Posted on

Microbial Power-to-Gas in exhausted oilfields as bridge between renewable and fossil energy

An abandoned or unproductive oilfield can be reused for methane production from CO2 using renew­able electrical power. Exhausted oilfields can be reactors for the conversion of renewable energy to natural gas using microbes. To achieve this, an oilfield can be made electrically conductive and catalytically active to produce natural gas from re­newable power sources. The use of natural gas is superior to any battery because of the existing infra­structure, the use in combustion engines, the high energy density and because it can be recycled from CO2. Oil­fields are superior to any on-ground production because of the enormous storage capaci­ties. They are already well explored and these geological formations underwent environmental risk assessments. Lastly, the microbial power-to-gas technology is already available.

Process summary

Whole process (end-to-end via methane)

50% electrical efficiency

Energy density of methane

180 kWh kg1

Storage capacity per oilfield

3 GWh day1

Charge/Discharge cycles

Unlimited

Investment (electrodes, for high densities)

$51,000 MW1

Cost per kWh (>5,000 hours anode lifetime)

<$0.01 kWh1

Electrolyte

Seawater

The Problem

To address the problem of storing renewable energy, batteries have been proposed as a possible so­lution. Lithium ion batteries have a maximum energy storage capacity of 0.3 kWh kg−1. To date, this is consid­ered the best trade-off between cost and efficiency but these batteries are still too inefficient to replace gasoline, which has a capacity of about 13 kWh kg−1. This makes battery driven cars heavier than conventional cars. Lithium air batteries are considered a possible al­ternative because they can reach theoretical capacities of 12 kWh kg−1 but technical difficulties have prevented them from being used for transportation.

In contrast, methane has an energy density of 52 MJ kg−1 corresponding to 180 kWh kg−1 which is sec­ond only to hydrogen with 500 kWh kg−1, not counting in nuclear energy. This high energy den­sity of methane and other hydrocarbons along with their facile usage, is the reason why they are used in combustion and jet engines that drive nearly all transportation to date. While electrical cars seem to be a tempting green alternative, the fact that combustion engines and the fueling infrastructure are so wide-spread makes it difficult to switch.

In addition to the difficulty of changing habits, battery-driven electrical cars need other limited natural resources such as lithium. To equip all 94 million automobiles produced worldwide in 2017, 3 mega tons lithium carbonate would need to be mined annually⁠. This is nearly 10% of the entire recoverable lithium resources of 35 mega tons worldwide. Although lithium and other met­als can be recycled, it is clear that metal based batteries alone will not build the bridge between green en­ergy and tradi­tional ways of transportation due to the low energy densities of metals. And this does not even take into account other energy de­mands such as industrial nitrogen fixation, aviation or heating.

For Germany, with its high proportion of renewable energy, fuel for cars is not the only problem. As re­newable energy is generated in the north, but many energy consumers are in the south, the grid ca­pacity is frequently reached during peak production hours. A steadier energy output can only be ac­complished by decentralizing the production or by en­ergy storage. To decentralize production, home­owners were en­couraged to equip their property with solar panels or wind­mills. As tax incentives phase out, homeowners face the prob­lem of energy storage. The best product for this group of cus­tomers so far are again lithium ion batteries but investment costs of $0.10 kWh−1 are still unattractive espe­cially be­cause these products store the en­ergy as electricity which can only be used for a short time and is less efficient than natural gas when used for heating.

Natural gas is widely used as energy source today and the global energy infrastructure is designed for natural gas and other fossil fuels. Increasing demand and lim­ited resources for these fossil fuels were the main driv­ers of oil and gas prices during the last years, slowed by the recent economic crises and hydraulic fractur­ing (fracking). The high oil price attracted in­vestors to recover oil using techniques that be­come in­creasingly expensive and are environmental risks such as deep-sea drilling or tar sand extraction. Ironically, the high oil price made costly renew­able ener­gies an economically feasible alterna­tive and helped driving down their cost. Since habits are difficult to change and building an entirely new infrastructure only for renewable energies does not seem economically feasible today while CO2 drives global warming, a more realistic solution needs to be found.

Microbial Power-to-Gas could be a bridging technology that integrates renewable energy into the existing fossil fuel in­frastructure. It reaches break even in less than 2 years if certain preconditions are met. This is ac­complished by integrating methane produced from renewable energy into the current oil and gas pro­ducing infrastructure. The principal idea is to use carbon instead of metals as energy carrier because of its high energy density when bound to hydrogen. The benefits are:

  • High energy density of 180 kWh kg−1 methane
  • Low investments due to existing infrastructure (natural gas, oilfield equipment)
  • Carbon is not a limited resource
  • Low CO2 footprint due to CO2 recycling
  • Methane is a transportation fuel
  • Methane is the energy carrier for the Haber-Bosch process
  • Inexpensive catalysts further reduce initial investments
  • Low temperatures due to bio-catalysis
  • No toxic compounds used
  • No additional environmental burden because existing oilfields are reused

The solution

Methane can be synthesized by microbes or chemically. Naturally, methane is produced by anaerobic (oxygen-free) microbial biomass decomposition. The energy for biomass synthesis is provided by sun­light or chemical energy like hydrogen. In the case of methanogens (methane producing microbes), energy is harvested after CO2 and hydrogen were re­leased from biomass de­composition following a 1-to-4 stoichiometry:

CO2 + 4 H2 → CH4 + 2 H2O

Without microbes, methane is produced by the Nobel-prize winning Sabatier reaction and several attempts are currently underway to use it on industrial scale. It is necessary to split water into hydrogen and use this to re­duce CO2 in the gas phase. A major drawback of the Sabatier reaction is the need for high tempera­tures around 385ºC, and a nickel catalyst that becomes quickly spent. Methanogens use iron-nickel enzymes called hydro­genases to harvest energy from hydrogen, but do so at ambient tempera­tures.

To produce abiotic hydrogen, water is split using precious metal catalysts. Microbes split water using hydrogenases in reverse direction and the produced hydro­gen is oxidized by methanogens that grow in the electrolyte or on electrodes to pro­duce methane⁠. This reaction oc­curs at the correct 1-to-4 stoichiometry⁠ at potentials that are near to the theoretical hydro­gen production potential of −410 mV obtained from the Nernst equation in neutral aqueous solu­tions⁠. Methanogenic microorganisms are able to reduce the overpoten­tial.

Power-to-Gas concept for exhausted oilfields. Electrolysis catalyzes water splitting inside the oilfield producing methane gas and O2.

