The US Department of Energy (USDOE) will be providing up to $30m in funding for the projects that are part of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) programme called Duration Addition to Electricity Storage (DAYS).

The project teams under the DAYS will be engaged in the development of new technologies that will enable long-term energy storage on the power grid.

US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said: “Building the grid of tomorrow will require new tools and technologies to ensure Americans have access to affordable and secure energy.

“At DOE, we are peering over the energy horizon and identifying the key technologies we need to support the power system of the future.

“These new storage options will offer us the opportunity to make the grid more resilient while enabling greater integration of our domestic energy resources.”

The DAYS teams have to design and develop cost-effective energy storage systems that can be deployed at any given location.

USDOE explained that the funding opportunity is not confined to any one particular technology.

The participating teams also have the option to develop energy storage systems using thermal, mechanical, or electrochemical power technologies.

Most of the world was focusing on the Model 3 portion of the Tesla Q1 earnings letter last night. But buried down toward the bottom of that communication, the company reiterated its goal of tripling its energy storage business in 2018. “2018 should be a very important year for our energy storage business,” the letter read. “We continue to aim for a three-fold increase in MWh deployed for our energy storage products this year.

“In Q1, energy storage deployments grew 161% from Q4 2017 to 373 MWh, which includes the 129 MWh South Australia project that was installed last year with final commercial transfer occurring in Q1. Electric utilities and power producers around the globe are increasingly appreciating the value proposition of our Powerpack storage systems based not only on economic benefits but also on the operational benefits of faster response time and greater reliability of the electric grid.”

That giant battery in South Australia surprised people with its insanely fast response the first time it was called upon after it was commissioned — an astonishing 140 milliseconds. That’s how long it took for it to start providing power to the grid when a nearby coal generating plant went offline unexpectedly.

Editor’s note: Admittedly, this is being marked/communicated as a big surprised, but this is how batteries work, and Younicos communicated this point to us well several years ago in Berlin, especially via these two graphs:

Such perfomance is making other utility companies sit up and take notice. Tesla is in talks to provide a similar grid-scale battery to Queensland, Australia. It is also working with Consolidated Edison in New York, Xcel Energy in Colorado, and PG&E in California.

Elon said on the conference call last night, “Tesla may have a gigawatt-scale deal announced in a matter of months.”

Just weeks after the 12th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference (IRES2018) concluded in Düsseldorf, Germany, newly announced figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) confirmed that battery storage technologies coupled with rapidly expanding renewables are blunting new fossil fuel investments. BNEF’s 2017 figures show that over $330 billion was invested in renewables with comparative costs worldwide showing an 18% improvement in the competitiveness of onshore wind and solar as well as a rapidly developing role for batteries.

As a result of falling barriers to installation, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for all the leading technologies is decreasing. This is causing fossil fuel power to face an unprecedented challenge in all three roles it performs in the energy mix: the supply of bulk generation, the supply of dispatchable generation, and the provision of flexibility. With capital costs for renewables falling and both generation limits and efficiencies rising, when coupled with the plummeting costs of storage—given its inherent ability to smooth output, and if necessary, shift the timing of supply—fossil fuel power stations are simply being fenced in.

“Our team has looked closely at the impact of the 79% decrease seen in lithium-ion battery costs since 2010 on the economics of this storage technology in different parts of the electricity system. The conclusions are chilling for the fossil fuel sector,” said Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF. “Some existing coal and gas power stations, with sunk capital costs, will continue to have a role for many years, doing a combination of bulk generation and balancing, as wind and solar penetration increase. But the economic case for building new coal and gas capacity is crumbling, as batteries start to encroach on the flexibility and peaking revenues enjoyed by fossil fuel plants.”

Lower Costs, Larger Energy Storage Installations

Battery units in the 10 MW to 20 MW range already online in Europe are being eclipsed by new 50-MW facilities now being built. And with new investments by Tesla and others taking batteries to 100 MW (at the moment limited to Australia, but watch for other announcements soon), the combined synergy is gaining steam and attracting major players.

