Lithium-ion Energy Storage System Capacity Chasing Solar Industry – BNEF

JUL 26 2016 BY MARK KANE 11

Nissan switches on solar farm to power UK car production (including LEAF)

Nissan switches on solar farm to power UK car production (including LEAF)

Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently compared the growth of lithium-ion energy storage systems to the solar photovoltaic industry; finding that some 12 years will be needed before the total ESS output can meet today’s solar output (provided of course that was the goal of today’s solar industry).

The biggest ally of energy storage, giving the segment enough momentum to narrow the gap with PVs is of course, electric vehicles, which help to drive up the scale of production for lithium-ion batteries, and enables faster cost reductions.

BNEF states current costs of energy storage at over 300/kWh, but expects that number to come down to $120/kWh by 2030.   Some would call this too conservative a forecast, but even BNEF themselves are more optimistic than few years ago, when they estimated $150/kWh in 2030…so the numbers are trending in the right direction.

Main forecasts from BNEF:

  • ESS market to reach $250 billion by 2040
  • Batteries capable of storing power at utility scale will be as widespread in 12 years as rooftop solar panels are now
  • ESS output to increase from less than 1 GW today to 25 GW by 2028 (about the size of the small-scale photovoltaic industry now)

According to the U.S. Energy Department, pumped hydro represents about 95% of grid-connected energy storage today.

Simon Moores, managing director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a battery researcher based in London said:

“Utility-scale storage is the new emerging market for batteries, kind of where electric vehicles were five years ago. EVs are now coming of age.”

source: Bloomberg Technology

Categories: General

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "Lithium-ion Energy Storage System Capacity Chasing Solar Industry – BNEF"

newest oldest most voted

Long term electric grid and and thermal energy storage requirements are by many orders of magnitude higher than can be provided by these short term gigawatts.
Natural gas storage before winter reaches 4000 bcu in the US. Try to convert it to GWh as home exercise :/ 1 bcf = 293 GWh

1 cf ~= 0.293 kWh
Then 4000 bcf ~= 1172TWh = 1172B kWh

2015 0.1246B households in USA.
=> 9406kWh/household
Would be quite a big battery. :p

But, seriously, the variation in demand and production is major factor in the cost of electricity, and gives it high marginal cost. If prices fall enough, the efficiency and scalability of batteries will allow them to displace marginal distribution and generation capacity.

Long-term storage requirements are more of an issue related to increasing renewable capacity. I can foresee fuel synthesis being an important part of that. As cost of renewable generation falls it becomes more economical to overbuild generation capacity and synthesize fuel with the surplus power.

A utility scale Solar or wind installation with hydrogen production facility & a static hydrogen powered generator is possible.

I wouldnt discount electric vehicles playing a significant part in day to day storage. If only 10% of total capacity of the ev vehicle fleet is utilised?

‘zzzzz’, Load balancing and fossil fuel reserves are different concepts. 4000 bcf (billion cubic feet) serves way more than the energy need for, say, a daytime peak/off-peak shift. The electric sector consumes about 25 bcf per day, and that is for both baseload and, more critical peaking use. BNEF, along with purveyors of Clean Power accept CO2 growth from natural gas as long as it balances in this manor. I looked at a 57 million dollar deal, yesterday, for 40MW of inefficient gas units (kinda pricey). They are inefficient because you can’t do the better steam cycle when working with intermittent resources, like sun and wind. Actually, it was for reciprocating engines (face palm). Batteries can fix the need for natural gas, but beware the wolf that does not want them to legitimize existing nuclear power. They’d work the same way, in reverse. BNEF, NRDC, EPA, UCS, Sierra Club, Ceres, RMI, basically an alphabet soup of acronyms would rather replace, at higher prices, and even use natural gas to balance, than keep a nuke open indefinitely. If you leave a nuke open, you can’t give someone a job installing panels, rotors, or manufacturing all the efficiency people seek as prices… Read more »

I’m with BNEF, NRDC, EPA, UCS, Sierra Club, Ceres, RMI,et al (good list), who advocate closing nukes primarily because 1) costs of decommissioning that aren’t accounted for in planning but then are shed to rate payers later, a deceptive practice that the NRC supports, b) waste & parts from decommissioning are currently left onsite, no permanent storage, even if there was, there’s risk of transport, c) and then finally, yes, the alternate model provide jobs. my point is its disingenuous to frame these renewables advocates as promoting jobs while at expense of higher cost load balancing, when the actual costs of nuke based load balancing ignores a massive externality.

Its not just the cost of the battery, its the lifespan cycles, too. Cost per kwh passed thru is the key.

The above chart shows a price above $300 / KWh in 2016. If that is the average price, then big automakers like Tesla, BYD, Nissan are paying just $200 / KWh.

If that is the price, then the battery cost of 30 KWh Leaf should cost only $ 6,000.

Who told You that Tesla pays 200?
They are already lower than that.

Source for the BYD/Nissan revelations?

I’m sure that the cost of a kWh for Tesla will be under 200$ at the begining, and surely under 125$ before 2025.
And for information, a small compagny in India was agreed to let me buy a special battery for computer. Their new product will be avalaible in 2018. And they managed to negociate a price of 225$ for a kWh. I’m sure that bigger compagny can negociate a price less that 200$ for 2018.
I’m quite optimistic that the price will fall under 125$ by 2025.

Musk said yesterday that the cost of the batteries will be 100$/kWh as soon as 2020.
Another disinformation “study” from big oil tainted media.

There seems to be a lot of confusion between energy use and energy storage. Storage doesn’t produce energy. Lower costs will benefit variation in production, but not replace it.