IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i12p3386-d187490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint

Author

Listed:
  • Clemens Mostert

    (Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, 34117 Kassel, Germany)

  • Berit Ostrander

    (Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, 34117 Kassel, Germany)

  • Stefan Bringezu

    (Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, 34117 Kassel, Germany)

  • Tanja Manuela Kneiske

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Economics and Energy System Technology, 34119 Kassel, Germany)

Abstract

The need for electrical energy storage technologies (EEST) in a future energy system, based on volatile renewable energy sources is widely accepted. The still open question is which technology should be used, in particular in such applications where the implementation of different storage technologies would be possible. In this study, eight different EEST were analysed. The comparative life cycle assessment focused on the storage of electrical excess energy from a renewable energy power plant. The considered EEST were lead-acid, lithium-ion, sodium-sulphur, vanadium redox flow and stationary second-life batteries. In addition, two power-to-gas plants storing synthetic natural gas and hydrogen in the gas grid and a new underwater compressed air energy storage were analysed. The material footprint was determined by calculating the raw material input RMI and the total material requirement TMR and the carbon footprint by calculating the global warming impact GWI . All indicators were normalised per energy fed-out based on a unified energy fed-in. The results show that the second-life battery has the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and material use, followed by the lithium-ion battery and the underwater compressed air energy storage. Therefore, these three technologies are preferred options compared to the remaining five technologies with respect to the underlying assumptions of the study. The production phase accounts for the highest share of GHG emissions and material use for nearly all EEST. The results of a sensitivity analysis show that lifetime and storage capacity have a comparable high influence on the footprints. The GHG emissions and the material use of the power-to-gas technologies, the vanadium redox flow battery as well as the underwater compressed air energy storage decline strongly with increased storage capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Clemens Mostert & Berit Ostrander & Stefan Bringezu & Tanja Manuela Kneiske, 2018. "Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:12:p:3386-:d:187490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3386/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3386/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Zhiwen & Xiong, Wei & Ting, David S.-K. & Carriveau, Rupp & Wang, Zuwen, 2016. "Conventional and advanced exergy analyses of an underwater compressed air energy storage system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 810-822.
    2. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "A review and probabilistic model of lifecycle costs of stationary batteries in multiple applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 240-250.
    3. Wolf-Peter Schill, 2013. "Systemintegration erneuerbarer Energien: die Rolle von Speichern für die Energiewende," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 82(3), pages 61-88.
    4. Pimm, Andrew J. & Garvey, Seamus D. & de Jong, Maxim, 2014. "Design and testing of Energy Bags for underwater compressed air energy storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 496-508.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Gilfillan & Jamie Pittock, 2022. "Pumped Storage Hydropower for Sustainable and Low-Carbon Electricity Grids in Pacific Rim Economies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Szymon Kuczyński & Mariusz Łaciak & Andrzej Olijnyk & Adam Szurlej & Tomasz Włodek, 2019. "Techno-Economic Assessment of Turboexpander Application at Natural Gas Regulation Stations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Lechón, Yolanda & Lago, Carmen & Herrera, Israel & Gamarra, Ana Rosa & Pérula, Alberto, 2023. "Carbon benefits of different energy storage alternative end uses. Application to the Spanish case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Clemens Mostert & Stefan Bringezu, 2019. "Measuring Product Material Footprint as New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method: Indicators and Abiotic Characterization Factors," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Giovanni Andrés Quintana-Pedraza & Sara Cristina Vieira-Agudelo & Nicolás Muñoz-Galeano, 2019. "A Cradle-to-Grave Multi-Pronged Methodology to Obtain the Carbon Footprint of Electro-Intensive Power Electronic Products," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Damien Guilbert & Gianpaolo Vitale, 2019. "Dynamic Emulation of a PEM Electrolyzer by Time Constant Based Exponential Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Min Shang & Ji Luo, 2021. "The Tapio Decoupling Principle and Key Strategies for Changing Factors of Chinese Urban Carbon Footprint Based on Cloud Computing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-17, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Long Xiang & Xie, Mei Na & Zhao, Pan Pan & Wang, Feng Xiang & Hu, Peng & Wang, Dong Xiang, 2018. "A novel isobaric adiabatic compressed air energy storage (IA-CAES) system on the base of volatile fluid," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 198-210.