The future challenge will be to accelerate methane production rates as has been reported for a high tem­perature oilfield cul­tures⁠. Besides increasing the temperature, the most obvious solution is to use a higher reactive surface and bringing both electrodes closer together. Using carbon brushes that are poor hydrogen catalysts but provide a higher sur­face for microbial attachment is one possibility. Methane production correlates with microbial cell numbers in the reactors.

The number of methanogens in microbial electrolysis reactors correlates with the electrode surface.

To overcome the problem of expensive carbon (and also steel) brushes for large scale applications,exhausted gas and oilfields could be used. They provide a high surface area and are usually eco­nomic liabili­ties and not assets. Methano­gens inhabit oilfields where they carry out the final step in anaero­bic petroleum degradation⁠. Hence, oilfields can be seen as bioreactors at geological scale. Geological formations provide ideal con­ditions for produc­ing, storing and ex­tracting methane.

Open questions and potential solutions

Oilfield porespace volume

The Californian Summerland oilfield, for instance, has been abandoned and extensively studied in the past. It produced 27 billion barrels of oil and 2.8 billion m3 methane during its lifetime of 90 years. This maximum load of 3.5 billion m3 left the same volume of porespace filled with seawater behind. Only 2% of these pores are larger than 50 µm, which is necessary for microbial growth assuming dimensions of 1 x 2 µm of a methanogen cell. Experiments showed that the resulting 70 million m3 accessible porespace have a storage capacity of 35,000 TW.  That is a lot of methane assuming a solubility of 0.74 kg methane m−3 seawater at 500 m water depth⁠. All German off-shore windfarms together have a capacity of 7,000 MW. Obviously, the limiting factor is not the volumet­ric storage capacity of an oilfield.

Microbial methane production rates

But how fast can microbes produce methane in an hypothetical oilfield? Under optimal conditions, methanogens that grow on electrodes (typically the genus Methanobacterium or Methanobrevibacter) can produce methane at a rate of 100-200 nmol ml−1 day−1 (equals 2.24-4.48 ml l−1 day−1) depending on catalyst and potential. Using a produc­tion rate of 15 J ml−1 day−1 of methane (190 nmol ml−1 day−1), the en­tire microbially accessi­ble oilfield (2%) has a ca­pacity of 3.6 mil­lion MBtu per year. Mi­crobes would theoretical­ly consume 1 TWh per year for 3.6 mil­lion MBtu meth­ane pro­duction if there were no losses and elec­trical power is translate­d into methane 1-to-1. A power genera­tor of 121 MW would be suffi­cient to supply the entire oil­field at these rates. However, all Ger­man off-shore wind­farms produce 7,000 MW mean­ing that only 3% off-peak power can be cap­tured by our ex­ample oilfield. There­fore, the catalytic sur­face and activity must be in­creased to accel­erate methane conversion rates.

Since methanogens produce methane from hydrogen, not only the 2% porespace big enough for cells can be used resulting in an increased catalytic surface to nearly 60%. A hydrogen cata­lyst needs to be found that does not out-pace methanogen growth to keep the reservoir pH within the limits of 6-8 re­quired for methanogen growth. This hydrogen catalyst must be cheap and render an oilfield electrically conductive. A chemical formulation that mimics microbial hydrogen catalysis could be used. It has the potential to turn a non-conductive and non-catalytic oilfield into a con­ductive hydrogen catalyst sufficient to sustain methane produc­tion needed to store all of Germany’s electricity produced by off-shore wind­farms. This catalyst is solu­ble in water when inactive. To become active, it coats mineral surfaces by precipitation that can be triggered by indigenous microbes or by electrical polarization. The investment would be $2.3 mil­lion per MW storage capaci­ty ($16 bil­lion for the entire 7,000 MW). Due to microbial growth, the cat­alytic activity of the system improves dur­ing operation and there is no need for the second component if an immediate production is not crucial. The investments made on the cathode side would then be as low as $600 per MW ($4.2 million for 7,000 MW).

Anodes

As the cathodic side of the reaction can be excluded as limiting factor, the anode needs to be de­signed. Several commercially available anodes such as mixed metal oxides (up to 750 A m−2) with platinum on carbon black or niobium anodes (Pt/C, 5-10 kA m−2) could be used. Anodes based on platinum are the most cost-efficient material available on the market. Invest­ments made for Pt/C (10%, 6 mg cm−2) anodes will amount to $50,000 per MW ($350 million for 7,000 MW). How­ever, the exact amount of Pt needed for the reaction still needs to be evaluated in an experiment be­cause the corrosion rate at 2 V cell voltage is unknown. An often cited value for the life­time of fuel cells is 5,000 hours and is used here to determine the costs per kWh. For 5,000 hours life­time, the costs per kWh will be at the targeted limit of $0.01 but may be well below that because Pt/C anodes can be re­cycled and the Pt load may be reduced to 3 mg cm−2 (5%). Alternatively, steel anodes (SS316, 2.5 kA m−2, $54,000 per MW) can be used but it is unclear when steel anodes fail to elec­trolyze. In conclusion, the anodic side is the cost-driving factor. Hope­fully, better water splitting anodes will lower these costs in future.

Cost estimation summary

Windfarms

Already in place

CO2 injection

Already occurred

Natural gas capturing equipment

Already in place

Microbial seed

Wastewater from oil rig

Cathode costs

$600 MW1

Anode costs

$50,000 MW1

Electrolyte (seawater)

Free

Total (>5,000 hours anode lifespan)

<$0.01 kWh1

Energy and conversion efficiencies

The whole cell voltage for microbial power-to-gas reactions varies from 0.6 to 2.0 V, depending on ca­thodic rates, anodic corrosion and the presence of a membrane. Higher voltages will accelerate an­ode corrosion, again, making anodes the limiting factor. As the voltage decreases, methane production rates become slower but also more efficient. The voltage also depends on the pH of the oil­field. An oil­field that underwent CO2 injection as enhanced recovery method will have a low pH, provid­ing better condi­tions for hydrogen production but not for microbial growth and must be neutralized using seawa­ter. As stated above, the oilfield, being the cathode, is not limiting the the sys­tem. The use of Pt/C an­odes eliminates the overpotential problem on the anode side. Hence, we can assume an ideal system that splits water at 1.23 V. However, the voltage is often 2 V due to anode and cathode overpotentials. Optimized cul­tures and cathodes produce about 190 nmol ml−1 day−1 methane which equals 0.15 J ml−1 day−1 using the energy of combustion of 0.8 MJ mol−1. The same electrolysis cell consumes 0.2 mW at a cell voltage of 2 V which equals 0.17 J ml−1 day−1 and the resulting energy effi­ciency is 91%. The anodes can be simple carbon brushes and the two cham­bers of the cell are separated by a Nafion™ membrane. The system can still be optimized by using Pt/C anodes and by avoiding mem­branes.

