalent to 1 storage solution of 1.227 million cubic meters (e.g. 600 by 200 by 10 meters). The storage solution can be virtually invisible in the surroundings.

Energy company SEAS-NVE and the technical university DTU have built a small-scale test facility of this grand idea in collaboration with partners at Risø Campus, including Aarhus University, Danish Energy, Energinet.dk, EUDP (who has supported the project with research funding), and Rockwool. Niras has contributed to the work of constructing the plant. To Ritzau, Tommy Ahlers said:

Three bipartisan energy storage bills were introduced in Congress last week, but none would provide investment tax credits, which industry has sought to increase the competitiveness of the technology.

“I think the question, in our minds, is going to be do these folks see [storage ITC] as something that’s a near term concern or do they see this as something they want to put into a larger, longer conversation,” Jason Burwen, policy vice president at the Energy Storage Association, told Utility Dive.

The three storage bills, which focus on opportunities for loans and research in energy storage, come amid rising interest in the technology, with an increasing number of state targets, a new bipartisan storage caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and increased funding in the President’s latest budget request.

Meanwhile, industry priorities like the ITC are competing with a host of other energy issues in Congress, including nuclear power, curbing emissions and the Green New Deal.

Hill rehashes support for storage

Last Wednesday, Reps. Mark Takano, D-Calif., and Chris Collins, R-N.Y., announced a new Advanced Energy Storage Caucus along with a package of battery storage bills previously introduced at the end of 2018 in the last Congress. The action is “one more signpost” on the path of continuing bipartisan interest in energy storage, according to Burwen.

WASHINGTON — Assistant Energy Secretary Bruce Walker said Thursday that the Department of Energy is planning a megawatt-scale “Storage Launchpad” that he predicted will cut the cost of energy storage dramatically.

Walker told attendees of the NERC Reliability Summit that funding for the initiative, which will be assigned to one of DOE’s 17 National Laboratories, is included in President Trump’s proposed fiscal 2020 budget, which was released March 11.

“We are going to build a facility … where we can leverage our focus on chemistry. So we’re looking at aqueous, non-aqueous redox equation-type batteries, zinc manganese oxide,” Walker said. “We’ve made some significant breakthroughs already in that space. We believe we’re going to be able to drive the cost down to basically 20% of what it is today over the next five years.”

The budget proposes $5 million for the Storage Launchpad and $15 million “to accelerate the conversion of the National Wind Testing Facility site into an experimental microgrid capable of testing grid integration at the megawatt scale.” The budget would cut funding for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy by 70% and eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. Congress rejected similar proposals last year.

Daniel Gabaldon, director and co-founder of Enovation Partners, a Chicago-based consulting firm that does the data analysis for Lazard’s levelized cost of storage report, expressed some skepticism that a $5 million investment could produce such a dramatic return in battery technology but said DOE’s investment would be “a really healthy development.”

Although Enovation doesn’t track the technologies cited by Walker for Lazard, Gabaldon said the prediction of an 80% reduction is in line with claims of early-stage companies pursuing alternatives to lithium-ion technology.

“We’ve seen very dramatic claims, and it would be certainly helpful for the suppliers, as well as potential buyers, to substantiate those claims,” he said in an interview. “Whether it comes to pass, who knows?”

pv magazine Australia: We saw an extremely rapid expansion of the Australian PV market in 2018 – across all market segments. How confident are you that Australian market can sustain these rate of growth, or even an annual installation rate of around 3.5 GW into the future?

Shawn Qu: I would prefer the market to continue, with around 2-3 GW each year. But also, if we can bring energy storage online fast enough, then we would be able to provide a real 24/7 service, and we will be able to maintain the market at this level. I don’t like boom and bust cycles.

Looking at all of the [large scale] project development, there is something like 40-50 GW of projects being developed at present. I think 40-50 GW, Australia can take it, but certainly not in one year. That volume of installations should be carried out over 15-20 years. The pace of installation should be kept in line with the pace of decommissioning of the coal power plants. But for that, it will take 20-30 years.

