Electricity Archives

A Transformative Storage Boom? Part 2

Alternative Energy: A Transformative Storage Boom? Part 2

Written by Veronica Zhang, this is part two of a two-part series that explores the growing opportunities in alternative energy and battery storage. Read Part 1.

California: A Model Fit for Storage

The challenge to meet two-way grid functionality is most pressing in California, which is on track to meet its goal of generating 33% of electricity from renewables in 2020. The oft-cited ”Duck Curve” forecasts the topology of electricity demand that conventional power utilities must meet in California as the state becomes more renewable-dependent. This illustrates the magnitude of the inflection in expected conventional electric demand when solar contributes the majority of its supply during daylight hours and, conversely, when solar ”shuts off” when the sun sets. This phenomenon is magnified in the winter months (the sun sets before the evening peak load), as well as during outages and natural disasters, all factors that would likely increase the state’s vulnerability to price spikes and power disruptions. The seasonal volatility and potential for over/undergeneration as we approach the 2020 scenario calls for a solution to normalize demand, as the current state of the grid is not equipped to fluctuate so dramatically to meet demand. The answer from a cost and reliability perspective: battery storage.

Indicative Hourly Conventional Electric Utility Demand

Source: CAISO. California’s Duck Curve: Illustrative trajectory of grid electricity demand as more homeowners switch to solar, thus not needing to tap the grid at hours at which the sun is strongest. As California achieves higher penetration each year, grid demand continues to fall, exacerbating the slope of demand ramp-up when the sun ”shuts off” and grid turns on. This phenomenon is named after the resemblance to the profile of said water fowl.

The Need for Bigger, Better, Cheaper Batteries

The technology behind battery storage for the grid initially emerged from batteries used in laptops, consumer electronics, and electric vehicles (EV), with declining input prices and improving technology driving the adaption into larger-scale formats. There is currently extensive debate on the particular chemistry of the ”optimal” grid battery (it differs from that of EV batteries, which must be light, dense and compact as they are installed in vehicles, versus the storage battery, which can be larger and remains stationary). While absolute capital costs are important, the crucial element here is the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), which measures the all-in cost of electricity produced by a given source, and is a metric that regulators use to compare different methods of electricity generation.

Quick Math: Traditional lithium ion batteries have at max 1,000 cycles (full charge to full discharge), with a degrading tail end after a few hundred cycles. Assuming 90% efficiency over its lifetime, a $100/kWh battery would equate to $0.11/kWh electricity storage ($100 divided by 1,000 cycles @ 90% efficiency). For scope, retail electricity in the U.S. averages ~$0.12/kWh.

Tesla: Pioneering the Cost Curve

Tesla’s 10kWh PowerWall battery retails for $3,500, or $350/kWh. This looks expensive and uneconomical relative to the LCOE math, but it is worth noting that the product is testing a niche market and the manufacturing itself has significant room for cost reduction when production becomes mainstream. Tesla projects battery costs to drop to $100/kWh by 2020, a target seconded by General Motors (GM), which predicts hitting the $100/kWh mark by 2021.

Similar to the decline in the cost of solar photovoltaic/PV (which includes price of polysilicon, installation costs, and sales/customer acquisition costs) of 50% in just five years, the same is expected of battery storage system price declines (lithium metal, increasing density per gram, and manufacturing in scale). The LCOE of combined solar and storage, while not a means to go fully ”off-grid” permanently, is headed in a direction competitive with traditional power generation.

Source: RMI. Long-term outlook: Illustrative graph charting the difference between grid-only electricity at 3% annual escalator (top line), combination of grid +solar (middle line), and grid +solar + battery (bottom line). The first scenario is self-explanatory. The second reflects savings from solar, which has lower LCOE than traditional power generation, but still relies on the grid during evening hours and, thus, pays grid pricing when utilized. The third scenario, where electricity is predominantly supplied by solar and battery with grid access during outages and unforeseen events, reflects how customer insulation from utility price increases could be achieved. The cluster of states and their estimated electricity prices in 2050 are scattered around the bottom line, with state-by-state variance driven by the number of sunshine hours per day.

This is Only the Beginning for Storage

The debate on how to change the way we power our lives is a continuing one, although the conclusions are far more in favor of alternative energy and battery storage than ever before. Not limited only to an economic rationale, the unmeasured benefits on the environmental impact of replacing coal with the sun is another incentive spurring the change. The storage industry, while still nascent in implementation and from an investment perspective, is developing rapidly due to a need to complete the formula for the argument for solar, and why it should be here to stay.

by Veronica Zhang, Analyst

Analyst Veronica Zhang is a member of the Hard Assets Team that manages our Natural Resources Equity strategy. Zhang focuses on the industrials and alternative energy sectors, and holds a BA in Economics and Statistics from Columbia University.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE

This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed on this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction. You can obtain more specific information on VanEck strategies by visiting Investment Strategies.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s), but not necessarily those of VanEck, and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Historical performance is not indicative of future results. Current data may differ from data quoted. Any graphs shown herein are for illustrative purposes only. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers investment portfolios that invest in the asset class(es) mentioned in this post. Hard assets investments are subject to risks associated with natural resources and commodities and events related to these industries. Commodity investments may be subject to the risks associated with its investments in commodity-linked derivatives, risks of investing in a wholly owned subsidiary, risk of tracking error, risks of aggressive investment techniques, leverage risk, derivatives risks, counterparty risks, non-diversification risk, credit risk, concentration risk and market risk.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. An investor should consider investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of any investment strategy carefully before investing. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Van Eck Securities Corporation.

A Transformative Storage Boom?

Alternative Energy: A Transformative Storage Boom? Part 1.

This is part one of a two-part series by Analyst Veronica Zhang that explores the growing opportunities in alternative energy and battery storage.

