Next Article in Journal
New Differential Protection Method for Multiterminal HVDC Cable Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Analysis of a RED-MED Salinity Gradient Heat Engine
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Energies 2018, 11(12), 3386; https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123386

Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint

1
Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, 34117 Kassel, Germany
2
Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Economics and Energy System Technology, 34119 Kassel, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 2 November 2018 / Revised: 16 November 2018 / Accepted: 22 November 2018 / Published: 3 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Storage and Application)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2859 KB, uploaded 3 December 2018]   |  

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: electrical energy storage systems; material footprint; carbon footprint; raw material input RMI; total material requirement TMR; global warming impact GWI electrical energy storage systems; material footprint; carbon footprint; raw material input RMI; total material requirement TMR; global warming impact GWI
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Mostert, C.; Ostrander, B.; Bringezu, S.; Kneiske, T.M. Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint. Energies 2018, 11, 3386.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Energies EISSN 1996-1073 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top