Talking about energy storage, what is Canadian Solar’s engagement with storage?

We have a few engagements. A couple of years ago we won a contract in Canada in Ottowa to build a 5 MW energy storage facility – pure energy storage, no solar. This is for Ottowa Hydro. That project was awarded four or five years ago, but we are just commissioning it now. That shows how much of a learning curve both Canadian Solar, the utility and the equipment provider and integrator went through over this period. This project was slow, we learned, we will lose money for sure – but that’s ok, it’s a part of the R&D process and the experience gathering [process].

Last year we signed another PPA in California, this time for 185 MWh, or somewhere around that. It will be the largest solar-plus-energy storage project in California, and probably the second largest in the United States. We will deliver this before the end of 2020. That will give us very good experience in how to integrate a solar-plus-energy storage in an important market marketplace, and for a major utility.

As the number of medium- and large-scale energy storage deployments has grown, so too has the recognition that the soon-to-be gigawatts of battery assets coming online will have to be properly managed and will require robust operations and maintenance programs. But unlike the solar PV sector where there’s often an attitude of “let’s sell the project first and worry about O&M later,” storage projects must have services built in to the thinking and financial process from the beginning. Utilities and other savvy asset owners want to know what type of O&M will be provided, how the teams will be qualified, and how the services will be provided to ensure the productivity of their new system. In other words, with storage, a strong O&M plan and team become part and parcel of making and closing a strong productive deal.

Out of pocket, and out of luck?
There are some areas of overlap between the best practices of PV and storage O&M: in both cases, designing for serviceability promotes system health. Good installation using quality products is one of the best ways to hedge against subpar performance. Predictive maintenance backed by advanced data analytics is more cost effective than rolling trucks whenever there might be an issue. A warranty is only as good as the financial strength of the company behind it.

But to say that “services provided to storage systems do not radically vary from those provided to solar systems” would be misleading. In many ways, the stakes are higher with storage O&M and the financial risks that must be managed are more difficult than in solar. Storage O&M is significantly more complicated than its solar sibling—involving a broader range of components and subsystems as well as power distribution and load management issues—and requires a higher level of technical training and expertise among the workforce as well.

Why are the stakes higher? Because we are no longer just working with and servicing a component of a power plant such as a tracker, inverter or solar panel; with storage, we are now servicing many additional critical layers of the power plant. As storage O&M providers, it’s not just about the battery: We must have expertise in every piece of the system so that we can help manage the owner’s financial risk by ensuring the storage asset performs at its optimal level.

The German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt or DLR) is investigating whether Germany’s coal plants could be reused as energy storage assets.

The research body, which has a track record in concentrated solar power (CSP) development, is planning a pilot that will involve ripping out the boiler from an old coal plant and replacing it with a molten salt thermal storage tank that will be heated using excess renewable energy.

If the concept works, then advocates say it could help safeguard coal generation jobs while giving Germany tens of gigawatts of storage capacity for renewable energy load-shifting on the German grid.

Furthermore, a single pilot could be enough to prove the commercial viability of the concept, since the technology, described as a Carnot battery, is based on commercially available industrial components and standard engineering practices.

Dr. Michael Geyer, senior adviser at DLR’s Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics in Almeria, Spain, said the center is preparing a commercial-scale pilot in association with an unnamed German utility. A feasibility study for the pilot had already been awarded, he confirmed.

Geyer explained that engineering proposals would take 12 to 18 months and construction could take another year and a half, meaning the pilot plant could be up and running within three years. The pilot is being financed as a public-private initiative, he said.

“A commonsense application”
According to its website, DLR has been researching Carnot batteries since 2014. Experience with molten salt storage in CSP plants, meanwhile, stretches back almost a decade.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) released Wednesday a Battery Energy Storage System Guidebook to help permitting authorities and companies navigate the siting and review processes for battery energy storage projects.

