This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,288 Members

Post

Will Cheap Energy Storage Come to Coal and Nuclear's Rescue?

Everyone knows that the development of low-cost, large-scale electricity storage technologies will be critical to the future of wind and solar energy–or at least everyone who reads The Energy Collective knows that! The ability to cheaply store electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and use it later when those resources fade away is essential if these intermittent resources are to play a major role in the electrical grid.

Yet, paradoxically, cheap grid-scale energy storage may simultaneously throw a potent lifeline to two of renewable energy’s chief competitors: coal and nuclear energy

Here’s why…

Big nuclear and coal-fired power plants can’t ramp up our down their electricity output very quickly, a function of their huge steam turbines, which must be spun up or down carefully and kept at the right consistent temperatures to avoid damage. The marginal price of power generation at a coal or nuclear plant also tends to be dominated by the fixed costs of capital equipment, with variable costs like fuel being fairly marginal contributors.

Without affordable electric storage options, it pays then to run these big plants 24-7. Large coal and nuclear power plants are typically dedicated to meet a base level of electricity demand, or “load,” that is consistent throughout the day. Hence their jargony electric sector label: “baseload” power plants.

While reliability is a plus, this relative inflexibility can also present challenges for the future of baseload power generators, according to energy industry experts speaking at the MIT Energy Conference Friday. As variable renewable energy sources gain a greater share of the power mix and as cheap natural gas prices make flexible gas-fired generators increasingly competitive, the importance of “baseload” power plants may be diminished in the year’s ahead.

Intermittent wind and solar generators essentially act as “negative load,” reducing the portion of electric demand that must be met 24-7 by baseload plants. Meanwhile, cheap gas-fired plants are increasingly competitive with existing coal (and to a lesser degree nuclear) power plants, even for baseload power. 

Low-cost, grid-scale electric storage could be just the ticket for embattled baseload power plants, according to Dr. Lawrence Makovich, vice president and founder of the power practice at consultancy IHS CERA.

Electric power prices are highest when demand peaks, usually during the late afternoon when factories, office parks, and homes are all gulping power, while demand and prices both fall to rock bottom during the dead of night. So-called “off-peak” prices at night can be as much as 2 to 5 times lower than “peak” power prices. On the warmest and coldest days of the year, when air conditioners and electric heaters are all switched on, spot market power prices can surge to almost absurd heights. 

These peak demand periods are a cash cow for flexible generators able to ramp up to meet surging demand, a role typically filled by smaller, flexible gas-fired power plants.

In contrast, baseload plants generally have no ability to take advantage of this spread in power prices. They’re running flat-out all the time, and they have to find a buyer for their power whether prices are good or bad. Often that means they are locked into long-term contracts, rather than competing on spot markets. They usually lose out on the big profits when power prices peak.

That all changes if grid-scale energy storage gets cheap. Baseload coal and nuclear plants could continue to run at max capacity and optimal efficiency 24-7. But now, when power prices are lowest, these generators could charge up on-site batteries or sell their power to storage operators and then sell that electricity when demand is highest to take advantage of peak prices.

All of a sudden, big power plants can compete in the electric spot market and provide a source of flexible “peaking” or “load-following” power while increasing their profits.

Cheap energy storage thus changes the very definition of a “baseload” power plant.

Makovich isn’t the only energy consultant who has come to this realization. IHS CERA’s competitor McKinsey & Co. found the exact same thing in a 2011 study on energy innovation commissioned by Google.org.

According to McKinsey/Google’s modeling, “In the short term, much cheaper storage, absent innovations in wind and solar that reduce their cost to below coal, could actually drive an increase in coal consumption. Cheaper storage would enable already cheap coal units to run at peak efficiency 24 hours/day, store energy at night, and dispatch it during the day–reducing demand for load-following following natural gas capacity.” 

By boosting profits, the flexibility granted by cheap storage would actually make it more attractive to keep older coal or nuclear plants online, even if costly retrofits are required to meet pollution regulations or secure approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue operating.

In a modeling scenario in which battery breakthroughs make large-scale grid storage competitive, McKinsey projects that coal’s share of the energy mix would actually increase relative to a baseline scenario, driving CO2 emissions up, albeit just slightly, by 0.3 percent. 

The electricity system of the 21st century is changing, the panelists at the MIT conference all noted, as new intermittent power sources increase their market penetration, tightening pollution regulations and aging equipment result in the retirement of older coal and nuclear plants, and natural gas-fired plants become the generating source of choice for new plant construction.

New breakthroughs in low-cost energy storage may be precisely what baseload coal and nuclear generators need to stay competitive and flexible in this changing electricity market.

For more exclusive Energy Collective reporting from the MIT Energy Conference, see: “Is Water a Barrier to a Low-Carbon Energy Future?

Jesse Jenkins's picture

Thank Jesse for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Mar 22, 2012 5:18 pm GMT

Nobody sees metal batteries offering solutions to electrical energy storage. Toxic, dangerous, expensive.

Lessons from biology are worth learning. Energy storage is common in biochemicals such as sugar and fat. The switch is catalysis into the burn cycle. And the event that triggers the “turning on or off” of catalysts(enzymes) is hormones, such as insulin. Other catalytic switchers exist.

Most standard chemistry is done in a processing environment where reaction kinetics are controlled by crude values like pressure or temperature or concentrations. Biochemistry is done in an evironment that can be controlled with remarkable timing and precision.

Learn how nature makes electricity all the time, on demand, with safe materials, all around you. If you would see swallows playing catch in mid-air with a feather(or similar object) you might be less impressed with the big, dirty, and expensive solutions many “experts” advocate. Maybe there is a very different path to take in energy development.

Colin Megson's picture
Colin Megson on Mar 22, 2012 6:07 pm GMT

Wall-to-wall breeder reactors for base load power are inevitable in 2 or 3 decades:  http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html

The only decision to make, if you wish to enter the debate , is – do you want a breeder cooled by explosive liquid sodium or low-reactivity molten salts? Oh, and Molten Salt Breeders using gas turbine generation can load-follow, so no need for storage.

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Mar 22, 2012 6:18 pm GMT

Jesse,

Thanks for highlighting the implications of storage for non-renewable generation.  In fact, that insight pre-dates the McKinsey study you cited and doesn’t require modeling to understand: Once you view installed storage capacity as a business, its best opportunity clearly comes from storing the cheapest electricity for resale during peak hours.  Sometimes that would be wind, but often it would be from coal or nuclear; rarely would it be solar, except from concentrated solar power facilities with integrated thermal storage.  It’s no coincidence that most of the existing storage today, in the form of pumped storage, is used to time-shift hydropower, which from depreciated dams is about the cheapest power available.

Steve Offutt's picture
Steve Offutt on Mar 24, 2012 12:33 am GMT

Not sure what “2 to 5 times lower than” means.  Isn’t 1 times lower already zero?

 

I think you meant to say 50-80% lower.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »