assessing economic viability and potential of energy...

Assessing economic viability and potential of energy storage

Louis-Marie Jacquelin – Development Director – New market activities

[email protected]

+33 1 82 83 83 87

mailto:[email protected]






25 people independent consulting company

Core business: Energy transition for industry

Ethical model: Pro Bono Energy Access in Developing Countries

Our clients

Identity

Energy consumers Energy players

Our offer Technology: benchmark, roadmaps

Strategy: markets, R&D positioning

Projects: PFS, Performance, Impact

ENEA Consulting

Technology & Engineering

Startups Public Sector

Our fields of operation

Industrial energy efficiency

Biogas, biomass and biofuels

Wind, sun, sea energy

Energy storage

CO2 capture and storage

Industrial missions

Volunteering missions

Both

Other studies

ENEA worldwide

1.Storage value assessment method

2.Technology cost forecast

3.French case : main results

4.Exportable findings

New study release: English executive summary

http://www.enea-consulting.com/en/?p=4917

Content of the presentation





Assessing value: complex modeling

France

ZNI

Perimeters

Detailed simulation

Energy Mix Scenarios : 2030

Energy storage system

multi-value assessment

Na-SZn-Br

Electrolyse

ZEBRANickel-Zinc

Zinc-Air

Volants d’inertie

Lithium-Ion

VRB

Stockage thermique d’électricité

Temps de décharge

Puissance

Secondes

Minutes

Heures

1 kW 10 kW 100 MW100 kW 1 MW 10 MW 1GW

Système de transfert par lest maritime

10 Heures

Plomb-Acide

Super condensateurs

Energie

Puissance

STEP

STEP souterraine

STEP Marines

AA-CAES

Technology forecast

Energy Storage

value is local !

2013 LCOS comparison

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

[€/M

Wh

]

2010 2030

Cost breakdown Volume effect Cost reduction

Cost reduction evaluation

Common metric for cost comparison : LCOS

Results: 2030 LCOS reduction

PHS

AA-CAES

Na-S

H2 alcalin

Li-ion H2 PEM

Zn-Br Pb-A

2013

2030

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

[€/M

Wh

]

2013

20300

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

[€/M

Wh

]

2013

2030

€/MWh

French case – Main results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus

MDN NMX ADM

Garantie capacitaire

Arbitrage

Réglage de la fréquence

CSPE

Taxes

Réseau (TURPE)

Maintenance

Coût du capital

Investissement initial0

20

40

60

80

100

120


MDN NMX ADM


Arbitrage


CSPE

Taxes

Réseau (TURPE)

Maintenance

Coût du capital

Investissement initialRevenue

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


MDN NMX ADM


Arbitrage


CSPE

Taxes

Réseau (TURPE)

Maintenance

Coût du capital

Investissement initial

Grid access

Capital cost

Initial investment

Maintenance

Costs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


MDN NMX ADM


Arbitrage


CSPE

Taxes

Réseau (TURPE)

Maintenance

Coût du capital


Capacity guarantee

Frequency regulation

CSPE

Taxes

Arbitrage

€/MWh Mainland current situation

Mainland potential:

1 to 2 GW PHS

Value : 60 to 150 k€/MW/yr

600 MW reserve

Large existing flexible capacity:

13 GW installed hydropower

Large existing storage capacity:

4 GW PHS

Good international connection

Sensitivity analysis

Discharge duration

Efficiency

Reserve contribution

PV deployment

CO2 price

Gas price

Scenario mix

New flexible demand

Other storage installation

Climate variations

€/yr

Value of the 1st MW of storage (5h, 80% efficiency)

20 000 € 40 000 € 60 000 € 80 000 € 100 000 € 120 000 €

French case – Main results

Island current situation

Island potential:

200 to 400 MW

Value: 200 to 350 k€/MW/yr

=> All Technologies !

Small electric systems (about

500 MW)

High production costs

Non flexible capacity

installed (coal)

No storage

Value for 1MW storage 5h, 70% efficiency

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

segment ZNI

k€/M

W/a

n

Rémunération réserve

Réduction des arrêts-démarrages

Rémunération capacité ZNI

Valorisation des arbitrages économiques

Reserve

Stop & start reduction

Capacity

Arbitrages

Daily flexibility needs With 20 GW of PV

Demand

PV

Demand minus PV production

More PV does not necessarily means more needs for flexibility

(up to some point)

PV production peaks during

high demand periods

Weekly flexibility needs

Wind production time constant:

several days at France level

Wind developments increase long term flexibility needs

and lower investment risks for storage projects with longer time constant

Energy storage decentralization

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


MDN NMX ADM


Traitement des congestions

Arbitrage


CSPE

Taxes

Réseau (TURPE)

Maintenance

Coût du capital


Li-Ion battery 4h, 5 MW (85% efficiency), in €/MWh destocked (LCOS), for 350 h/yr congestion

Capacity mechanism

Congestion management

Arbitrage

Frequency regulation

CSPE

Taxes

Grid costs (TURPE)

Maintenance

Capital costs

Initial investments Costs Incomes Costs Incomes Costs Incomes

MDN NMX ADM

Decentralizing energy storage may not always create more value

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

€/M

Wh

Heures d'écrêtement (h/an)

Prime à l'écrêtement évité rentabilisant le dispositif de stockage

Coûts de renforcement réseau rapportés au MWh d'écrêtement évité - Borne min

Coûts de renforcement réseau rapportés au MWh d'écrêtement évité - Borne max

Energy storage decentralization

Bonus for avoiding peak-shaving, calculated to finance storage system

Nb of hours shaved per year

Min cost of grid reinforcement (per MWh saved)

Max cost of grid reinforcement (per MWh saved)

Demand side storage

Up to 90 m€ savings compared to actual situation

6 GW flexibility potential

Domestic hot water

Good candidate for demand

side management

In France, system already in

place for fixed hour starts

2 optimization options have

been considered :

Optimized fixed hour starts

Flexible starts

Average consumption (GW)

Daily hours

Demand side storage

100 to 300 m€ savings

Home charging at night could be counter-productive !

Electric vehicles

Good candidate for demand

side management

Depends on EV deployment

Up to 25 TWh flexibility

potential

Charge at home (not smart)

Charge at home (smart)

Charge at work (smart)

• At state & EU levels: we can perform

similar detailed studies

• At corporate level, we now have up-to-date tools to:

– Compare technologies with competition

– Evaluate a complete business case

What now ?

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL

PERFORMANCE EFFICIENCY & PROCESS

INNOVATION

► Stakeholder Management

► Social Acceptance

► Global Performance

► Business model optimization

► Go to Market

► Competitive positioning

► Project financing

► Energy storage integration in infrastructure and processes

► Energy Efficiency

► AMO, Project management

Partner with ENEA Consulting

assessing economic viability and potential of energy...

Documents