Good Batteries vs Bad Batteries?

Battery efficiencies

We define a “good battery” as one that enhances the efficiency of the total energy system. Conversely, a “bad battery” diminishes it. This distinction matters and must not be overlooked in the world’s quest for cleaner energy. Electric Vehicles are most favoured, while grid-scale hydrogen is questioned.


[restrict]

As renewable energy ramps up into the global energy mix (chart below, model here), the energy system will grow increasingly intermittent. This is unavoidable, because sunshine and wind speeds vary, and these variations are correlated over wide geographic areas.

Hence, batteries will be needed, to store up excess renewable generation for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Most commentary on batteries focuses on their costs. But there is also an enormous opportunity in their efficiency…

Designed correctly, batteries can improve the efficiency of the global energy system, and accelerate the energy transition by lowering the total amount of energy that needs to be generated. Designed incorrectly, however, these variables are all worsened. The distinction is the topic of today’s note.

To make our distinction clearer, we have created a new data-file estimating the “net round trip efficiency” of different battery types. The calculation has two steps:

  • First, we measure the energy efficiency of an energy storage system (kWh given out divided by kWh put in).
  • Second, the storage system’s energy efficiency is compared with the most likely energy source that storage system will displace.

Interpretation. A score over 100% indicates a “good battery”. It is more efficient than the energy source displaced. A score below 100% indicates a “bad battery”. It is less efficient than the energy source displaced.

Examples to illustrate good vs bad batteries

Electric cars are our top example of a “good battery”, with potential to uplift energy efficiency by 3.5x. This is because electric vehicles achieve c60-80% energy efficiencies. An electric vehicle, in turn, is most likely to displace an internal combustion engine, which typically achieves 15-20% energy efficiency (chart below, model here). Mop up c100 units of excess renewable energy with an electric vehicle battery, and it therefore displaces the equivalent of 350 units of oil-energy.

The same 3.5x uplift applies to the battery in an ‘aerial vehicle, as we recently reviewed in depth, with flying cars set to achieve the equivalent of 140mpg (chart below).

Grid-scale batteries can also achieve impressive uplifts in efficiency, when inefficient fuel use is displaced. As a general rule of thumb, a power plant might be c50% efficient, hence replacing the power plant with renewables plus batteries can achieve a c2x efficiency uplift.

Additional opportunities are emerging to uplift system efficiency using batteries. One recent example was described by ConocoPhillips, at the Darwin LNG plant, where the gas turbines have a “sweet spot” of maximum efficiency. Battery storage allows Conoco to avoid low-efficiency turbine usage, which will will cut emissions by 20%.

Demand shifting, in the middle of our chart, deserves special mention because it is practically free and can also arguably uplift efficiency by 1-2x. It constitutes moving demand to the times when electricity is flowing abundantly into the grid. Examples range from backups at data-centers to washer-driers in homes. The practice can be encouraged by variable electricity prices, incentivising consumption when electricity supply is abundant and disincentivising consumption at times when it is scarce.

Now we arrive at the right-hand-side of our graph, where we are more cautious. Many commentators have proposed using hydrogen, molten salt or photo-electro-chemical cells as storage mechanisms, to absorb excess renewable power, for later usage…

We calculate that these “batteries” have c35-40% round-trip efficiencies: i.e., one third of the energy is lost to “charge” the battery (e.g., hydrolysing water) and another third is lost discharging it (e.g., burning hydrogen). Mop up 100 units of of renewable energy with one of these “bad batteries” and only c35-40 units can be recovered later. This means the world’s installed renewable capacity achieves less decarbonisation.

Decision-makers may wish to consider system efficiency in these terms, to maximise the impacts of both their renewable and battery investments. Efficiency and economics tend to overlap in all the models we have built.

[/restrict]

Please log in to view this content

Oil Companies Drive the Energy Transition?

Refineries become bio-refineries

There is only one way to decarbonise the energy system: leading companies must find economic opportunities in better technologies. No other route can source sufficient capital to re-shape such a vast industry that spends c$2trn per annum. We outline seven game-changing opportunities. Leading energy Majors are already pursuing them in their portfolios, patents and venturing. Others must follow suit.


