The development of storage demand in Germany's energy transi6on. Results of the latest VDE Study Prof. Dr. Michael Sterner, Prof. Dr. Albert Moser, Prof. Dr. Wolfram- H. Wellßow, Prof. Dr. Dirk- Uwe Sauer, Dr. Carsten Pape, Niklas Rotering, Helge Plunkte, Benedikt Lunz, et. al. 12.11.2012 40 TWh/a30 20 10 0-10 - 20 nicht Not abgeregelte curtailed RE EE Biomasse KWK CHP KWK CHP Erdgas, Natural Erdöl gas, oil Steinkohle Hard coal 7th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference and Exhibition IRES 2012 Berlin - 30 B C D E
Content 1) ObjecLves, methodology, assumplons 2) Residual load analysis 3) 40% renewables results 4) 80% renewables results 5) 100% renewables results 6) Findings
VDE ETG Study: Energy storage for the energy transi6on (2012) Objec6ves Storage as one oplon of flexibililes Short term storage (< 24 h) Long term storage (> 24 h) Flexible power plants & CHP Flexible renewables (curtailing, Biogas) Effect of grid extenlon on storage demand
Assump6ons / Data basis Storage type Storage volume Round trip efficiency Storage class Pumped Hydro ca. 6 Wh/W 1 78... 82% Lead Acid Baeeries 0,5 5 Wh/W 80 82 % Li- Ion- Baeeries 0,5 2,5 Wh/W 86 88 % AA- CAES 4 Wh/h 67... 69 % Demand Side Management Ca. 5 Wh/W 90% Power- to- Gas Wh/W 25 40 % Short Lme storage: - Storage vol. 5 Wh/W - Efficieny 80 % Long Lme storage: - Storage vol. Wh/W - Efficieny 40 % 1 German average
Methodology SimulaLon for RE- Shares of 17% / 40% / 80% / 100% Demand and power plant facililes Residual load VariaLons: - Storage capaciles - Network extenlon Annual operalon scheduling of power plants and storage facililes for each varialon Cost analysis of each varialon Network analysis of each varialon
Varia6ons of storage exten6ons Scenario A B C Flexible power plants, CHP Fully used Op6on RE curtailing Fully used Addi6onal short term storage Fully used Addi6onal long term storage Fully used D Fully used Fully used E D/2 D/2
Content 1) ObjecLves, methodology, assumplons 2) Residual load analysis 3) 40% renewables results 4) 80% renewables results 5) 100% renewables results 6) Findings
Residual Load - Analysis E- mobility 1 Heat pumps / Air cond. 1 Grid Other losses PV Wind Other RE 2 demand + + + + + + Load Import/ Export Renewables + = 0! - 1 Depends on demand 2 Hydro, Geothermal but no Biomass CHP Residual load
Residual Load 2010 (reference) 160 140 GW 120 100 Loads Last Renewables EE- Erzeugung Residuallast load 80 60 40 20 0-20 Weeks Wochen - 40-60 - 80
Residual Load 40% renewables 160 140 GW 120 100 Loads Last Renewables EE- Erzeugung Residuallast load 80 60 40 20 0-20 Weeks Wochen - 40-60 - 80
Residual Load 80% renewables 160 140 GW 120 100 Loads Last Renewables EE- Erzeugung Residuallast load 80 60 40 20 0-20 Weeks Wochen - 40-60 - 80
Residual Load 100% renewables 160 140 GW 120 100 Loads Last Renewables EE- Erzeugung Residuallast load 80 60 40 20 0-20 Weeks Wochen - 40-60 - 80
Results of residual load analysis Scenario Average (GW) Surplus (h per years) Min (GW) Max (GW) 2010 57 0 30 77 40% RE 38 44-10 75 80% RE 15 2.330-50 70 100% RE 2 4.270-81 67 - VolaLlity increases - Average decreases - Days of surplus increase - Max demand (backup capaciles) remains constant
Content 1) ObjecLves, methodology, assumplons 2) Residual load analysis 3) 40% renewables results 4) 80% renewables results 5) 100% renewables results 6) Findings
40% Curtailment of renewables without storage: 0,11% with storage: 0,01% Weeks Source: VDE ETG storage demand, 2012 Weeks
40% Storage usage Full load hours 600 900 h Full cycles 150 Short Term Duration Curve Short Term - Cycles Discharge Charge Weeks Long Term Duration Curve Long Term - Cycles Weeks Discharge Charge Source: VDE ETG storage demand, 2012 Weeks Weeks Full load hours 100 400 h Full cycles 1
40% Storage effect on power genera6on (market driven) 10 TWh/a8 6 4 2 0-2 - 4-6 Increase Decrease B C D E nicht Not curtailed abgeregelte RE EE Biomasse CHP KWK KWK CHP Erdgas, Natural Erdöl gas, oil Steinkohle Hard coal Braunkohle Lignite coal Liele efficiency of long term storage increases lignite coal generalon Expansion of storage help lignite coal to subsltute hard coal and gas Only market driven storage use misses climate and strategic goals
Source: Dr. Müller-Mienack, 50 Hertz, 2012 Net driven storage demand appears earlier Local reduclon of RE curtailment at network congeslons by storage Power curtailment acc. to 13 (2) EnWG at 50Hertz zone (Scenario delayed network expansion) GWh 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 1750 (6600 GWh 10% wind energy) 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 Installed capacity [MW] 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 (PtG) Gesamtmenge 50Hertz Mengeneinsparung durch PtG Inst. Leistung 0 Expected power curtailing at the 50 Hertz control zone: up to 105 TWh (2030) Installing 1 GW p2g can reduce this and store about 31 TWh
Content 1) ObjecLves, methodology, assumplons 2) Residual load analysis 3) 40% renewables results 4) 80% renewables results 5) 100% renewables results 6) Findings