“Competitive auctions for new renewable energy capacity have forced developers, equipment providers and financiers to bear down on all the different costs of establishing wind and solar projects,” said Seb Henbest, head of Europe, Middle East, and Africa for BNEF.

The Intertubes are all abuzz over a spate of bad news about renewable energy and energy storage. Among the concerns bubbling to the surface in the last week or so are: (1) renewables might not be doing such a great job of replacing fossil fuel capacity after all, (2) energy storage is fomenting yet another carbon emissions problem instead of solving one, and (3) renewables are making electricity rates go up, not down.

Ouch! Nevertheless, the fact is that renewable energy and energy storage are both here to stay. So, what are we going to do about it?

First, Admit You Have A Problem

The issue of fossil fuel replacement was tackled by a newly published study titled “Have fossil fuels been substituted by renewables? An empirical assessment for 10 European countries.”

The study looks at this problem: energy managers among the 10 nations in the study are coping with the intermittent nature of wind and solar by installing more fossil fuel capacity.

That’s more natural gas capacity, to be specific. The case for natural gas integration with renewables is pretty straightforward if your only goal is to ensure reliability when there’s a lot of wind and solar on the grid. In contrast to coal, natural gas power plants can hang out on standby mode when not needed, and rev up quickly when needed.

On the plus side, the study notes that an increase in natural gas capacity doesn’t necessarily correlate to an increase in fossils burned. Remember, you can build all the capacity you want, but in an integrated grid that new gas power plant is competing with wind, solar, hydropower and other renewables.

The problem will become more apparent as the global economy transitions to full electrification. Unless other measures are taken, that means natural gas capacity will also continue increasing. Eventually, the long-term result could be an increase in fossils burned for electricity.

Almost every automaker working on electric cars is also currently looking at ways to leverage their battery technology development into other products. It started with Tesla’s launch of ‘Tesla Energy’ in 2015 and now BMW, Renault, Nissan, and several others have also launched similar products or even new energy divisions.

Daimler also launched its ‘Mercedes-Benz Energy’ subsidiary last year with a home battery pack to compete with Tesla’s Powerwall, but they are now killing the program.

At the time, Mercedes-Benz had taken a very similar approach to Tesla.

They partnered with Vivint, Tesla Energy’s biggest competitor in the residential solar market in the US, in order to deploy its energy storage system.

Tesla has been selling its battery packs independently since launching Tesla Energy in 2015, but it has focused on deployment through its own solar installations since its acquisition of SolarCity.

The company had been selling to other solar installers, but those companies had to find other alternatives since they would be helping the competition by buying from Tesla.

For example, Sunrun was carrying the Powerwall, but they switched to LG Chem after the SolarCity acquisition.

Vivint went with Mercedes, which was marketing its product like the Powerwall. Even its marketing images looked oddly similar to Tesla’s own advertising for solar and batteries:

Energy storage is a new disruptive trend. It basically involves storing energy that can later be harnessed for electricity to power our homes, our cars – our future. Energy storage is growing fast as it complements the renewable energy sectors of wind and solar.

For some background investors can read my 2016 article – “Energy Storage – The Dams Of Our Energy Future.“