The guide book will outline laws relating to battery energy storage systems, required permit, and a checklist for field inspections of residential and small commercial battery energy storage systems.

“Under Governor Cuomo’s nation-leading commitment to deploying 3,000 MW of energy storage by 2030, New York is rapidly becoming one of the leading markets for energy storage development in the U.S., and this new Guidebook will be a critical tool for local governments, developers, and customers who seek to adopt energy storage solutions,” Alicia Barton, president and CEO, NYSERDA, said. “Energy storage is a key resource in our ability to build the 100% clean electricity system of the future, and NYSERDA is committed to providing hands-on resources to communities all across New York as we build a cleaner, more cost-effective and more resilient energy system for the long term.”

This resource is the first comprehensive set of guidelines for reviewing and evaluating battery energy storage systems in the state. This, among other resources, will create a comprehensive process to safely permit all types of battery energy storage systems.

NYSERDA offers continuing free technical assistance to local governments help implement the resources outlined in the Guidebook. For additional information and guidance, local officials can contact the siting team at NYSERDA by emailing cleanenergyhelp@nyserda.ny.gov.

On March 11, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) filed its proposed Implementation Plan to administer its Energy Storage Market Acceleration Bridge Incentive Program and support the ambitious New York Public Service Commission (“PSC”) order requiring 1.5 GW of energy storage in New York by 2025 and 3 GW by 2030 (the “Storage Order”). The Implementation Plan breaks down the state’s incentive strategy primarily between “Retail Storage Incentives” and “Bulk Storage Incentives,” and provides essential preliminary details for sponsors, investors, and lenders considering energy storage projects in the state. Both programs will officially launch in Q2 2019. This article summarizes the program framework generally but focuses on the key attributes of the Retail Storage Incentives program (the “Retail Program”) and associated NYSERDA Retail Energy Storage Incentive Program Manual (the “Program Manual”). A subsequent article will address the Implementation Plan’s Bulk Storage Incentives and associated program manual.

Retail Program Funding and Scope

The Storage Order authorized a $310 million investment in energy storage deployment to be administered by NYSERDA, in addition to $40 million previously made available solely to energy storage paired with solar projects. The Implementation Plan preliminarily allocates $130 million to Retail Storage Incentives and $150 million to Bulk Storage Incentives. The Implementation Plan notes that an additional $53 million in Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) funds will later be made available for retail and bulk storage projects specifically located on Long Island.

The Retail Storage Incentive will be a fixed up-front amount per kilowatt-hour (“kWh”) of “usable installed storage capacity” for projects up to five megawatts (“MW”) of alternating current (“AC”) capacity. Projects will receive an initial incentive level of $350 per kWh for the first four hours of a system’s storage duration, after which the rate will be reduced by 50% for hours five and six. No incentive is provided for storage capacity beyond six hours. The incentive is capped at 15 megawatt-hours (“MWh”).

A project may be a standalone energy storage system or paired with a solar photovoltaic (“PV”) system, and it may be interconnected behind a customer’s electric meter or directly into the distribution system. The Implementation Plan also requires that a project’s value must be “monetized under an Investor Owned Utility (‘IOU’) tariff in the form of bill savings or credits.”

The latest numbers for U.S. energy storage activity are out. They show a surge of activity coming over the next five years, leading to 6x market growth.

By 2024, the storage market will be worth $4.7 billion, driven evenly by utility-scale and behind-the-meter battery projects.

On this week’s Energy Gang episode, we’ll unpack the numbers in the latest Energy Storage Monitor from Wood Mackenzie and the Energy Storage Association. They show a doubling and then a tripling of storage to come — making batteries an important part of utility planning in every region of the country.

Where’s growth happening, and what does it mean for grid planning?

Then, with many farmers in crisis, more of them are putting solar on their land. That’s providing new sources of income, but many fear it could take prime croplands out of commission. How do we site solar on agricultural lands properly?

And finally, what is going on over at Tesla? We’ll make try to make sense of the confusing series of decisions at the company.