The overall electricity-methane-electricity efficiency also depends on the consumption side efficiency where methane is used in com­bustion engines and gas fired power plants. Such power plants fre­quently operate at efficiencies of 40- 60%. Assuming a reasonable power efficiency of 80% (see above), the overall electrical power recov­ery using gas fired power plants will be up to 50%. Besides the high efficiency of gas fired power plants, they are also easy to build and therefore contribute the a better power grid efficiency. Coal fired power plants can be upgraded to gas fired power plants.

Experimental approach

The conversion efficiencies of charge (Coulombs) transported across the circuit are usually between 70-100% in these systems depending on the electrode material⁠. Another efficien­cy limitation could arise from mass transport inhibition. Mass transport can be improved by pump­ing electrolyte adding more costs for pumping which still have to be de­termined. However, since most oil­fields undergo seawater injection for enhanced oil recovery the addi­tional cost may be negligi­ble. The total efficiency has yet to be determined in scale-up experiments and will depend on the fac­tors men­tioned above.

The reactor simulates oilfield conditions using sand as filling material under continuous flow of electrolyte.

Controlling the pH is crucial. Alkaline pHs significantly impede hydrogen pro­duction and therefore methanogenesis. This can be addressed by a software that monitors the pH and adjusts the po­tential accordingly. Addition of acids is not desired as this drives the costs. The software can also act as potentiostat that then fully controls the methane production process. To test the process under more realistic conditions, a drill core from an oilfield must be obtained.

Results show methane production in the simulation reactor. The appearance of methane in the anode compartment was a result of flow from the cathode to the anode, carrying produced methane with it.

Return of investment of the microbial power-to-gas process

The the microbial power-to-gas process in unproductive oilfields is economically superior to all other storage strategies because of the low start-up and operating costs. This is achieved because the ma­jor investments are the installation of oil- and gas production equipment and renewable power plants which are already in place as a precondition. These investments break even in a short amount of time.

But how can the microbial Power-to-Gas process accelerate the return of investment in renewable en­ergy? Only 8 out of 28 active off-shore windfarms reported their investment costs. These 8 produce roughly half the overall power of 1,600 MW corresponding to $7 billion. While the maximum production of an oilfield with unlimited supply of elec­tricity would yield hypothetical 3.6 million MBtu natural gas per year resulting a return of $13 million per year the real production is limited by off-peak power gener­ated by re­newable energy production. Assuming that the maximum annual methane production corresponds to 10% excess electrical power, $15 million per year can by gener­ated by selling 4.3 million MBtu meth­ane per year on the market. These are $15 million that are not lost during off-peak shutdowns. Clearly, this conservative estimate can help to compensate the invest­ment in renewable energy earlier. It also decreases the investment risk because the investment calcu­lations for new wind farms can be made on a more reliable basis.

In the example using all German windfarms (7,000 MW) this compensation roughly doubles. Using the $60 million generated by methane sales per year, the investment of $4 million for the cathodic cata­lyst and the $36 million for the Pt/C anodes are compensated for within less than a year. No other invest­ments are required because the target oilfield already produced oil and gas and all necessary installa­tion are in working condition. The target oilfield is swept using seawater as sec­ondary extraction method. Electrical installations are in place for cathodic protection of production equipment in order to prevent microbial corrosion, which, however, may need to be upgraded to pass the now higher power densities. Moreover, CO2 is used from CO2 injection as tertiary enhanced oil re­covery method. Only the pH may then need to be adjusted to sustain life by sweeping with seawater.

And this is not the end of oilfield storage capacity. In theory, an oilfield can store the entire amount of renewable energy produced in one year globally, allowing more than enough head room for future development and CO2 sequestration.

Posted on

Energy storage in Italy

Italy’s Electricity Portfolio

In our previous post we briefed you on the energy storage potential in the United Kingdom. With Brexit, Italy will become the third largest member state after Germany and France. With extensive mountain terrain in the north, Italy has long been dependent upon hydroelectric generation. Until the mid 1960s hydropower represented nearly all electricity production in Italy. The installed capacity of hydropower has been stagnant since the mid 1960s, with a rapid growth in fossil fuel based generation driving the overall share of hydropower fall from ~90% to 22% in 2014. A detailed breakdown of electricity sources in Italy is shown below.

Electricity Production in Italy (2014)

Considerable effort has been made to transition Italy to a low carbon electricity sector. As of 2016, Italy had the 5th highest installed solar capacity in the world and the 2nd highest per capita solar capacity, behind only Germany. In addition to its impressive solar progress Italy ranks 6th worldwide in geothermal with 0.9 GW.

Italy’s solar growth was propelled by feed-in-tariffs that wer enacted in 2005. This provided residential PV owners with financial compensation for energy sold to the grid. However, the feed-in-tariff program ceased on 06 July 2014 after the €6.7 billion subsidy limit was reached.

Even with its impressive accomplishments in renewable energy, traditional thermal generation (natural gas) still account for ~60% of total electricity generation in Italy. How much effort will go into reducing this number is still unclear. Italy has committed to 18% renewables by 2020 and is nearly 70% of the way there already so there is little urgency on reducing fossil-based electricity from the perspective of meeting this target. However, Italy is heavily reliant on fossil fuel imports (Deloitte) and energy security requirements will likely continue to push the development of more domestic electricity sources like renewables.

Energy Storage Facilities

Italy is dominating the electro-chemical energy storage market in Europe. With over 6,000 GWh of planned and installed electro-chemical generating capacity (~84 MW installed capacity), Italy is far ahead of 2nd place UK. This is largely due to the massive SNAC project by TERNA (Italy’s TSO), a sodium-ion battery installation totaling nearly 35 MW over three phases. A breakdown of energy storage projects, by technology type can be seen below.

Energy Storage Projects by Type (Sandia National Laboratories)

Service Uses of Energy Storage

In Italy, electrical energy storage is used almost exclusively for grid support functions; mainly transmission congestion relief (frequency regulation). While it may not be a direct case of renewables firming, congestion issues can be traced to the variability of solar power, meaning electrical energy storage development in Italy is largely driven by the need to integrate solar power.