The energy storage boom – Some quick facts

• Energy Storage News reported: “BNEF predicts 305GWh of energy storage worldwide by 2030. The Global energy storage market is forecast to grow 12-fold in the years (2016) to 2030″. Note this is cumulative not yearly. See graph below.
• Energy Storage reported: “IRENA: Batteries for energy storage could reach 250GWh by 2030.”
• IHS Markit – “The global deployment of grid-connected energy storage will grow from 1.3 GW in 2016 to 4.7 GW in 2020 and 8.8 GW in 2025.” That represents about a 7 times growth just for “grid connected.”
• Citigroup forecast that “the global battery storage market (not including car batteries) will surge to 240 gigawatts (GW) and $400 billion by the year 2030.”
• Utility Dive states: “The Brattle Group concludes the United States market for energy storage could reach 50,000 MW (50GW) (over the next decade) as long as battery prices to continue their decline and state and federal policies encourage the resource. “We are not quite there yet, but as costs decline further, storage will be transformative for the power industry.”
• Utility Dive states: “The growth of energy storage is being driven by rapidly falling lithium-ion module prices, which according to IHS have fallen 70% since 2012 and will fall below $200/kWh by 2019.”
• Energy Storage Networks reported: “According to GTM Research and ESA’s U.S Energy Storage Monitor 2016 Year in Review, lithium-ion represented at least 97% of all energy storage capacity deployed in 2016.”
• Citigroup stated in 2015 – “We see lithium-ion batteries as the best option for storage batteries.”

Battery storage is a “necessity” for Hawaii to reach its 100% renewable energy by 2045 target, leading to electric cooperative KIUC becoming the top-ranked US utility for watts of energy storage deployed per customer in 2017.

The US Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA), has just published a set of four Top 10 lists, ranking utilities in the country by annual megawatts of utility solar deployed as well as a separate table for annual watts per customer. California investor-owned utilities Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison topped the megawatt-rankings for utility-scale solar with Xcel Energy’s Minnesota branch in third. For watts deployed per customer, municipal utility Madison Electric Works in Maine took the top spot.

SEPA repeated the format for energy storage, looking at watts per customer, which KIUC (Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperation) topped. In second place was Tucson Electric Power (TEP) in Arizona, which in May last year claimed it had arrived at the lowest recorded prices to date for energy bought from a solar-plus-storage installation. Arizona is also now among the US states considering a large energy storage procurement target. In third for customer-facing storage deployment was another Hawaii utility, Maui Electric. KIUC managed 415.3 watts of energy storage deployments per customer, with TEP trailing in the distance on just 50 watts per customer and Maui Electric on 36.5 watts per customer.

SEPA repeated the ranking process for total megawatts deployed. As regular readers of the site will know, California’s position as the leading state for energy storage deployment in the US, making it one of the biggest markets in the world at present, is based on several market drivers. Preeminent among those drivers, where applicable to utilities, would be AB2514, California’s state mandate for investor-owned utilities to deploy 1.325GW of energy storage by 2025.

Also in the past year, energy storage systems charged from solar arrays have started to be considered a suitable capacity resource for California utilities, particularly as legacy natural gas generation starts to reach the end of its lifetime in some cases. Going forward, that dynamic of gas versus storage and the greater consideration of energy storage in utilities’ Integrated Resource Plans is expected to continue pushing the utility market forward.

Energy storage (batteries and other ways of storing electricity, like pumped water, compressed air, or molten salt) has generally been hailed as a “green” technology, key to enabling more renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But energy storage has a dirty secret. The way it’s typically used in the US today, it enables more fossil-fueled energy and higher carbon emissions. Emissions are higher today than they would have been if no storage had ever been deployed in the US.

This is not intrinsic to the technology, by any means. If deployed strategically, energy storage can do all the things boosters say, making the grid more flexible, unlocking renewable energy, and reducing emissions.

But only if it is deployed strategically, which it generally hasn’t been.

In and of itself, energy storage is neither clean nor dirty — it is neutral, as likely to boost the revenue of fossil fuel plants as it is to help clean energy. If policymakers want to use it as a tool to enable clean energy, they need to be conscious of its characteristics and smarter about its deployment.

Why energy storage increases emissions

There is a growing body of scholarly research around energy storage; the key paper on its emission effects is by the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Eric Hittinger and Carnegie Mellon’s Inês Azevedo, in Environmental Science & Technology.

Modeling energy mixes and energy prices across the country, Hittinger and Azevedo determine that the deployment of energy storage increases emissions almost everywhere in the US today. Yikes.