John Petersen
Epic is the only word I can use to describe an evolving tragedy that
killed tens of thousands of people, inflicted hundreds of billions in
property damage, destroyed 3.5% of Japan's base-load power generating
capacity in a heartbeat and will
cause recurring aftershocks in the global electric power,
transportation and
energy storage sectors for decades. While I'd love to believe the worst
is behind us, I fear the times of trouble have just begun.
Since it's clear that Japan will have to turn inward and serve the
urgent needs of its own population first, the following direct and
immediate impacts seem all but certain:
- Lost electric power from Japan's ruined nuclear plants must be
replaced with oil, natural gas and coal because alternative energy
technologies like wind and solar can't possibly take up the slack;
- Cleanup and reconstruction must increase total Japanese demand
for liquid
motor fuels;
- Japanese demand for industrial metals and construction materials
must skyrocket; and
- Crushing limitations on Japan's base-load power generating
capacity must:
- complicate
supply chains for equipment,
components and materials from Japan;
- increase the cost of Japanese exports;
- increase demand for all types of electric
efficiency technologies;
- increase demand for HEVs and other fuel
efficiency technologies;
- increase demand for grid-based energy storage systems; and
- force utilities to shed non-essential loads and abandon their
support for plug-in vehicles.
Some years from now, I expect to see rows of headstones in the EV
graveyard that read "Lost to the Tsunami."
While I'm still trying to puzzle my
way through the primary, secondary and tertiary impacts, it's a virtual
certainty that nuclear power will be immensely
unpopular even if things go spectacularly well in
Japan. Switzerland has
suspended
pending applications for two planned nuclear plants and
anti-nuclear
activists are on the offensive in France. Germany just
declared
a moratorium on nuclear power and ordered
the "temporary" cessation of operations at seven reactors that were
built before 1980. Other jurisdictions,
including earthquake prone California, can expect immense public
pressure to follow suit. In
time things will stabilize at a new normal, but that new normal will be
very
different from the normal that existed two weeks ago.
Some readers will be offended by my offhand dismissal of wind
and solar as viable solutions. Others will be enraged by the suggestion
that utilities will abandon their support for
distributed and inherently unpredictable power demand from plug-in
vehicles. All I can say is that reality is inconvenient that way. Japan
just lost 7.6 gigawatts of base-load capacity. The German moratorium
slashed their base-load capacity by 8.3 gigawatts. As the nuclear
dominoes continue to fall, the strain on power grids everywhere will get
far worse than any of us can begin to imagine. The last thing the world
needs in times of plummeting base-load capacity is rapid expansion of
demand. We simply can't have it both ways.
Nuclear power plants typically operate at 90% of nameplate capacity
while wind and solar operate at something closer to 25% of
nameplate. The nuclear reactors that have recently gone off-line
in Japan and Germany accounted for roughly 125 TWh of electricity
production last year. In comparison,
global
electricity production from wind and solar power in 2009 was 269
TWh and 21 TWh, respectively. In other words, we just lost base-load
power that represents 43% of the world's renewable electricity output.
The gap cannot possibly be filled by new wind and solar power
facilities.
There is no question that Japan will be forced to use conventional
fossil fuels to replace its destroyed nuclear plants and unless its
residents choose to endure extreme hardship for the sake of principle,
Germany will be forced to do the same. Comparable power shortages will
arise in every industrialized country that decides the risks of vintage
nuclear plants outweigh their benefits. When you start stripping
base-load power out of the grid, plug-in vehicles become wildly
extravagant. My cynical side is tickled that Armageddon Entrepreneurs
will finally be forced to choose
between stoking fears over (A) imported oil and turmoil in the middle
east; (B) global warming; and (C) nuclear power plants. My practical
side foresees an immensely difficult time when reality finally sinks in
and people are forced to come to grips with their own wasteful
behavior. The panacea possibilities were washed away in the tsunami.
Now we have to get serious about conservation and abandon the childish
notion that we can waste one class of natural resource in the name of
conserving another.
Over the last few months the mainstream media has been abuzz with
stories about
high-profile demonstration projects that will use battery-based systems
to help stabilize the grid
and smooth power output from wind and solar installations. As usual,
the mainstream is getting it wrong and creating expectations the
energy storage industry can't possibly meet.
A classic example of overblown media hype is Southern California
Edison's plans to spend $55
million to demonstrate a battery-based solution from A123 Systems
(
AONE)
that will provide 32 MW of power and 8 MWh of energy to smooth
power output from the Tehachapi wind complex. The following graph from
the California ISO highlights the variability issue that's the bane of
alternative energy facilities everywhere.

