Paris, France
Paris, France
Time filter
Source Type

News Article | May 15, 2017
Site: www.prnewswire.com

It is predicted that the global economy will increase by three-folds between now and 2050. This, in turn, is likely to result in increased energy demands. According to Enerdata Energy Statistical Yearbook 2016, electricity demand has more than doubled between 1990 and 2015 to reach 20,568 TWh. This demand is projected to grow even further; in fact, by 2035, the growth is expected to be in the range of 69% to 81%. As the global economy aims for energy security, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are expected to hold a key position in the future. However, a major constraint with such renewable sources is that energy is generated with a highly variable output in an intermittent manner. Therefore, the surplus energy is required to be stored so that it can be supplied during non-optimal generation periods such as at night time or when the wind is not blowing. Storage at a large scale has remained a major challenge; however, several developments have taken place in this domain and efforts are being made towards their feasible commercial deployments. These technologies can be classified as mechanical energy storage, chemical energy storage, electrochemical energy storage, thermal energy storage or electromagnetic energy storage technologies. The industry has long revolved around pumped hydro energy storage, which currently contributes close to 95% of the global energy storage capacity. However, several geographical and environmental constraints associated with it are likely to limit its growth in the long term. As a result, stakeholders have developed/are developing novel energy storage technologies to overcome the limitations of conventional systems. The primary focus of this study is on these novel/upcoming energy storage technologies, including different types of battery storage, compressed air energy storage, concentrated solar power/molten salt energy storage, flywheel energy storage and power-to-gas energy storage. The study provides a holistic coverage of the developments that are impacting the current energy storage setup and are likely to drive significant changes in energy management approaches in the long term. We were able to identify close to 170 energy storage technologies (excluding PHES) segmented across aforementioned categories. In addition to other elements, the study elaborates on the following: - The current status of the market with respect to key players/technologies along with information on rated power, energy, duration/discharge time of the technologies and geographical location of the companies. - Comprehensive profiles of some of the upcoming players under each energy storage category, covering details on the current focus of the companies, their specific energy storage technologies and associated recent developments/initiatives. - Various investments and grants received by companies focused in this area to support their R&D activities, a key enabler that will continue to drive developments in the long term. In addition, respective governments have taken encouraging policy decisions, which have provided positive outlook to the energy storage industry. - A case study on pumped hydro energy storage, where we have provided information on the plants that are currently operational as well as the ones expected to be operational in the near future. In addition, we have highlighted the historical trends that are likely to govern the future evolution. - Key drivers and restraints for the growth of the grid scale energy storage market. Factors such as rising adoption of renewable energy sources, limitations of conventional energy storage systems and high electricity charges are likely to fuel the demand of energy storage systems. - Potential future growth of the grid scale energy storage market (both in terms of installed capacity and expected revenue generation) across different technologies (CSP/molten salt energy storage, compressed air energy storage, lithium-ion batteries, lead acid batteries, flow batteries, flywheel energy storage, power-to-gas energy storage and other upcoming technologies). We have taken into account the levelized cost of energy storage to determine revenues for different energy storage technologies. The report covers forecast (till 2030) for the global as well as specific regional markets (North America, Europe, Asia and Rest of World) in terms of installed capacity. It also includes individual forecasts on the installed capacity in specific countries, including the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Ireland, China, India, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Chile and Morocco, that are poised to witness healthy growth in the short-midterm and long term. For more information about this report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/6ffk5j/grid_scale_energy Media Contact: Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager press@researchandmarkets.com   For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900 U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716 To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scale-energy-storage-technologies-market-2030---research-and-markets-300456757.html

Kersting J.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research | Duscha V.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research | Schleich J.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research | Schleich J.,Grenoble Graduate School of Business | Keramidas K.,Enerdata
Climate Policy | Year: 2017

The use of shale gas is commonly considered as a low-cost option for meeting ambitious climate policy targets. This article explores global and country-specific effects of increasing global shale gas exploitation on the energy markets, on greenhouse gas emissions, and on mitigation costs. The global techno-economic partial equilibrium model POLES (Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems) is employed to compare policies which limit global warming to 2°C and baseline scenarios when the availability of shale gas is either high or low. According to the simulation results, a high availability of shale gas has rather small effects on the costs of meeting climate targets in the medium and long term. In the long term, a higher availability of shale gas increases baseline emissions of greenhouse gases for most countries and for the world, and leads to higher compliance costs for most, but not all, countries. Allowing for global trading of emission certificates does not alter these general results. In sum, these findings cast doubt on shale gas’s potential as a low-cost option for meeting ambitious global climate targets. POLICY RELEVANCE Many countries with a large shale gas resource base consider the expansion of local shale gas extraction as an option to reduce their GHG emissions. The findings in this article imply that a higher availability of shale gas in these countries might actually increase emissions and mitigation costs for these countries and also for the world. An increase in shale gas extraction may spur a switch from coal to gas electricity generation, thus lowering emissions. At the global level and for many countries, though, this effect is more than offset by a crowding out of renewable and nuclear energy carriers, and by lower energy prices, leading to higher emissions and higher mitigation costs in turn. These findings would warrant a re-evaluation of the climate strategy in most countries relying on the exploitation of shale gas to meet their climate targets. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Kranzl L.,Vienna University of Technology | Daioglou V.,University Utrecht | Faaij A.,University Utrecht | Junginger M.,University Utrecht | And 3 more authors.
Lecture Notes in Energy | Year: 2014

