Welcome to the new Energy Central — same great community, now with a smoother experience. To login, use your Energy Central email and reset your password.

Energy & Grid Management
Rich Dzikowski
Rich Dzikowski
 · Posted in Energy & Grid Management

Grids Without Power: Why Grid Expansion Alone Fails and TSTM Saves the Energy Transition

Introduction: Grids Without Energy Flow Are No Solution

Like a farmer who reaps a bountiful harvest in summer but lacks storage for winter, the energy transition faces a dilemma: Photovoltaics (PV) and wind power often produce more electricity than the grid can handle, yet during low generation periods, the grid remains an "empty shell"—physically present but without energy flow. In winter, PV produces zero percent at night, and wind power drops to about 2% during calm periods, as US Energy Secretary Chris Wright noted on June 10, 2025 (Forbes Breaking News, 2025). Europe’s electricity grid, designed for centralized power plants, is outdated and risks derailing the fossil fuel phase-out, as a recent report highlights (Euronews Green, 2025). Annually, 50–100 TWh of renewable energy is wasted in the EU (20 TWh in Germany), costing €5–10 billion. The Tubular Storage Tank Module (TSTM) is the only sensible solution: it stores surplus electricity locally, prevents curtailment, and relieves the grid. This article explains why grid expansion is necessary but insufficient and how TSTM ensures the success of the energy transition.

1. Grids Without Energy Flow: The Volatility Problem

1.1 The Volatility of PV and Wind

PV and wind power transform the electricity system with their irregular generation:

  • PV: Zero percent at night in winter (5:00 PM–7:00 AM, ~14 hours/day), and even during the day, often only 5–30% of rated capacity, measured under lab conditions (1,000 W/m², 25°C). This rated capacity, achieved “only for a second per year,” overestimates availability (9% annual average in 2023).

  • Wind: Varies between 2% (calm periods) and 20–50% (e.g., North Sea). During high-pressure systems, generation remains minimal.

When PV and wind produce little or no electricity, grids remain unproductive, prolonging reliance on fossil power plants, as criticized by Euronews Green (2025).

1.2 Impacts of Powerless Grids

  • Temporal Dimension: In ~2,100 hours/year (24%, October–February, 14 hours/day at night), renewable electricity flow is minimal, with PV at 0% and wind at 2%.

  • Curtailment: Simultaneous generation (e.g., sunny, windy days) overloads grids, leading to 50–100 TWh of curtailment EU-wide (20 TWh in Germany), costing €5–10 billion.

  • Redispatch Costs: Grid bottlenecks cause fossil-based redispatch (~€7.2 billion in 7 EU countries in 2024, Addressing Global Energy Transition Challenges).

  • Dependency: Without storage, the EU relies on fossil plants or costly imports (e.g., Norway’s hydropower, >€200/MWh), jeopardizing the 80% renewables target by 2030, as a recent report warns (Euronews Green, 2025).

2. Grid Expansion: Necessary but Insufficient

2.1 The Historical Role of Grid Expansion

Historically, grids were the backbone of a stable system: centralized power plants (coal, nuclear) provided 24/7 baseload, and grids transported electricity with high utilization (70–90%). Investments (€1–2 million/km for HVDC lines) were economical, as grids were rarely idle. Examples like Germany’s Ruhr coal plants illustrate this efficiency.

2.2 Grid Expansion in a Volatile System

The volatility of PV and wind makes grid expansion less effective:

  • Residual Power Transport: Grids like NordLink or SĂĽdLink distribute wind power (2–30%) or imports (e.g., Norway’s hydropower, 15–20 TWh/year).

  • Curtailment Reduction: Grid expansion reduces curtailment, saving €5–10 billion at €100/MWh.

  • Daytime: Distributes PV and wind power (20–50% in winter during the day).

Yet, during calm winter nights, grids remain idle, as they cannot store electricity. Euronews Green (2025) emphasizes that outdated grids hinder the fossil phase-out, being designed for predictable plants. Grid expansion is necessary to distribute residual power but inefficient without storage.