Energy Storage by Service Use Type (Sandia National Laboratories)

Energy Storage Market Outlook

Italy is one of the top markets in the EU for energy storage and is primed for growth. The Italian TSO, TERNA, has been investigating selling energy storage as a service. In 2014 the AEEG, the electrical regulator under which TERNA operates, proposed that batteries should be treated as generation sources similar to cogeneration plants. Italy has always been a market completely dominated by a small number of big centralized utility companies and this trend is likely to continue when it comes to EES deployment. These companies have been focusing their efforts on battery technologies and are expected to continue down this path.

However, the private market could present great opportunity for P2G. The International Battery & Energy Storage Alliance have summarized the reality of Italy’s untapped energy storage market as follows: “With high solar output of 1,400 kWh/kWp, net residential electricity prices around 23 cent/kWh and currently no FIT, the Italian energy market is considered to be highly receptive for energy storage.”

Italy is now well-stocked with residential PV systems that can no longer collect subsidies. Combine this with the fact that the vast majority of homes in Italy burn natural gas imported from Russia, Libya and Algeria and it is clear that Italy presents a unique opportunity for P2G at a residential/community level. This is echoed by Energy Storage Update who in 2015 concluded that Italy was “one of the top four markets worldwide for PV-and-battery-based energy self-consumption.”

While it is unclear exactly how many residential PV systems there are in Italy, it was speculated in late 2015 that there were over 500,000 PV plants in Italy.

In our next post, we are looking at the situation for energy storage in Denmark.

(Jon Martin, 2019)

Posted on

Energy storage market in the United Kingdom

The UK’s Electricity Portfolio

In our last post about the EU energy storage market we gave a brief overview of Germany’s situation. Now, we show how the United Kingdom prepared itself for its energy transition. Traditionally, the UK’s energy mix has been dominated by fossil fuels. This remains the status quo today, as approximately 60% of the electricity generated in the UK comes from fossil fuel sources, with another 20% coming from nuclear.

UK electricity production 2015 (Source: The UK Government)

While the UK has been heavily dependent on carbon-intensive sources of electricity, in 2008 they committed to a 15% renewable energy target (by 2020) and 80% reduction in CO2 emissions (by 2050; Department of Energy & Climate Change). However, the UK has stated that they will miss the 15% renewable target for 2020, due to the lack of properly designed policy measures. There has been considerable pressure to transition to a low carbon market and with one-quarter of existing generating capacity (mainly coal and nuclear) expected to close by 2021; it is expected that growth in renewable energy will lead to more energy storage capacities.

In 2011 the UK government, acknowledging that their current market structure would not be able to accommodate the scale or rate of investment in clean energy needed, proposed a shift to a capacity-based market, that is, a market in which a central agency procures capacity years in advance, in order to adequately plan for and control future generation. The proposed market reform would help drive the transition to low carbon energy by providing renewable energy producers revenue stability through carbon pricing and feed-in-tariffs (FITs). The capacity market was operational after the first energy auctions in late 2015.

The UK has made excellent progress on its short-term clean energy goals and there is optimism that this trend will continue. Large-scale development of low carbon generation technologies such as wind and solar is expected to continue.

Energy Storage Facilities

As of late 2016, there were 27 non-PHS EES plants representing 430 MW of installed capacity in the UK (Sandia National Laboratories). The UK’s energy storage portfolio is dominated by electro-chemical based technologies (primarily lead-acid and lithium-ion battery installations). This is shown below.

Number of Existing & Planned Energy Storage Facilities in the UK, by Type (Source: Sandia National Laboratories)

The prevalence of electro-chemical technologies appears to be continuing the short-term as well; five of the seven energy storage projects currently under development in the UK are electro-chemical. While this is a rather small sample size, the decreasing costs of lithium-ion battery storage is a point of focus for the UK.

Service Uses of Energy Storage

UK Energy Storage Facilities by Service Use Type (Source: Sandia National Laboratories)

As was shown for Germany, only a very small fraction of EES facilities are dedicated to renewables capacity firming. The existing EES capacity is almost exclusively dedicated to critical transmission support (on-site power). While nearly all of the EES capacity under development is dedicated to bulk energy storage (electric energy time shift).

There is still considerable uncertainty around the growth of EES in the UK, and with such a small sample size it is difficult to infer any correlation from the data in the figure above. According to the previous UK government, however, being geographically isolated and a net importer of electricity, one would expect the UK to place a heavier focus on renewables capacity firming in the long-term.

Energy Storage Market Outlook

The UK is in the midst of a major restructuring of their electricity generating portfolio and the market under which these assets operate. With a large portion of the existing capacity due for retirement in the next 10-15 years, the UK faces challenges in meeting energy needs while balancing decarbonization efforts. As part of this, major investment is needed in all areas of the electrical grid, including energy storage.

In its Smart Power publication, the National Infrastructure Commission outlined that while the UK is being faced with challenges to cover aging infrastructure this represents an opportunity to build efficient and flexible energy infrastructure. The Commission stated that energy storage was one of the three key innovations for a “smart power revolution”.

Many other official government bodies have expressed similar thoughts regarding energy storage. In its Low carbon network infrastructure report, the Energy and Climate Change Committee stated that “storage technologies should be deployed at scale as soon as possible”, while urging the Government to eliminate the outdated and unfair regulations that have been handcuffing energy storage development in the UK (Garton and Grimwood).

In April 2016, the Government acknowledged concerns regarding the regulatory hurdles facing energy storage projects (primarily double-charging of network charges) and stated that they would begin working with the National Infrastructure Commission and ECCC to investigate the issue. While there may be regulatory hurdles hindering energy storage in the UK, the Government has shown commitment through funding. Since 2012, the government has contributed over £80 million to energy storage research. In addition to this, the Department of Energy and Climate Change have developed a new £20 million fund to help drive innovation in energy storage technologies.

Overall, the outlook for energy storage in the UK is positive. There is considerable pressure to begin developing energy storage facilities at scale from not only industry, but also many government bodies. Investors are ready as well. As stated by the National Infrastructure Commission: “businesses are already queuing up to invest”.

Simply put: regulatory hurdles are holding back growth in the UK energy storage market. With the Government making major strides in renewable energy development and being vocal about its commitment to making the UK a leader in energy storage technology, these regulatory hurdles will likely be relaxed and there should be considerable growth in the UK energy storage market in the near-term.