80% Curtailment of renewables without storage: 5% with storage: 0,01% Weeks Weeks
80% Storage usage Full load hours 600 800 h Full cycles 140 Short Term Duration Curve Short Term - Cycles Discharge Charge Weeks Long Term Duration Curve Long Term - Cycles Weeks Discharge Charge Source: VDE ETG storage demand, 2012 Weeks Weeks Full load hours 600 1500 h Full cycles 2
80% Storage effect on power genera6on (market driven) 40 TWh/a30 Increase 20 10 0-10 - 20-30 Decrease B C D E nicht Not curtailed abgeregelte RE EE Biomasse KWK CHP KWK CHP Erdgas, Natural Erdöl gas, oil Steinkohle Hard coal Expansion of storage helps renewables to subsltute natural gas Climate and strategic goals are met
Content 1) ObjecLves, methodology, assumplons 2) Residual load analysis 3) 40% renewables results 4) 80% renewables results 5) 100% renewables results 6) Findings
100% Full opera6on of all storage facili6es Liele difference to 80%: p2g as annual storage Full load hours 1600 h Backup capaciles: same dimension necessary as today (60 GW) Power produclon costs: increase (only) about 10% (incl. storage) Pareto 80/20: Going form 80% to 100% is more expensive than from today to 80%
Content 1) ObjecLves, methodology, assumplons 2) Residual load analysis 3) 40% renewables results 4) 80% renewables results 5) 100% renewables results 6) Findings
Design of storage facili6es according to energy quan66es rather than power peaks Liele full load hours of large power peaks cannot sustain storage facililes RE curtailment for large peaks but small quanlles reduzierter Speicherpark Scenario E (Variante E) Speicher für volle Nutzung Scenario D der EE (Variante D) Kurzzeitspeicher Short term storage (Lade- (P_Charge / Entladeleistung / P_Discharge / Energie) / Energy) Langzeitspeicher Long term storage (Lade- (P_Charge / Entladeleistung / P_Discharge / Energie) / Energy) abgeregelte Curtailment of erneuerbare Wind and PV Energiemenge aus Windenergie- und PV-Anlagen annuitätische Annual invest Investitionskosten for storage der Speicher (Annuities) 14 GW / 14 GW / 70 GWh 28 GW / 26 GW / 140 GWh 18 GW / 18 GW / 7 TWh 36 GW / 29 GW / 8 TWh 0,4 TWh/a 0 TWh/a 3 Mrd. /a 5,1 Mrd. /a 80% scenario curtailment without calculation of network congestions
80% à 100% RE: Storage demand increases 3- fold Costs do not increase that much 120 /MWh 100 80 Variable Operation Stromgestehungskosten costs Investitionskosten storage Speicher Investitionskosten power gen. Kraftwerke 78 /MWh 79 /MWh 84 /MWh 100 /MWh 60 40 20 0 2010 40%- A 80%- E 100%- D Power generation costs in the different scenarios Source: VDE ETG storage demand, 2012
0 à 100%: Security of supply / grid stability will be provided by thermal power genera6on (& storage) 140 GW 120 118,7 GW 95,7 GW 95,4 GW 110,9 GW 107,8 GW 99,7 GW 95,7 GW 93,5 GW 100,7 GW 99,2 GW 93,1 GW 77,8 GW 100 80 60 40 20 Wasserkraft Geothermie Biomasse- KWK KWK Gas (Langzeitspeicher) Gas (Fossil) Steinkohle Braunkohle Kernenergie 0 2010 40%- A 40%- B 40%- C 40%- D 40%- E 80%- A 80%- B 80%- C 80%- D 80%- E 100% Necessary backup capacities in the scenarios
Storage has liele impact on the necessity of network expansion Assumption: Charge and discharge at the same spot, grid congestions not observed Szenario 40 % Szenario 80 % 40 %-Szenario 80 %-Szenario Erwartungswerte der e der höchsten Auslastungen 55 % 50 % 45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % A E_Last E_EE D_Last D_EE Erwartungswerte Erwartungswerte der höchsten der höchsten Auslastungen 55 % 50 % 45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % A E_Last E_EE D_Last D_EE Netzmodell 1 Netzmodell 2 Netzmodell 2 (modifiziert) Netzmodell 3 Netzmodell 4 Grundlastfluss (n-1)-ausfallrechnung Expectations on the utilisations rate of grid facilities (lower values means less stress on the grid)
Power genera6on has to become more flexible High demand for flexibility by RE penetration Still 80% power gaps even at massive RE capacities installation 40% storage uses only liele RE amouts Flexibility demand is met by power generation / CHP Storage is used to optimize conventional power generation Only market driven storage use does not meet climate goals à framework necessary Largest effect: network expansion 80% storage at full opera6on Without storage 5% RE is curtailed Storage helps to integrate CHPs and renewables Annual invest for storage at about 3 Bio. /a
Interac6on and synergy of all energy sectors very useful Power to heat Power to mobility Power to gas Power to fuels Power to chemicals à Adaption of regulatory framework necessary (only put storage at sites where RE is actually curtailed) à Implement this in energy system modeling Further R&D Interaction networks & storage (grid stability, ancillary services) Optimization over all energy sectors (1 EUR for max. efficiency / CO 2 ) Network control (at high RE shares) Power market design (Capacities, factors for load, grid)
Contact Prof. Dr.- Ing. Michael Sterner University of applied sciences Regensburg Faculty of electrical engineering + 49 (0) 941 943 9888 michael.sterner @ hs- regensburg.de www.power- to- gas.de Thank you!