Aufsatz
Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint
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.
Sponsorship
Gefördert durch den Publikationsfonds der Universität KasselCitation
@article{doi:10.17170/kobra-20190204145,
author={Mostert, Clemens and Ostrander, Berit and Bringezu, Stefan and Kneiske, Tanja Manuela},
title={Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint},
journal={Energies},
year={2018}
}
0500 Oax 0501 Text $btxt$2rdacontent 0502 Computermedien $bc$2rdacarrier 1100 2018$n2018 1500 1/eng 2050 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/11069 3000 Mostert, Clemens 3010 Ostrander, Berit 3010 Bringezu, Stefan 3010 Kneiske, Tanja Manuela 4000 Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint / Mostert, Clemens 4030 4060 Online-Ressource 4085 ##0##=u http://nbn-resolving.de/http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/11069=x R 4204 \$dAufsatz 4170 7136 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/11069
<resource xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-2.2 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-2.2/metadata.xsd"> 2019-02-05T13:37:06Z 2019-02-05T13:37:06Z 2018-12-03 doi:10.17170/kobra-20190204145 http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/11069 Gefördert durch den Publikationsfonds der Universität Kassel eng Urheberrechtlich geschützt https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/ electrical energy storage systems material footprint carbon footprint raw material input RMI total material requirement TMR global warming impact GWI 620 Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint Aufsatz 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. open access Mostert, Clemens Ostrander, Berit Bringezu, Stefan Kneiske, Tanja Manuela doi:10.3390/en11123386 publishedVersion EISSN: 1996-1073 12 Energies 3386 2018, 11 </resource>
The following license files are associated with this item:
:Urheberrechtlich geschützt