At this point, specific technology types and service uses have not been hypothesized in detail. However, with the UK being geographically isolated and a net importer of electricity, logic would suggest an emphasis on renewables capacity firming in the long-term to maximize domestic consumption of renewable energy. Rapidly decreasing costs in electro-chemical technologies, coupled with the fact that much of the existing gas-fired capacity will be reaching end of life by 2030 suggest that the UK EES market would not be ideal for P2G technologies.

In our next post, we focus on Italy.

(Jon Martin, 2019)

Posted on

Energy storage market in Germany

Germany’s electricity portfolio

In our last posts we introduced electrical energy storage (EES) and the EU market for EES. Now, we focus on some important EU members, beginning with Germany. The country’s electrical energy portfolio reflects its status among the most progressive countries in the world in terms of climate action. As of November 2016, Germany had produced ~35% of its 2016 electricity needs from renewable sources as outlined in the Figure below.

Electricity Production in Germany (Source: Fraunhofer ISE)

The growth of renewable energy has been driven by Germany’s strong energy transition policy – the “Energiewende” – a long-term plan to decarbonize the energy sector. The policy was enacted in late 2010 with ambitious GHG reduction and renewable energy targets for 2050 (80-95% reduction on 1990 GHG levels and 80% renewable-based electricity).
A major part of the 2010 Energiewende policy was the reliance on Germany’s 17 nuclear power plants as a “shoulder fuel” to help facilitate the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. In light of the Fukushima disaster just six months after the enactment of the Energiewende, the German government amended the policy to include an aggressive phase-out of nuclear by 2022 while maintaining the 2050 targets. This has only magnified the importance of clean, reliable electricity from alternative sources like wind and solar.

Existing Energy Storage Facilities

As of late 2016, there is 1,050 MW of installed (non-PHS) energy storage capacity in Germany. The majority of this capacity is made up of electro-mechanical technologies such as flywheels and compressed air energy storage (CAES; see figure below).

Capacities of EES Types in Germany (Source: Sandia National Laboratories)

However, these numbers are somewhat skewed based on the fact that the electro-mechanical category is essentially two large capacity CAES plants. In reality, electro-chemical projects (mainly batteries) are much more prevalent and represent the vast majority of growth in the German storage market. There are currently 11 electro-chemical type energy storage projects under development in Germany and no electro-mechanical projects under development (see figure below).

Number of EES Projects by Type (Sandia National Laboratories)

Services Uses of Energy Storage

As outlined earlier, there are a multitude of service uses for EES technologies. Currently the existing EES fleet in Germany serves grid operations and stability applications (black start, electric supply capacity), and on-site power for critical transmission infrastructure. A breakdown of service uses in the German market is shown below.

Service Uses of Energy Storage Facilities in Germany (Sandia National Laboratories)

Most notable in is the fact that renewables capacity firming only represents 0.3% of EES currently operating in Germany, excluding pumped hydro storage. In order to understand this, it must be noted that Germany is a net exporter of electricity (next figure below). Having one of the most reliable electrical grids in the world and an ideal geographical location give Germany excellent interconnection to a variety of neighboring power markets; making it easy to export any excess electricity.

This “export balancing” is a primary reason why the EES market has not seen similar growth as renewable energy in Germany − it is easy for Germany to export power to balance the system load during periods of peak renewable production. However, there are negative aspects of this energy exporting such as severe overloading of transmission infrastructure in neighboring countries.

Net Exports of Electricity with Average Day-Ahead Market Pricing for Germany in 2015 (Source: Fraunhofer ISE)

Energy Storage Market Outlook

Logic seems to indicate that with aggressive renewable energy targets, a nuclear phase-out, and increased emphasis on energy independence Germany will need to develop more EES capacity. However, many have conjectured that the lagging expansion of EES in the short and medium term will not pose a barrier to the Energiewende. In fact, some claim that EES will not be a necessity in the next 10-20 years. For example, even when Germany reaches its 2020 wind and solar targets (46 GW and 52 GW, respectively), these would generally not exceed 55 GW of supply and nearly all of this power will be consumed domestically in real-time. Thus, no significant support from EES would be required.

The German Institute for Economy Research echos these sentiments and argue that the grid flexibility needed with significant renewable energy capacity could be provided by more cost-effective options like flexible base-load power plants and better demand side management. Additionally, innovations in power-to-heat technologies which would use surplus wind and solar electricity to feed district heating systems present significant opportunity, while creating a new market of energy service companies.

Power-to-Gas

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure found that P2G is ideally suited for turning excess renewable energy into a diverse product that can be stored for long periods of time and Germany has been the central point for P2G technology development in recent years. There are currently seven P2G projects either operating or under construction in Germany.

While there is work being done, economically feasible production of P2G is currently not achievable due to limited excess electricity and low guaranteed capacity. This limited excess electricity, is an example of the effect of power exports discussed earlier. While there may not be a significant commercial market in the short-term, introduction of P2G for transport could act as an additional driver behind continued renewable energy development in Germany.

In our next post, we cover the energy storage market of the United Kingdom.

(Jon Martin, 2019)

Posted on

Framework for a global carbon budget

Over the past decade, numerous studies have shown that global warming is roughly proportional to the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. In this way one can estimate our remaining carbon budget. This is the total amount of man-made carbon dioxide that can still be released into the atmosphere before reaching a set global temperature limit. The nations of the world agreed on this limit in the 2015 Paris Agreement. It should not exceed 1.5°C, and in any case be well below 2.0°C. However, diverging estimates have been made for the remaining carbon budget, which has a negative impact on policy-making. Now, an international research group of renown climate experts has published a framework for the calculation of the global CO2 budget in Nature. The researchers suggest that the application of this framework should help to overcome the differences when estimating the carbon budget, which will help to reduce uncertainties in research and policy.

Since the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the concept of a carbon budget has become more important as an instrument for guiding climate policy. Over the past decade, a series of studies  has clarified why the increase in the global average temperature is roughly proportional to the total amount of CO2 emissions caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution. In the framework, the research group cites numerous published documents that provide evidence for the linearity of this correlation. This literature has allowed scientists to define the linear relationship between warming and CO2 emissions as a transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE). The linearity is an appealing concept because of the complexity of the Earth’s response to our CO2 emissions. Additional processes that affect future warming have been included in recent models, among them, for example, the thawing of the Arctic permafrost. These additional processes increase the uncertainty of current climate  models. In addition, global warming is not just caused by CO2 emissions. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, fluorinated gases or nitrous oxide, as well as aerosols and their precursors affect global temperatures. This further complicates the relationship between future CO2.

