Advanced search

Energy storage: a question of balance

Developing viable energy storage technologies is one of the big engineering challenges when it comes to cutting carbon emissions, and yet the issue has received relatively little mainstream attention or support.

We desperately need energy storage to make renewable generation more practical and cost-effective, to remove the sight of wind turbines shut down during windy but off-peak times and reduce the need for backup fossil-fuel power when renewable energy runs short.

So the announcement that 12 projects have been put through to the first stage of the government’s energy storage competition is very welcome, even if the amount of money allocated at this feasibility stage (£500,000) is relatively small.

Those groups that reach the second, demonstration phase of the competition will be competing for a share of £17m ­– a more substantial sum but one that still requires plenty of private investment if these technologies are to be brought to a commercial level.

What’s perhaps most interesting about the winners list (and about the field of energy storage research in general) is the breadth of technologies identified as possible solutions. It’s both an opportunity and an obstacle: the UK is bursting with ideas of different ways to capture energy for different scenarios, but that means we need more funding to develop them.

In particular there are a huge number of battery technologies put forward as having potential for grid-scale storage, from lead acid to lithium ion to more unusual concepts. They’re costly but offer very high efficiencies, sometimes up to 95 per cent or more.

The one chosen to go forward in the DECC competition is for a vanadium redox flow battery. A group led by Wokingham firm REDT hopes to built a 1.2MWh system on the Isle of Gigha off the west coast of Scotland to store surplus energy from a wind turbine for use in the local network. The company claims the technology offers 75 to 80 per cent efficiency depending on duty cycle at a cost of £1.7m to £1.9m per MW, and says this is a lower cost over the 10 to 15-year life of the system than any other battery storage.

But several other groups in the competition are hoping to bring the cost of battery storage down by using existing batteries. The Aston University-led group plan to combine new lithium titanate batteries with old electric vehicle units to provide grid-balancing services: the second-hand batteries will provide most of the capacity while the new ones will cater the rare occasions when National Grid needs up to 30 minutes of extra power.

Yuasa Battery Europe, meanwhile plans to convert existing uninterruptible power supply (UPS) equipment used for backup in industry by replacing lead acid batteries with lithium ion ones, possibly pre-used from electric vehicles. The electricity doesn’t go back to the grid but it would help with balancing and would cost an estimated £600,000 per MW of capacity.

Other competition entries make use of batteries as part of an energy and money-saving domestic service, such as the Maslow system that Moixa Technology hopes to install in 750 homes. It stores energy from the grid overnight or from solar panels on the roof for use in a DC lighting and electronics system, but can also help with grid-level storage and balancing.

Alongside the batteries there are numerous other storage mediums being proposed. Liquid air storage might sound like it should be an experimental technology but could actually reach a commercial scale if it goes through to the next stage of the competition. Its efficiencies are below those of batteries but can be increased if waste heat (and cold energy) streams from power plants or other industrial sources are harnessed, and it uses a free medium (air) and well established liquefaction and evaporation technology. The firm developing it, Highview Power Storage, have even created a cryogenic system it says is the equivalent of a diesel generator powered by air.

Another alternative in the competition is storing energy by producing methane, which can then be burnt to produce electricity or used in industrial processes. Hydrogenics Europe wants to build the first power-to-gas plant in the UK, and the first power-to-methane plant based on biological methanation in the world at a waste water treatment plant. It says the efficiency is 58 per cent, rising to 78 per cent if heat from the process is recovered. The costs are currently £1.4m/MW but the company claims this could fall to £800,000/MW.

Using gas (air, methane or hydrogen) means you can effectively move the energy from where it is captured to where it is needed, and the technology is easily scalable and less location-dependant than pumped hydro storage or compressed air systems that pump into caves. But we’ve yet to see whether the efficiencies or costs can make the technology viable as a widespread commercial solution.

There’s also another more unusual concept amongst the competition winners: using gravel as a storage medium by carrying it to the top of a hill in buckets attached to what looks like a ski lift. It’s a messy idea (literally and perhaps metaphorically) but its US inventors Energy Cache claim it beats pumped hydro and compressed air for cost and performance and is also more easily sited. The company has yet to respond to The Engineer’s requests for more details but we’ll bring you a more in-depth report when we can.

