Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint

Clemens Mostert, Berit Ostrander, Stefan Bringezu and Tanja Manuela Kneiske
Additional contact information
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

Energies, 2018, vol. 11, issue 12, 1-25

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.

Keywords: electrical energy storage systems; material footprint; carbon footprint; raw material input RMI; total material requirement TMR; global warming impact GWI (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3386/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3386/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:12:p:3386-:d:187490

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().