In the case of global warming caused by CO2, every tonne contributes to warming, whether that ton is emitted in future, now or in the last century. This means that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero, and then remain zero. This also means that the more we emit in the next years, the faster we have to reduce our emissions later. At zero emissions, warming would stabilize, but not disappear. It may also reverse. An overdraft of the carbon budget would have to be compensated by removing the CO2 later. One way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere would be a technology called direct air capture, which we reported earlier. Ultimately, this will probably be the only way left, as carbon neutral renewable energy source sources only make up 5% of our energy mix. Establishing a global carbon budget will further highlights the urgency of our clean energy transition. Unfortunately, there is a large divergence when it comes the amount of the CO2 remaining in our carbon budget. In their framework, the researchers cite numerous studies on carbon budgets to maintain our 1.5°C target. Starting 2018, these range from 0 tonnes of CO2 to 1,000 gigatons. For the 2.0°C target, our carbon budget ranges from around 700 gigatons to nearly 2,000 gigatons of remaining CO2 emissions. The aim of the researchers is to limit this uncertainty by establishing a budget framework. The central element is the equation for calculating the remaining carbon budget:

Blim = (TlimThistTnonCO2Thist) / TCRE − EEsfb

The budget of the remaining CO2 emissions (Blim) for the specific temperature limit (Tlim) is a function of five terms that represent aspects of the geophysical and human-environment systems: the historical man-made warming (Thist), the non-CO2 contribution to the future temperature increase (TnonCO2), the zero emission commitment (TZEC), the TCRE, and an adaptation for sources from possible unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb).

 

Term Key choices or uncertainties Type Level of understanding
Temperature limit Tlim Choice of temperature metrics that allow global warming, the choice of pre-industrial reference and consistency with global climate targets Choice Medium to high
Historical man-made warming Thist Incomplete data and methods for estimating the man-made component; see also Tlim Choice and uncertainty Medium to high
Non-CO2 contribution to future global warming TnonCO2 The level of non-CO2 contributions coinciding with global net zero CO2 emissions; depends on policy choices, but also on the uncertainty of their implementation Choice and uncertainty Medium
Non-CO2 contribution to future global warming TnonCO2 Climate reaction to non-CO2 forcers, such as aerosols and methane Uncertainty Low to medium
Zero-emissions commitment TZEC The extent of the decadal zero emission commitment and near-zero annual carbon emissions Uncertainty Low
Transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2 TCRE TCRE uncertainty, linearity and cumulative CO2 emissions that affect temperature metrics of the TCRE estimate Uncertainty Low to medium
Transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2 TCRE Uncertainty of the TCRE linearity, value and distribution beyond peak heating which is affected by cumulative CO2 emissions reduction
Uncertainty Low
Unrepresented Earth system feedback mechanisms EEsfb Impact of permafrost thawing and duration as well as methane release from wetlands on geomodels and feedback Uncertainty Very low

In the CO2 budget, the unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb) is arguably the greatest uncertainty. These feedback processes are typically associated with the thawing of permafrost and the associated long-term release of CO2 and CH4. However, other sources of feedback have been identified as well. This include, for example, the variations of CO2 uptake by the vegetation and the associated nitrogen availability. Further feedback processes involve changes in surface albedo, cloud cover, or fire conditions.

It remains a challenge to adequately characterize the uncertainties surrounding the estimates of our carbon budget. In some cases, the reason of these uncertainties is inaccurate knowledge of the underlying processes or inaccurate measurements. In other cases the terminology is used inconsistently. For better comparability and flexibility, the researchers propose to routinely measure global surface air temperature values. This method gives robust data for models and model runs over selected time periods. More detailed comparisons between published estimates of the carbon budget are currently difficult because the original data used for publication often are missing. The researchers therefore propose to provide these in the future along with publications.

Breaking down the carbon budget into its individual factors makes it possible to identify a number of promising pathways for future research. One area of ​​research that might advance this field is to look more closely at the TCRE. Future research is expected to narrow down the range of TCRE uncertainties. Another promising area of ​​research is the study of the correlation between individual factors and their associated uncertainties, for example, between uncertainties in Thist and TnonCO2. This could be achieved by developing methods that allow a more reliable estimate of historical human-induced warming. It is also clear that less complex climate models are useful to further reduce the uncertainties of climate models, and hence the carbon budget. Currently, each factor of the framework presented by yhr researchers has its own uncertainties, and there is no method to formally combine them.

At Frontis Energy, too, we think that progress in these areas would improve our understanding of the estimates of our carbon budget. A systematic understanding of the carbon budget and is crucial for effectively addressing global warming challenges.

Posted on

Energy storage in the European Union

Grid integration of renewables

In our previous post of this blog series on Electrical Energy Storage in the EU we briefly introduced you to different technologies and their use cases. Here, we give you a short overview over the EU energy grid.  Supplying approximately 2,500 TWh annually to 450 million customers across 24 countries, the synchronous interconnected system of Continental Europe (“the Grid”) is the largest interconnected power network in the world. The Grid is made up of transmission system operators (TSOs) from 24 countries stretching from Greece to the Iberic Peninsula in the south, Denmark and Poland in the north, and up to the black sea in the east. The European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-E) serves as the central agency tasked with promoting cooperation between the TSOs from the member countries in the Grid. The ENTSO-E, in essence, acts as the central TSO for Europe. With over 140 GW of installed wind and solar PV capacity, the EU trails behind only China in installed capacity. A breakdown of the individual contributions of EU member states is shown below in the figure above.

Energy Storage in the EU

For this study a number of European countries were selected for more detailed investigation into energy storage needs. These countries were selected based on a combination of existing market size, intentions for growth in non-dispatchable renewable energy and/or energy storage, and markets with a track record of innovation in the energy sector.

On a total capacity basis (installed and planned MW) the top three energy storage markets within the EU are: Italy, the UK, and Germany. These countries were selected on the basis of these existing market sizes.

Spain and Denmark were selected based on their large amounts of existing renewable energy capacity and − in the case of Denmark − the forecasted growth in renewable energy and energy storage capacity.

While still lagging behind the rest of the EU in terms of decarbonization efforts and having a small portion of their energy from renewable sources, the Netherlands were also selected for further investigation.

Each of the selected countries (Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands) are discussed in the proceeding sections, providing a more detailed overview outlining their current electricity portfolios and decarbonization efforts, current energy storage statistics, and a brief discussion on market outlook.