2.3 Costs and Political Challenges

  • Investments: €100 billion by 2045 in Germany (14,000 km), €400–600 billion EU-wide by 2050 (ENTSO-E TYNDP 2022).

  • Operating Costs: 1–2% of CAPEX/year (~€100–200 million/year in Germany), plus losses (3–5%).

  • Cost per kWh: At 50% utilization (e.g., SĂĽdLink, €10 billion, 4 GW): ~€0.57/kWh; at 30%: ~€0.95/kWh.

  • Time: Construction takes 5–15 years, delayed by protests.

  • Political Hurdles: Ivanova (Euronews Green, 2025) calls for “clear political signals” and “independent governance,” as grid operators hesitate to invest without incentives.

Grid expansion is costly and uneconomical at low utilization, failing to address volatility issues.

3. TSTM: The Only Sensible Solution

TSTM, developed by Ryszard Dzikowski (Dzikowski, 2025), stores compressed methane or biomethane at 250 bar in modular steel tubes. Like a “prudent farmer,” it stores summer surpluses for winter and prevents curtailment, making grids “enablers” of the energy transition, as Ivanova demands (Euronews Green, 2025).

3.1 Functionality and Benefits

  • Principle: Surplus electricity (e.g., PV, wind) drives compressors to store methane. In winter, the gas is released for electricity, heat, or fuels.

  • Technical Parameters:

    • Efficiency: 55–58% full cycle, <0.1% losses/month.

    • Energy Density: 2.5 MWh/mÂł.

    • Cost: <€10/kWh (vs. >€250/kWh for batteries, €100–200/kWh for CAES).

    • Scalability: 3–768 tubes, e.g., 1,000,000 mÂł = 2,500 GWh (~189 modules).

    • Lifespan: >40 years.

    • Space Efficiency: A 13.28 GWh module (38 x 19 x 12.5 m) requires the space of three tennis courts, while Li-ion batteries for the same capacity need 1,368 tennis courts.

  • Benefits: Utilizes existing gas infrastructure, compact (~13.6 ha for 2,500 GWh), biomethane-compatible, supports fossil-free transition.

 

3.2 TSTM Against Volatility

TSTM fills grids with energy when PV and wind fail:

  • Storage: Summer surpluses (20–50% during the day) are stored locally, relieving grids.

  • Winter Supply: Delivers electricity during calm nights (2% wind), reducing fossil dependency, supporting the phase-out (Euronews Green, 2025).

  • Curtailment Prevention: Stores 55–58% of 50–100 TWh EU-wide, saving €5–10 billion.

  • Example: 1,000,000 mÂł TSTM (~2,500 GWh, 189 modules) covers the winter demand of a large region like Schleswig-Holstein (~50 GWh/night) for ~50 nights or Hamburg (~24.6 GWh/night) for ~101 nights.

3.3 Preventing Waste

TSTM utilizes curtailed electricity (20 TWh in Germany):

  • Negative Prices: TSTM saves compensation costs (up to €100/MWh).

  • Local Storage: Installed near generation sites (e.g., offshore wind farms), reducing grid bottlenecks and redispatch costs (€7.2 billion in 2024).

  • Sector Coupling: Electricity, heat, and transport maximize benefits.

3.4 TSTM-M: Offshore Solution

Maritime TSTM-M (Addressing Global Challenges, pp. 6–9):

  • Function: Stores methane offshore, uses wind power, transports gas by ship.

  • Benefits: Avoids LNG liquefaction (85–90% losses), relieves grids, e.g., Troll A (Norway).

  • Relevance: Reduces fossil import dependency, supports Ivanova’s “competitive energy future.”

4. Case Study: TSTM in Hamburg

4.1 Scenario

A decommissioned coal plant (e.g., Moorburg) in Hamburg is equipped with 50 TSTM modules (13.28 GWh each, total: 664 GWh), filled with natural gas from the North German gas grid and compressed with curtailed offshore wind power (25% curtailed, e.g., He Dreiht, 0.945 TWh/year). Existing 380-kV infrastructure is utilized.