Pages 2-3 show that today’s technologies are not sufficient to decarbonise the global energy system, which will surpass 100,000TWH pa by 2050. Better technologies are needed.

Pages 4-6 show how Oil Majors are starting to accelerate the transition, by developing these game-changing technologies. The work draws on analysis of 3,000 patents, 200 venture investments and other portfolio tilts.

Pages 7-13 profile seven game-changing themes, which can deliver both the energy transition and vast economic opportunities in the evolving energy system. These prospects cover electric mobility, gas, digital, plastics, wind, solar and CCS. In each case, we find leading Oil companies among the front-runners.

Is the world investing enough in energy?

global energy investment

Global energy investment will need to rise by c$220-270bn per annum by 2025-30, according to the latest data from the IEA, which issued its ‘World Energy Investment’ report this week. We think the way to achieve this is via better energy technologies.

Specifically, the world invested $1.6bn in new energy supplies in 2018, which must be closer to $1.8-1.9bn, to meet future demand in 2025-30– whether emissions are tackled or not. The need for oil investment is most uncertain. More gas investment is needed in any scenario. And renewables investment must rise by 15-100%.

Note: data above includes $1.6trn investment in energy supplies and c$250bn in energy efficiency measures

Hence the report strikes a cautious tone: “Current market and policy signals are not incentivising the major reallocation of capital to low-carbon power and efficiency that would align with a sustainable energy future. In the absence of such a shift, there is a growing possibility that investment in fuel supply will also fall short of what is needed to satisfy growing demand”.

We do not think the conclusions are surprising. Our work surveying 50 investors last year found that fears over the energy transition are elevating capital costs for conventional energy investments (below).

Meanwhile, low returns make it challenging to invest at scale in renewables.

We argue better energy technologies are the antidote to attracting capital back into the industry. That is why Thunder Said Energy focuses on the opportunities arising from energy technologies. Please see further details in our recent note, ‘What the Thunder Said’. For all our ‘Top Technologies’ in energy, please see here.

References

IEA (2019). World Energy Investment. International Energy Agency.

Two Majors’ Secret Race for the Future of Offshore Wind?

Race for the future of Offshore Wind

An exciting aspiration in wind technology is to obviate large, expensive “towers”, and unleash tethered kites into the skies. They can access 2-4x more wind-power at greater altitudes, and at 50-90% lower costs. Intriguingly, we have discovered Exxon and Shell are at the forefront of pursuing this new wind opportunity offshore, based on their patents and filings.

[restrict]

Oil Majors & Wind Energy

If you search the internet for Exxon’s “wind power” business, you are most likely to encounter its range of lubricants for wind-turbines. Its largest public foray so far is a 250MW commitment to offtake wind power into its Permian operations from Orsted’s Sage Draw wind farm.

For Shell, the narrative is around scaling up today’s wind turbines, under its $1-2bn new energies capex commitment. Its most recent bid was for a 2.5GW wind consortium, 8-miles off Atlantic City; off the heels of its 730MW Borssele III-IV project from the Netherlands.

Yet we have found new evidence that both of these Super-Majors are actively looking to a novel offshore wind technology, with potential to unlock larger quantities of energy at materially lower costs.

The theory: aiming higher?

Wind power in the earth’s atmosphere increases with altitude, as shown below. At 300m, it should be possible to access 2x more power than at 80m, based on global average wind speeds, modelled here.

The challenge for conventional wind is how to access these higher wind speeds. The 4,000m foundation and 700T tower already comprise c35% of a typical, 80m wind-turbine’s overall cost.

Hence there is an entire green-tech industry dedicated to “flying wind”. These are airborne drones that submit their power back down to ground level via a tether. The academic literature estimates costs per-kW could be 10-50% the level of conventional wind turbines. “Technology Readiness” ranges from Level 3 to Level 7.