Pumped Hydro Storage

With over 183 GW of installed capacity worldwide, pumped hydro storage is the most widely implemented and most established form of energy storage in the world. Due its extensive market penetration, technology maturity, and the fact that this blog is aimed at emerging new storage technologies, the data presented in the following posts excludes this technology.

Find more details about the energy storage market of selected European countries in our next postings.

(Jon Martin, 2019)

Posted on

Electrical energy storage

Electrical Energy Storage (EES) is the process of converting electrical energy from a power network into a form that can be stored for converting back to electricity when needed. EES enables electricity to be produced during times of either low demand, low generation cost, or during periods of peak renewable energy generation. This allows producers and transmission system operators (TSOs) the ability to leverage and balance the variance in supply/demand and generation costs by using stored electricity at times of high demand, high generation cost, and/or low generation capacity.
EES has many applications including renewables integration, ancillary services, and electrical grid support. This blog series aims to provide the reader with four aspects of EES:

  1. An overview of the function and applications of EES technologies,
  2. State-of-the-art breakdown of key EES markets in the European Union,
  3. A discussion on the future of these EES markets, and
  4. Applications (Service Uses) of EES.

Table: Some common service uses of EES technologies

Storage Category

Storage Technology

Pumped Hydro

Open Loop

Closed Loop

Electro-chemical

Batteries

Flow Batteries

Capacitors

Thermal Storage

 

Molten Salts

Heat

Ice

Chilled Water

Electro-mechanical

Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)

Flywheel

Gravitational Storage

Hydrogen Storage

 

Fuel Cells

H2 Storage

Power-to-Gas

Unlike any other commodities market, electricity-generating industries typically have little or no storage capabilities. Electricity must be used precisely when it is produced, with grid operators constantly balancing electrical supply and demand. With an ever-increasing market share of intermittent renewable energy sources the balancing act is becoming increasingly complex.

While EES is most often touted for its ability to help minimize supply fluctuations by storing electricity produced during periods of peak renewable energy generation, there are many other applications. EES is vital to the safe, reliable operation of the electricity grid by supporting key ancillary services and electrical grid reliability functions. This is often overlooked for the ability to help facilitate renewable energy integration. EES is applicable in all of the major areas of the electricity grid (generation, transmission & distribution, and end user services). A few of the most prevalent service uses are outlined in the Table above. Further explanation on service use/cases will be provide later in this blog, including comprehensive list of EES applications.

Area

Service Use / Case

Discharge Duration in h

Capacity in MW

Examples

Generation

Bulk Storage

4 – 6

1 – 500

Pumped hydro, CAES, Batteries

Contingency

1 – 2

1 – 500

Pumped hydro, CAES, Batteries

Black Start

NA

NA

Batteries

Renewables Firming

2 – 4

1 – 500

Pumped hydro, CAES, Batteries

Transmission & Distribution

Frequency & Voltage Support

0.25 – 1

1 – 10

Flywheels, Capacitors

Transmission Support

2 – 5 sec

10 – 100

Flywheels, Capacitors

On-site Power

8 – 16

1.5 kW – 5 kW

Batteries

Asset Deferral

3 – 6

0.25– 5

Batteries

End User Services

Energy Management

4 – 6

1 kW – 1 MW

Residential storage

Learn more about EES in the EU in the next post.

(Jon Martin, 2019)

Posted on

Semiconductive nanotubes with photovoltaic effect

Cost-effective and efficient methods for converting sunlight into electricity are the focus of green energy research. Solar cells developed for this purpose are currently made of semiconductors such as silicon. Electrical energy is generated at the junction between two different semiconductors. However, the efficiency of these solar cells has almost reached its theoretical limit. New methods of converting sunlight into electricity must be found if solar energy is to be used as a major source of electricity. An international research team from Germany, Japan and Israel has now made important progress in this direction. Zhang and colleagues recently published their findings in the prestigious journal Nature. They demonstrate a transition-free solar cell that can be made by applying a more atomic semiconductor layer into a nanotube.

In a conventional solar cell, two regions of a semiconductor are doped with different chemical elements. The electrical current is generated by the negatively charged electrons of a region and by the positively charged electron holes (holes). At the junction between these two areas, an electric field is created. When sunlight is absorbed at this junction, electron-hole pairs are formed. The electrons and holes are then separated by the resulting electric field, generating an electric current. This conversion of solar energy into electricity is called photovoltaic effect. This photovoltaic effect is particularly important for green energy production. Its efficiency has almost reached the theoretical limit as mentioned above.

In technical terms, the photovoltaic effect occurs at traditional pn junctions, where a p-type material (with an excess of holes) adjoins an n-type material (with an excess of electrons). Current is generated in the photo-induced generation of electron-hole pairs and their subsequent separation. Further advances are expected through the use of other photovoltaic effects that do not require transition and only occur in crystals with broken inversion symmetry. However, the practical implementation of these effects is impeded by the low efficiency of the materials. Semiconductors with reduced dimensionality or smaller band gap have shown to be more efficient. Transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) are, for example, two-dimensional small-bandgap semiconductors in which various effects were observed by breaking the inversion symmetry in their bulk crystals.

The reported bulk photovoltaic effect (BPVE) is based on tungsten disulfide, a member of the TMD family. Crystals of this material have a layered structure and can be stratified in layers similar to graphite. The resulting atomic sheets can then be rolled into tubes of 100 nanometers by chemical methods. The authors produced photovoltaic devices from three types of tungsten disulfide: a monolayer, a bilayer and a nanotube.

A systematic reduction in crystal symmetry has been achieved beyond mere fractional symmetry inversion. The transition from a two-dimensional monolayer to a nanotube with polar properties has been significantly improved. The photovoltaic current density produced is orders of magnitude greater than that of other comparable materials. The results not only confirm the potential of TMD-based nanomaterials, but also the importance of reducing crystal symmetry for improving the BPVE.

While the nanotube devices had a large BPVE, the single-layer and two-layer devices produced only a negligible electric current under illumination. The researchers attribute the different performance characteristics of the solar cells to their pronounced crystal symmetry. This way, one can spontaneously generate a current in uniform semiconductors, without a transition.

The BPVE was first observed in 1956 at Bell Labs, New Jersey, just two years after the invention of modern silicon solar cells. The effect is limited to non-centrosymmetric materials characterized by a lack of symmetry in spatial inversion. That is, the combination of a 180° rotation and a reflection. The effect has two attractive properties: the current generated by light depends on the polarization of the incident light and the associated voltage is greater than the band gap of the material. This is the energy required to excite conducting free electrons. However, the effect typically has a low conversion efficiency and was therefore of rather academic than industrial interest.