    2. Gallo, A.B. & Simões-Moreira, J.R. & Costa, H.K.M. & Santos, M.M. & Moutinho dos Santos, E., 2016. "Energy storage in the energy transition context: A technology review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 800-822.
    3. Bennett, Jeffrey A. & Simpson, Juliet G. & Qin, Chao & Fittro, Roger & Koenig, Gary M. & Clarens, Andres F. & Loth, Eric, 2021. "Techno-economic analysis of offshore isothermal compressed air energy storage in saline aquifers co-located with wind power," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    4. He, Qing & Liu, Hui & Hao, Yinping & Liu, Yaning & Liu, Wenyi, 2018. "Thermodynamic analysis of a novel supercritical compressed carbon dioxide energy storage system through advanced exergy analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 835-849.
    5. Zhuk, A. & Zeigarnik, Yu. & Buzoverov, E. & Sheindlin, A., 2016. "Managing peak loads in energy grids: Comparative economic analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 39-44.
    6. Oyekale, Joseph & Petrollese, Mario & Cau, Giorgio, 2020. "Modified auxiliary exergy costing in advanced exergoeconomic analysis applied to a hybrid solar-biomass organic Rankine cycle plant," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    7. Guelpa, Elisa & Bischi, Aldo & Verda, Vittorio & Chertkov, Michael & Lund, Henrik, 2019. "Towards future infrastructures for sustainable multi-energy systems: A review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 2-21.
    8. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    9. Masebinu, S.O. & Akinlabi, E.T. & Muzenda, E. & Aboyade, A.O., 2017. "Techno-economics and environmental analysis of energy storage for a student residence under a South African time-of-use tariff rate," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 413-429.
    10. Guo, Cong & Xu, Yujie & Zhang, Xinjing & Guo, Huan & Zhou, Xuezhi & Liu, Chang & Qin, Wei & Li, Wen & Dou, Binlin & Chen, Haisheng, 2017. "Performance analysis of compressed air energy storage systems considering dynamic characteristics of compressed air storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 876-888.
    11. Xu, Ying & Ren, Li & Zhang, Zhongping & Tang, Yuejin & Shi, Jing & Xu, Chen & Li, Jingdong & Pu, Dongsheng & Wang, Zhuang & Liu, Huajun & Chen, Lei, 2018. "Analysis of the loss and thermal characteristics of a SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage) magnet with three practical operating conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 372-384.
    12. Moon, Yongma & Baran, Mesut, 2018. "Economic analysis of a residential PV system from the timing perspective: A real option model," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 783-795.
    13. Liu, Chenglin & Zhao, Lei & Zhu, Shun & Shen, Yuefeng & Yu, Jianhua & Yang, Qingchun, 2023. "Advanced exergy analysis and optimization of a coal to ethylene glycol (CtEG) process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    14. He, Yang & Chen, Haisheng & Xu, Yujie & Deng, Jianqiang, 2018. "Compression performance optimization considering variable charge pressure in an adiabatic compressed air energy storage system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 349-359.
    15. Wu, Geng & Inderbitzin, Alessandro & Bening, Catharina, 2015. "Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles: A probabilistic analysis and projection across market segments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 196-214.
    16. Gangopadhyay, A. & Seshadri, A.K. & Sparks, N.J. & Toumi, R., 2022. "The role of wind-solar hybrid plants in mitigating renewable energy-droughts," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 926-937.
    17. Karaca, Ali Erdogan & Dincer, Ibrahim & Nitefor, Michael, 2023. "A new renewable energy system integrated with compressed air energy storage and multistage desalination," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    18. Jülch, Verena, 2016. "Comparison of electricity storage options using levelized cost of storage (LCOS) method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1594-1606.
    19. Rappaport, Ron D. & Miles, John, 2017. "Cloud energy storage for grid scale applications in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 609-622.
    20. Keck, Felix & Jütte, Silke & Lenzen, Manfred & Li, Mengyu, 2022. "Assessment of two optimisation methods for renewable energy capacity expansion planning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:12:p:3386-:d:187490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.