The debate over
which energy storage technology will prove to be the best in the long-term
is woefully misguided.
Many technologies have been tested in the field or been fully installed, but
their real-world applications have created constant questions around a number
of fixed themes: the three-points concern cost, technology, and potential environmental
impact, as well as the need for specific regulation and end-of-life management.
Here, engineers have run into the dilemma of energy storage technology. It
is difficult for any energy storage method, at least at the current stage of
development, to produce the amounts of power and energy required at a cost-effective
price. However, passing judgment on energy storage by using this equation alone
is simply incorrect. After all, we do not expect renewable energy to provide
a one-size-fits-all solution to help us move away from fossil fuels.
Wind farms are suitable for areas with high wind currents, such as southern
Mexico, while photovoltaic (PV) plants have found more traction in sun-kissed
regions like California. Even with the same type of resource, different technologies
are used for different applications. After all, the ability of operators to
connect small PV setups to the grid has seen the use of solar installations
in private homes skyrocket.
Why should we expect anything different from energy storage technologies?
It is highly unlikely that in the short-term, any one of the available options
will turn out to be the true leader of the pack.
Last year, researchers at the University
of Illinois announced the creation of a new lithium-ion battery that
is "2,000 times more powerful than comparable batteries...which breaks
the paradigms of energy sources." This is a wonderful advance that, if found
commercially viable, will allow for a future generation of smart phones to
be charged much faster or to power single, high-energy applications such
as medical equipment.
However, the accelerated output of such lithium-ion battery technology is
still not able to happen on the grid-scale level that society requires. To
counter this problem, some countries such as Germany have been looking at chemical
energy storage as the answer for a 100 percent renewable future. This involves
the use of electrolysis to create hydrogen and methane from extra energy generated
by renewable plants such as wind or solar. Dr.
Gunter Ebert, from the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, says
that these two are "the only options for large-scale storage." In his vision,
large storage facilities would be used to serve hydrogen, which could then
be converted for use in vehicles or fuel cells. Methane could be used in the
gas grid, or to serve needs such as heat and power.
Chemical energy storage is certainly gaining traction, with the first hydrogen
made from electricity having been pumped into Germany's
gas network in December 2013. But again, it would be presumptuous to say
that these advances are resolving the energy storage debate. It looks likely
that as research progresses, other equally viable forms of energy storage will
occur. This will give the consumer, whether a single family or a national grid
operator, the very thing that was lacking from renewable energy offerings for
so long: a choice.
They will be able to determine the size of the storage that they each need
and the applicability of various solutions to their needs. House owners, or
a small community, might opt for a diffuse storage option with a number of
small storage units across a local area. Large-scale operators, such as public
transport companies, might instead prefer to rely on a centralized network
comprised of several vast storage facilities.
The final problem with the current energy storage debate is the tendency to
judge a method's cost-effectiveness on the merits of available
technologies alone. Much like any other scientific development, its cost-effectiveness
should be calculated through links to other technologies it will be paired
up with. For energy storage, these are obviously renewable energy plants. And
here is where the good news comes in.
Just last week, a report by Swiss
bank UBS showed how the linked development of energy storage, solar power
and electric vehicles is changing the economics of power generation. UBS
predicts that by 2020, a return on investment for an unsubsidized purchase
of an electric vehicle, coupled with a rooftop solar installation and battery
storage, will drop to just six years in much of Europe. Smart distribution
networks would precisely manage the usage and allocation of electricity,
allowing for an electric car to be charged at night, for the sun to power
a house during daylight hours and for improved batteries to store power for
other residential uses. While such news might not be met with cheers in the
offices of national grid operators, it shows just how the quest for "The
Holy Grail of Energy Storage" is doomed to fail.
Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why...-The-Point.html
By Chris Dalby of target="_blank" Oilprice.com