To achieve high efficiency, a photovoltaic material must have high light absorption and low internal symmetry. However, these two properties usually do not exist simultaneously in a given material. Semiconductors that absorb most of the incident sunlight generally have high symmetry. This reduces or even prevents the effect. Low-symmetry materials, such as perovskite oxides, absorb little sunlight due to their large band gap. To circumvent this problem, efforts have been made to improve light absorption in low-symmetry materials, for example by using the mentioned doping. Meanwhile, it has been shown that the effect can occur in semiconductors by using mechanical fields to adjust the crystal symmetry of the material.

The newly discovered solution is encouraging with regard to the production of high absorption semiconducting nanotubes. In the case of tungsten disulfide, the crystal symmetry of the nanotubes is reduced compared to the mono- and bilayers due to the curved walls of the tube. The combination of excellent light absorption and low crystal symmetry means that the nanotubes have a significant photovoltaic effect. The current density exceeds that of materials which are inherently low in symmetry. Nevertheless, the conversion efficiency achieved is still much lower than that of the photovoltaic effect in conventional junction-based solar cells.

The authors’ findings demonstrate the great potential of nanotubes in solar energy production and raise various technological and scientific challenges. From an application’s perspective, it would be useful to produce a solar cells that consists of a large arrays of semiconductor nanotubes to check whether the approach is scalable. The direction of the generated current would be largely determined by the internal symmetry of the material. Therefore, uniform symmetry across the nanotube array would be required to create a collective current. These currents could cancel each other out.

At Frontis Energy, we wonder if the method described could work with the classic photovoltaic effect in the same solar cell. That would possibly increase overall efficiency. The two effects could use the solar energy consecutively. Despite the remaining challenges, the presented work offers a possibility for the development of highly efficient solar cells.

(Photo: Wikipedia)

Posted on

EU market summary for energy storage

Electrical energy storage (EES) is not only a vital component in the reliable operation of modern electrical grids, but also a focal point of the global renewable energy transition. It has been often suggested that EES technologies could be the missing piece to eliminating the technical hurdles facing the implementation of intermittent renewable energy sources. In the following blog posts, selected EES markets within the European Union will be evaluated in detail.

With over 80 MW of installed wind and solar capacity, Germany is by far the leading EU nation in the renewable energy transition. However, experts have argued that Germany’s need for widespread industrial scale energy storage is unlikely to materialize in any significant quantity for up to 20-years. This is due to a number of factors. Germany’s geographic location and abundance of connections to neighbouring power grids makes exporting any electricity fluctuations relatively easy. Additionally, when Germany reaches its 2020 targets for wind and solar capacity (46 GW and 52 GW, respectively) the supply at a given time would generally not exceed 55 GW. Nearly all of this would be consumed domestically, with no/little need for storage.

When evaluating energy storage in the UK, a different story emerges. Being an isolated island nation there is considerably more focus on energy independence to go along with their low-carbon energy goals. However, the existing regulatory environment is cumbersome, and poses barriers significant enough to substantially inhibit the transition to a low-carbon energy sector – including EES. The UK government has acknowledged the existence of regulatory barriers and pledged to address them. As part of this effort, a restructuring of their power market to a capacity-based market is already underway. The outlook for EES in the UK is promising, there is considerable pressure from not only industry, but also the public and the government to continue developing EES facilities at industrial scale.

Italy, once heavily hydro-powered, has grown to rely on natural gas, coal, and oil for 50% of it’s electricity (gas representing 34% alone). The introduction of a solar FIT in 2005 lead to significant growth in the solar industry (Italy now ranks 2nd in per capita solar capacity globally) before the program ended in July 2014. In recent years there has been notable growth in electro-chemical EES capacity (~84 MW installed), primarily driven by a single large-scale project by TERNA, Italy’s transmission system operator (TSO). This capacity has made Italy the leader in EES capacity in the EU, however the market is to-date dominated by the large TSOs.

However, the combination of a reliance on imported natural gas, over 500,000 PV systems no longer collecting FIT premiums, and increasing electricity rates presents a unique market opportunity for residential power-to-gas in Italy.
Denmark is aggressively pursing a 100-percent renewable target for all sectors by 2050. While there is still no official roadmap policy on how they will get there, they have essentially narrowed it down to one of two scenario: a biomass-based scenario, or a wind + hydrogen based scenario. Under the hydrogen-based scenario there would be widespread investment to expand wind capacity and couple this capacity with hydrogen power-to-gas systems for bulk energy storage. With the Danish expertise and embodied investment in wind energy, one would expect that the future Danish energy system would be build around this strength, and hence require significant power-to-gas investment.

The renewable energy industry in Spain has completed stagnated due to retroactive policy changes and taxes on consumption of solar generated electricity introduced in 2015. The implementation of the Royal Decree 900/2015 on self-consumption has rendered PV systems unprofitable, and added additional fees and taxes for the use of EES devices. No evidence was found to suggest a market for energy storage will materialize in Spain in the near future.

The final country investigated was the Netherlands, which has been criticized by the EU for its lack of progress on renewable energy targets. With only 10% of Dutch electricity coming from renewable sources, there is currently little demand for large-scale EES. While the Netherlands may be lagging behind on renewable electricity targets, they have been a leader in EV penetration; a trend that will continue and see 1-million EVs on Dutch roads by 2025. In parallel with the EV growth, there has been a large surge in sub-100kW Li-ion installations for storing energy at electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. It is expected that these applications will continue to be the primary focus of EES in the Netherlands.

Similar to Italy, the Dutch rely heavily on natural gas for energy within their homes. This fact, coupled with an ever-increasing focus on energy independent and efficient houses could make the Netherlands a prime market for residential power-to-gas technologies.

Read more about electrical energy storage here.

Jon Martin, 2019

(Photo: NASA)

Posted on

Hydropower

Hydropower is electricity generated by the movement of water.

In the late 19th century, hydropower became an industrially efficient method of generating electricity. Waters falling from high altitudes, e.g. mountain streams or rivers, as well as strong currents are the best candidates for generating electricity from hydropower. This electricity is a considerable global energy source. It is generated by water entering a turbine which then rotates. When this turbine is connected to an electric generator, this mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy. The Niagara Falls and the Hoover Dam are two examples of electricity produced in this way.

Hydropower provides about 20% of the world’s electricity.

Hydropower has recently gained popularity. The World Bank called it a workable solution to keep up with growing energy needs while avoiding CO2 emissions.

(Photo: Wikipedia)