U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
A Minnesota wind developer is betting on untested storage technology that will allow it to meet electricity demand at peak periods and improve profits even when the wind isn't blowing, with implications for all U.S. wind farm operators.
Juhl Wind said it plans to install a 1-megawatt advanced battery system at its 10-megawatt Woodstock Hills wind facility near its headquarters in Woodstock, Minn. The system will store electricity captured during gusty times for up to six hours, giving Juhl the option to sell its wind supply when power demand is highest and charge premium prices for it.
"By adding the storage component, you're going to be able to store energy and deliver it to the system when the system needs it most," said Dan Juhl, chairman and CEO of Juhl Wind. "Instead of becoming baseload, it becomes peak power," which is more competitively priced.
The project will mark a milestone for the system's developer, Zinc Air, a cleantech company in Kalispell, Mont., which for three years has tested and tweaked the decade-old "redox flow" battery technology to make it economically viable.
"This is the first time we're throwing it in the field and seeing where the benefits are," Craig Wilkins, Zinc Air's executive vice president, told SolveClimate News. "It is huge for us at this point to be able to get a real live test of the battery. Companies are already looking at this with interested eyeballs."
He added that flow battery technology has gone through 10 years and tens of millions of dollars of research. "We are the first ones to scale up" for commercial use.
Anissa Dehamna, a research analyst with Washington D.C.-based Pike Research, told SolveClimate News that the Zinc Air demonstration is "a good strategy" for getting "the wind industry in line or on board with storage."
She said that many wind developers are hesitant to shell out hefty sums on emerging energy storage technologies, producing a chicken and egg situation. Without a guaranteed market, it has been tough for cleantech firms to test and refine new systems and ultimately sell their products.
"Storage is not very well understood," she said. "[Developers] are not sure how it is going to play out, what all the benefits will be and what the rate of return will be."
'Writing on the Wall'
The massive growth in recent years in renewable energy capacity across the United States — particularly intermittent wind and solar power — has left the U.S. electrical grid with more spikes and dips, which in turn could put renewables developers at a disadvantage compared with conventional energy producers.
Utilities could eventually decide to pay less for erratic power sources than for stable "firm" power like coal that deliver a guaranteed power flow at all hours, some analysts warn, making it hard for wind and solar to compete in the electricity market.
"I think some of these developers are realizing that they need to find a storage solution," Dehamna said. "The writing is on the wall in terms of maximizing their assets."
Global investment in utility-scale storage systems is expected to reach $22 billion in 2021, with a cumulative investment of $122 billion over the next ten years, according to a July report co-authored by Dehamna.
Solutions that seek to store renewable energy to cover peak loads — chiefly wind power — will make up a little less than half of total storage capacity deployed in the next 10 years, as developers and grid operators attempt to match the spectacular increase in wind supply with electricity demand.
Technologies likely to lead in the wind market are flow batteries like Zinc Air's and compressed air energy storage, or CAES, analysts predict. CAES technologies use excess off-peak power generated at wind farms to compress air, which gets pumped and stored underground. The pressurized air is later released and fed through gas-fired turbines to generate electricity during peak hours.
Sodium sulfur batteries, pumped hydro and advanced lithium-ion batteries are also expected to nab a share of the wind storage market.
Best of luck to Zinc Air. Advanced batteries are the best and most viable method for energy storage of wind and most other applications – not compressed air.
Compressed air energy storage is the dream of central plant utility types. Millions of dollars spent over many years to centralize power services. However, installation of a CAES project is not a given. There are too many variables to be able to plan a project with any certainty. CAES must be sited where the geologic formations allow massive amounts of underground compressed air. The due diligence for that took 5 years in Iowa and cost over $8 million before it was determined not viable. Toss in the cost and environmental concerns of a project, new transmission lines, etc., and it becomes a costly and time consuming gamble. No wonder there are only two such projects in the world. Plus, the compressed air is actually used to run natural gas turbines, so the process makes "clean" wind energy "dirty".
The zinc-air system still has a long way to go. According to their website, the current application for the technology requires fueling it with little zinc balls. Electrically recharging a system is a technological challenge. I’m surprised the author didn’t include other systems, like the VRB® flow battery, when listing other storage options.
Bottom-line, distributed energy storage systems are available now and new technologies are being developed.
Mr. Toca's comments about CAES are somewhat misleading. The one correct assertion is that CAES requires the right geological formations. The Iowa project is not representatve of new CAES projects. It was to have used aquifer storage, and it is notoriously difficult to find the right porous rock formations that can hold the high pressures needed for CAES. The two existing projects use salt caverns, and salt cavern storage is well proven around the world. So it does take the right geology, and that is a disadvantage versus batteries, which can be put everywhere. However, that's where the battery advantages generally end.
Mr. Toca mentions cost. Consider the following:
CAES projects will come in at $1,000-$1,500/kW. Batteries are supposed to be $1,000 to $4,000 per kW.
CAES projects can easily provide upwards of 20 hours of storage, because the storage component is the minor cost element of the project once you have established that the geology is there. Batteres, however, begin to get very expensive beyond a few hours of storage. So the installed cost per MWH of storage is far higher with batteries (around $70/MWh versus $350-$500/MWh).
CAES projects will have project lifetimes of at least 35 years, or equivalent to combustion turbines. Batteries are shooting for lifetimes of 15 years - a target that remains unproven.
Mr. Toca also cites environmental impacts. CAES is not known for any significant environmental impacts. They're better known for being twice as fuel-efficient as gas turbines. I would be more concerned about the chemicals used in battery manufacturing and disposal, although I'm ignorant on that subject.
Finally, the issue of "new transmission" applies to all major renewable energy developments, and batteries have no advantage over CAES in this regard.