The most famous example would be Makani, which tested a 600kW capacity vehicle in 2017, with the backing of Google (video below). Scroll half-way through the video, to 17-minutes, and you see the tethered craft mid-flight, conducting a looping series of nose-dives: when the vessel surpasses 85mph, according to our calculations, its on-board propellors could be beaming a full 600kW of power back down the tether-cable, towards the base-station. The glider is then carried back up to altitude like a kite, before commencing another dive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKFlMDUHtLg

Exxon and Shell are examining what to do with this technology

ExxonMobil has filed a series of patents to deploy tethered kites offshore, “opening up a resource system which is four times greater than the electrical generation capacity of the entire United States” (in the patents’ own words).

The image below shows Exxon’s concept for an offshore wind farm, with 25 kites (each with 20kW-5MW capacity), arranged in 5 rows of 5. Each row of kites has its own umbilical, electrical module and distribution cable.

The patent includes some comprehensive considerations: the tether system, its connection to a floating structure, the anchor piles, a quick-disconnect system, and offshore maintenance procedures.

Exxon’s floating offshore wind concept?! (150) is a local electrical distribution cable, (146) is an underwater electrical module and (152) is an offshore substation.

Exxon continued refining these patents in 2018, with at least three further filings (in the jurisdictions of Argentina and Taiwan… read into that what you will). We have contacted the company for a comment on any plans to test or pilot the technology, and will update this article with any answers.

Meanwhile, Shell is also stepping up its interest in offshore wind kites. In February-2019, it signed its own partnership with Makani, saying that it “plans to kick-off testing of this new floating offshore system with demonstrations in Norway later this year”. Previously, Shell also invested €6M in Kite Power Systems, another aerial wind concept.

So we have here, an intriguing secret race between two of the largest Oil Majors, at the cutting edge of offshore wind-tech.

Sources & References

Zillman, U., (2015). The Trillion Dollar Drone. Airborne Wind Energy Conference 2015

Hart, C., & Bushby, D. (2017). Airborne Power Generating Crafts Tethered to a Floating Structure. Patent WO2017218118.

Goldstein, L. (2015). Theoretical analysis of an airborne wind energy conversion system with a ground generator and fast motion transfer. Energy Volume 55, 15 June 2013

[/restrict]

Please log in to view this content

Why the Thunder Said?

Perovskite Efficiency Gains

Energy transition is underway. Or more specifically, five energy transitions are underway at the same time. They include the rise of renewables, shale oil, digital technologies, environmental improvements and new forms of energy demand. This is our rationale for establishing a new research consultancy, Thunder Said Energy, at the nexus of energy-technology and energy-economics.

This 8-page report outlines the ‘four goals’ of Thunder Said Energy; and how we hope we can help your process…


Pages 2-5 show how disruptive energy technologies are re-shaping the world: We see potential for >20Mbpd of Permian production, for natural gas to treble, for ‘digital’ to double Oil Major FCF, and for the emergence of new, multi-billion dollar companies and sub-industries amidst the energy transition.

Page 6 shows how we are ‘scoring’ companies: to see who is embracing new technology most effectively, by analysing >1,000 patents and >400 technical papers so far.

Page 7 compiles quotes from around the industry, calling for a greater focus on technology.

Page 8 explains our research process, and upcoming publication plans.

Underinvestment risks in the energy transition?

investment risks in the energy transition

Fears over the energy transition are now restricting investment in fossil fuels, based on our new paper, published in conjunction with the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, linked here.    

They have elevated capital costs by 4-7% for oil and by c25% for coal, compared with the early 2010s.

  • One consequence will be to concentrate capital into renewables, gas, and shorter-cycle oil projects (i.e., shale).
  • But there will also be negative consequences, risking long-run supply shortages of oil and coal.
  • Companies are also being pressured to ‘harvest’ their existing assets, rather than maximising potential value in the 2020s, which may impact valuations.  

For further details please see the full paper, linked here, or contact us. 

250-years of Energy Disruption?

250 years of Energy disruption

In 2018, we reviewed 250-years of energy transitions, arguing that another great energy transition is now on hand.

It will occur over the next century. Thus for another hundred years, today’s energy industry will remain vitally important. In addition, new sources of supply will create unimaginable new sources of energy demand.

A podcast summarising the work is available from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

[restrict]

[/restrict]

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2019-2024.