While the new energy storage system will probably do a fine job of
smoothing minute-to-minute variability, it
will be absolutely worthless in the context of Tehachapi's average
daily power production swing of over 200 MW. Tehachapi needs several
gigawatt hours of storage, not a few megawatt hours.
I'm convinced that grid-based energy storage is an immense opportunity,
but it won't be in the form of the headline grabbing projects the media
is fixated on today. Two weeks ago the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory published a review of "Electrochemical
Energy Storage for Green Grid" that describes the need for
grid-based storage, identifies the leading storage technologies and
explains the baseline
economic requirements. Copies of the PNNL review are available from the
American
Chemical Society for $35. If you own stock in a
battery company or are thinking about investing in one, it's the best
$35 you'll ever spend.
In their discussion of storage economics, the authors said:
"Cost is probably the most important and fundamental issue of EES for a
broad market penetration. Among the most important factors are capital
cost and life-cycle cost. The capital cost is typically expressed in
terms of the unit cost of power ($/kW) for power applications (e.g.,
frequency regulation) or the unit cost of energy capacity ($/kWh) for
energy applications (e.g., load leveling). The life-cycle cost is the
unit cost of energy or power per cycle over the lifetime of the unit.
... In the authors' opinion, the cost
of electricity storage probably needs to be comparable to the cost of
generating electricity, such as from natural gas turbines at a cost as
low as 8-10 ¢/kWh per cycle. Thus, to be competitive, the capital
cost of storage technologies for energy applications should be
comparable or lower than $250/kWh, assuming a life cycle of 15 years or
3900 cycles (5 cycles per week), an 80% round trip efficiency, and
“zero” maintenance. A capital cost of $1,250/kW or less is desired if
the technology can last 5 h at name-tag power. ..."
A123's demonstration project at Tehachapi will cost $1,720 per kW and
$6,880 per kWh for a 15 minute solution. It's a highly profitable
project for A123, but light-years from cost-effective. The same is
true of another high
profile project where Ener1 (
HEV)
will sell power quality systems with a
combined
capacity
of 3 MW and 5 MWh to the Russian Federal Grid for $40
million, or $13,300 per kW and $8,000 per kWh. These projects are great
headline events, but they'll never be the basis for a sustainable
business.
In February and March of last year I wrote a
series
of articles that focused on grid-based storage. The first
summarized
a study titled "
Energy
Storage for the Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential
Assessment Guide" that was commissioned by the
DOE's Energy
Storage Systems Program and conducted by Jim Eyer and Garth Corey.
For that article, I calculated an average economic benefit for each of
the 17 grid-scale storage applications discussed in the report and then
used those averages to calculate the potential demand in MWh, the
potential economic benefit per kWh and the potential revenue
opportunity for storage system manufacturers. The following table
summarizes my results.
The color coding is simply my attempt to separate high-value
applications that need objectively cool technologies like flywheels,
supercapacitors and lithium ion batteries from low-value applications
that need objectively cheap solutions like flow batteries, lead-acid
batteries, compressed air and pumped hydro. The bottom line is that
revenue opportunities in grid-based storage will be 90% cheap, 8% cool
and 2% in-between. Any way you cut it, the lion's share of the revenue
opportunity will flow to companies that manufacture objectively cheap
storage solutions. There will be niche markets in the $1 billion to $6
billion range for cool technologies like flywheels, supercapacitors and
lithium ion batteries, but those niche markets will pale in comparison
to the opportunities for cheap energy storage.
Until last week, I believed global demand for grid-based storage would
ramp slowly over the course of a decade. Today it's beginning to look
like grid-scale storage will rapidly eclipse all other potential
markets. The universe of companies that can effectively respond to
urgent global needs for large-scale storage is very small. It includes
General Electric (
GE),
Enersys (
ENS),
Exide Technologies (
XIDE),
and C&D Technologies (
CHHPD.PK)
in the established manufacturer ranks, and Axion Power International (
AXPW.OB)
and ZBB Energy (
ZBB)
in the emerging technology ranks. Companies like A123, Ener1, Active
Power (
ACPW),
Beacon Power (
BCON)
and Altair Nanotechnologies (
ALTI)
will undoubtedly have exciting revenue opportunities, but the cost of
their products will exclude them from the competitive mainstream.
In
November
of 2008 I wrote, "what I initially described as a rising tide is
now looking more like an investment tsunami as a handful of micro-cap
and small-cap companies gear up to compete for $50 to $70 billion of
rapidly developing annual demand for large format energy storage
systems." While it took a real tsunami to bring things to a head, I'm
more convinced than ever that every company that brings a
cost-effective energy storage product to market over the next few years
will have more demand than it can possibly handle. EVs may be dead men
walking but grid-scale storage looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.
Disclosure: Author is a former
director of Axion Power International (
AXPW.OB)
and holds a substantial long position in its common stock.