4.2 Benefits

  • Capacity: 365–385 GWh usable electricity (~15–16 nights of Hamburg’s winter demand, 24.6 GWh/night).

  • Curtailment: Uses 685 GWh of wind power, saving ~€68.5 million/year (€100/MWh).

  • Infrastructure: Existing power and gas grids save construction costs (6–24 months vs. 3–5 years for gas plants).

  • Cost: ~€1.25 billion investment, ~€3.3 million gas/filling, amortization in ~8 years.

  • Sustainability: Biomethane-compatible, supports fossil-free phase-out (Euronews Green, 2025).

  • Political Incentives: Ivanova’s “clear incentives” could support TSTM via EU funds (REPowerEU).

  • Space Efficiency: 50 modules (664 GWh) require ~150 tennis courts, vs. ~68,400 for Li-ion batteries.

4.3 Comparison with Gas Power Plants

Gas power plants (e.g., 500 MW):

  • Disadvantages: No storage, fossil gas (~€18.2 million/year), COâ‚‚ emissions, grid bottlenecks.

  • TSTM Advantages: Seasonal storage, grid relief, curtailment reduction, fossil-free option (biomethane).

5. Why Alternatives Fail

  • CAES: 42–70% efficiency, 0.092 kWh/mÂł, €100–200/kWh, geologically constrained.

  • Batteries: >€250/kWh, suitable only for hours, highly space-intensive (1,368 tennis courts for 13.28 GWh vs. 3 for TSTM).

  • Hydrogen: 25–30% efficiency, expensive.

TSTM is cost-effective, scalable, space-efficient, and infrastructure-compatible, an “enabler” of the energy transition (Ivanova, 2025).

6. TSTM and the EU Goal

TSTM supports 80% renewable electricity by 2030 through:

  • Curtailment Reduction: 50–100 TWh.

  • Seasonal Storage: Summer surpluses for winter.

  • Grid Relief: Redispatch savings (€7.2 billion in 2024).

  • Fossil-Free Transition: Biomethane option reduces COâ‚‚, aligning with Euronews goals.

7. Challenges and Steps

  • Logistics: Coordination for tubes.

  • Regulation: Leverage gas regulations.

  • Pilot Projects: 10,000 mÂł TSTM near offshore wind farms, supported by “political signals” (Ivanova, 2025).

  • Financing: EEG compensations (€100/MWh), EU funds (REPowerEU).

8. Conclusion: TSTM Brings Grids to Life

Grids were essential for centralized power plants, but the volatility of PV (0% at night) and wind (2% in calm periods) leaves them idle for ~24% of the year, an “empty shell” that jeopardizes the fossil phase-out (Euronews Green, 2025). Grid expansion is necessary but inefficient, failing to address curtailment (50–100 TWh) or powerless phases. TSTM is the only sensible solution: it stores locally, prevents waste, relieves grids, and is space-efficient (3 tennis courts for 13.28 GWh vs. 1,368 for batteries). The Hamburg case study shows TSTM saving €68.5 million/year and meeting winter demand. With pilot projects, political incentives (Ivanova, 2025), and financing (REPowerEU), TSTM can secure the energy transition and achieve the EU’s 80% renewable target by 2030.

References

  • Dzikowski, R. (2025). Strategic Reframing of Seasonal Energy Storage. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15571128.

  • Dzikowski, R. (2025). Addressing Global Energy Transition Challenges with Modular TSTM Solutions. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15683793.

  • Euronews Green (2025). Europe’s electricity grid is outdated and risks derailing fossil fuel phase-out, report finds. 13.05.2025.

  • Forbes Breaking News (2025). Wright Testimony, 10.06.2025.

  • Fraunhofer ISE (2023). Curtailment data Germany.

  • ENTSO-E (2022). TYNDP 2022.

 

Author: Ryszard Dzikowski, June 19, 2025.

 

3