Looking at the huge range of ideas for energy storage suggests two things: that not all of them will be successful but also that there probably won’t be a single winning technology. Just as with renewable energy generation, we’re likely to need multiple ways to store energy. Let’s hope the UK can provide the necessary support to turn our wealth of ideas into viable solutions and businesses.

Readers' comments (10)

  • Imagine it was water not gravel ... would the apparatus described recover more of the kinetic energy than the current idea of letting the water flow down the hill first and then using its energy to power a turbine?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Stephen, interesting article and I agree that we definitely need more concentration on storage. Shouldn't you be talking cost per MWh rather than per MW though?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The author at least mentions gas-based storage options (for a change!), but even he kind of ignores the fact the existing methane gas grid already has huge energy stores (vastly exceeding current electric power storage) for all storage timescales (up to multi-year!) /input-output rates, at vastly lower new-build costs than any of these systems will ever reach and with a huge existing capacity already paid-for years ago. Decarbonise the methane supply with bio (inc’ bio-waste)-energy and ‘at-source’ low-cost CCS, by already-known/proven methods and ‘presto’, a huge low-cost future-proof system at minimum cost and disruption . - Just when is the bulk energy storage policy discussion going to wake up to this??!! The second most cost-effective system (also capable in principle of affordably quite large scale) would be hot water storage in large District Heating schemes. None of these other novel schemes can come close on cost or credible energy capacity. Some folk seem to need a lesson in basic physics, like energy capacity ('density') per unit volume of material stored.

    I love the ‘buckets of gravel’ one...hilarious!!

    Also agree with 'Malcolm's' comment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A potentially vast source of energy storage is the batteries in electric cars. Most cars are used for about two hours a day. Left plugged in, they could be charged for most of the time, but used to supply energy back to the grid at times of peak need. Drivers would need to decide how much charge to relinquish based on their expected need and would get paid accordingly for providing the service. If electric cars become sufficiently common, this is a relatively cheap solution to energy storage.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • mike ayres

    "If electric cars become sufficiently common, this is a relatively cheap solution to energy storage."

    surely the cost would be negative. as getting paid for something that otherwise wouldn't exist really is something for nothing.

    there are various v2g pilot projects with very promising prospects.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Denmark in its 2050 100% renewable energy strategy will be using conversion of electric renewables to hot water storage in District Heating schemes, to gas (hydrogen, SNG synthetic natural gas), etc.
    The EU JRC (Joint Research Centre) recently produced an updated briefing for District Heating potential :

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re - Reece, 'negative cost'. Batteries have a limited number of charge / discharge cycles - they gradually lose capacity and have to be replaced. Owners of cars used in such systems should be reimbursed because their batteries are being worn out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Batteries are great storage devices - high efficiency and very fast response with an ability to directly store renewably produced energy in the form of electricity. However, batteries are too expensive (at the moment) for cars and they are too expensive for grid energy storage. For cars, we need high energy and power densities but for energy storage we are not so much concerned about this. So, our idea in this project is to
    1.) Give a battery more than one purpose, here by deploying li-ion batteries in existing UPS systems to provide dual purpose of UPS (bottom 50% of capacity) and grid tied energy storage (top 50%). This re-uses the existing infrastructure and reduces the cost of the installation. In addition, we will be able to better predict the backup function as the battery us actually used on a regular basis. This will increase confidence in the battery for its UPS use.
    2. Re-using batteries, e.g. from electric vehicles. This is possible because the li-ion battery degrades quite predictably and slowly. So, the battery can have 10 years life in the car and following that another 20 years in a UPS / grid-tied energy-storage system. ... after which the battery should be recycled of course (we should have figured that out in about 30 years).
    The project is to demonstrate that this is a feasible approach. Other similar projects to follow.
    Additionally, we will support a free energy market with this - be your own energy supplier without complicated centralised management systems!

    We really try to do the right thing here - so feedback welcome!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting for all the wrong reasons:

    A share of £500,000 for energy storage projects =news

    £14M for a promising storage technology = not news

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Energy can be stored in mechanical, electrical or chemical devices and in the form of heat, and many commercially successful operations run throughout Europe and America. Still we need the help of government for innovation and funding that we can develop the new storage system.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say


My saved stories (Empty)

You have no saved stories

Save this article