In the coming decades, huge challenges in the global energy system are expected. Scenarios indicate that bioenergy will play a substantial role in this process. However, up to now there is very limited insight regarding the implication this may have on bioenergy trade in the long term. The objectives of this chapter are: (1) to assess how bioenergy trade is included in different energy sector models and (2) to discuss the implications and perspectives of bioenergy trade in different energy scenarios. We grouped scenarios from the models IMAGE/TIMER, POLES and GFPM according to their policy targets and increase of bioenergy use in "ambitious" and "moderate" bioenergy scenarios and compared results regarding bioenergy trade for solid and liquid biomass. Trade balances for various world regions vary significantly in the different models and scenarios. Nevertheless, a few robust trends and results can be derived up to the year 2050: Russia and former USSR countries could turn into strong biomass exporting countries. Moreover, Canada, South-America, Central and Rest-Africa as well as Oceania could cover another substantial part of the bioenergy supply. As importing countries, India, Western Europe and China might play a key role. The results show (1) the high relevance of the topic, (2) the high uncertainties, (3) the need to better integrate social, ecological, economic and logistical barriers and restrictions into the models and (4) the need to better understand the potential role of bioenergy trade for a sustainable, low-carbon future energy system. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014.

Griffin B.,Enerdata | Buisson P.,Enerdata | Criqui P.,Pierre Mendès-France University | Mima S.,British Petroleum
Climatic Change | Year: 2014

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, countries like Germany and Japan have planned a phase-out of nuclear generation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has yet to become a commercially viable technology with little prospect of doing so without strong climate policy to spur development. The possibility of using renewable power generation from wind and solar as a non-emitting alternative to replace a nuclear phase-out or failure to deploy CCS technology is investigated using scenarios from EMF27 and the POLES model. A strong carbon price appears necessary to have significant penetration of renewables regardless of alternative generation technologies available, but especially if nuclear or CCS are absent from the energy supply system. The feasibility of replacing nuclear generation appears possible at realistic costs (evaluated as total abatement costs and final user prices to households); however for ambitious climate policies, such as a 450 ppm target, CCS could represent a critical technology that renewables will not be able to fully replace without unbearable economic costs. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Van Vuuren D.P.,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency | Bellevrat E.,Joseph Fourier University | Kitous A.,EnerData | Isaac M.,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Energy Journal | Year: 2010

This paper explores the potential for bio-energy production, and the implications of different values for the attainability of low stabilization targets. The impact of scenarios of future land use, yield improvements for bio-energy and available land under different sustainability assumptions (protection of biodiversity, risks of water scarcity and land degradation) are explored. Typical values for sustainable potential of bio-energy production are around 50-150 EJ in 2050 and 200-400 EJ in 2100. Higher bio-energy potential requires a development path with high agricultural yields, dietary patterns with low meat consumption, a low population and/or accepting high conversion rates of natural areas. Scenario analysis using four different models shows that low stabilization levels may be achieved with a bio-energy potential of around 200 EJ p.a. In such scenarios, bio-energy is in most models mainly used outside the transport sector. Copyright © 2010 by the IAEE.

Duscha V.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research | Schumacher K.,Oeko - Institute e.V. | Schleich J.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research | Schleich J.,Grenoble Graduate School of Business | And 2 more authors.
Climate Policy | Year: 2014

The impact of a global phase-out of nuclear energy is assessed for the costs of meeting international climate policy targets for 2020. The analysis is based on simulations with the Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems (POLES) global energy systems model. The phase-out of nuclear power increases GHG emissions by 2% globally and 7% for Annex I countries. The price of certificates increases by 24% and total compliance costs of Annex I countries rise by 28%. Compliance costs increase most for Japan (+58%) and the US (+28%). China, India, and Russia benefit from a global nuclear phase-out because revenues from higher trading volumes of certificates outweigh the costs of losing nuclear power as a mitigation option. Even for countries that face a relatively large increase in compliance costs, such as Japan, the nuclear phase-out implies a relatively small overall economic burden. When trading of certificates is available only to countries that committed to a second Kyoto period, the nuclear phase-out results in a larger increase in the compliance costs for the group of Annex I countries (but not for the EU and Australia). Results from sensitivity analyses suggest that the findings are fairly robust to alternative burden-sharing schemes and emission target levels.Policy relevanceNew calculations show that the impact of a global phase-out of nuclear energy on global mitigation costs is quite modest, but that there are substantial differences for countries. Total compliance costs increase the most for Japan and the US, but these are rather marginal if measured in terms of GDP. China, India, and Russia benefit from a nuclear phase-out because their additional revenues from selling certificates outweigh the additional costs of losing nuclear power as a mitigation option. The findings also highlight the importance of certificate trading to achieving climate targets in a cost-efficient way. If Japan or the US were to be banned from certificate trading, along with other countries, because of their non-participation in a second Kyoto period, then their compliance costs would increase substantially under a nuclear phase-out. The EU, however, would benefit because certificate prices would be lower. © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

Loading Enerdata collaborators
Loading Enerdata collaborators