The convergence of solar electricity (”solar”) and battery storage may approach a tipping point in widespread adoption over the next ten years, as cost curves and improving technology make implementation more economic for homeowners.

Over the past decade, residential solar demand has grown tenfold, yet still comprises less than 2% of electricity generation in the U.S. This low level of penetration is not spread evenly across the country, with certain ”pro-solar” states (both geographically and politically) commanding the vast majority of growth.
California and Hawaii Lead U.S. Solar Adoption

Congress recently renewed the solar investment tax credit (ITC) and many industry sources forecast this level of penetration to increase steadily over the next five years, growing from 7GW (gigawatts) in 2015 to 18GW in 2020. We look to states such as California and Hawaii, which led the U.S. in solar electricity adoption (51% and 7%, respectively), and of which solar comprises 7% and 15% of their respective electricity generation, as prime models for a renewables-driven future.

Total U.S. Solar Demand

(Click to enlarge)

Cumulative U.S. Solar Demand by State

(Click to enlarge)

At this rate of expansion, a key question remains as to whether the U.S. electrical grid will be able to handle the rapid adoption of solar, and how quickly. Utilities have built the nation’s electric grid for one-way power flow: from utility to home. The current policy of net metering, which allows consumers with solar panels to ”sell” power back to the grid, requires substantial investment from utilities into the transmission system (smart meters, intelligent switches) to help create a more reliable and robust network.

Modernizing the Electric Grid

This all comes at a sizeable cost. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that utilities will spend over $20 billion annually over the next several years on the maintenance of aging infrastructure. Spending in recent years has only been targeted on hardening the system against weather-related outages, not in preparing the grid for two-way flow.

These costs are naturally passed on to customers (half of a customer’s electricity bill is for transmission and distribution (T&D) charges, which include the cost borne by utilities for operating, maintaining, and upgrading the grid), and explains, in part, the increase in electricity prices over the past decade, despite falling power generation fuel costs, such as natural gas. Industry experts estimate the cost of modernizing the national grid will cost more than $475 billion over the next 20 years, which translates to twice the current spend on T&D.

In Part 2, we will explore the need for a more flexible and modern grid and how this is likely to spur growth and innovation in the form of battery storage.

by Veronica Zhang, Analyst

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE

Oil rally has legs

ETF Securities Commodities Research: Oil rally has legs

Summary

Market balance can be achieved in 2016 as demand grows and supply declines.
Many OPEC members are likely to cut back on supply. Iran is unlikely to raise production to pre-sanction levels.
To meet future demand for oil, prices will have to rise further.

Toward market balance

Brent has risen to above US$43/bbl from below US$28/bbl in January as investor optimism for oil has markedly improved. We believe the gains in price are sustainable and not just driven by speculative gains.

Based on IEA’s demand forecasts, we are likely to be in a global oil supply deficit by Q3 2016, even if we assume that supply does not fall from Q1 2016 levels.

Supply however has been declining from non-OPEC sources. A large part of the decline in production has come from the US where the lagged effects of cuts in oil rigs in 2014 and 2015 are substantially biting into supply. By December 2015 global oil CAPEX was declining at a rate of 32% year-on-year. Although some large projects – too far into development to reverse – are still coming on-stream in countries like Brazil and Russia, most non-OPEC producing countries should see declining production.

Will OPEC supply also decline?

While OPEC has failed to coordinate to freeze production, except for Iran, most of its members are already cutting back on production and we expect a continuation of this trend.

Iran seeks to bring its production back to pre-sanction levels (3.7 million barrels per day) and so has increased its output from 2.8 million barrels per day in Q1 2015 to 3.3 million barrels per day in Q1 2016. But we think that Iran will struggle to raise production further than 3.5 million barrels per day by 2017, as it would require a significant infrastructure build, which will be difficult to achieve while sanctions are only part-lifted and oil prices remain relatively weak.

Under the strain of low oil prices, OPEC countries have been cutting back on fiscal expenditure. The current account of the Gulf Governing Council and Algeria is expected to reverse from a comfortable surplus to a deficit of about 8% of GDP in 2016. We believe it will be very difficult for OPEC countries to invest in any additional capacity that would allow for a significant increase in oil production under such conditions.

By 2017 OPEC spare capacity is likely to fall to 1.57 million barrels per day, down from 3.98 million barrels in 2010. With reduced spare capacity, unplanned outages will be difficult to deal with without spike in prices. Unplanned outages in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait appear to have been increasing lately.

Electricity outagesi, hyperinflation and forced worker holidays could see oil outages pick up in Venezuela too.
In its “Vision 2030” plan, Saudi Arabia has articulated that it wants it economy to be less reliant on oil. If the country follows through with its plans, the country may not seek to expand production capacity as aggressively as it has done in the past.

Inventory concerns overstated

US crude oil inventories have risen strongly since the collapse in oil prices in November 2014. However, with production declining in the US, we believe that constraints on storage will be alleviated. Storage is likely to have reached 70-80%ii of capacity in the US, but with the ability to export US oil and the development of storage capacity in other countries, we believe the market concerns around storing oi in the US are overstated.

China in particular has been investing in building storage capacity. China built 200 million barrels in strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) between 2006 and 2016. According to the IEA, in 2016 alone they will build 110 mb of SPR (and a further 35 mb of commercial).

Meeting future demand

Current global oil demand is approximately 95 million barrels per day and we believe that it could rise to 98 million barrels by 2020. Only 80 million barrels of this can be met by currently producing fields. To unlock the remaining 18, oil prices will have to increase. The break-even for tight oil for example is estimated to be US$65/bbl.iii

i Venezuela is highly reliant on hydroelectricity and low water-levels have led to shut-ins.
ii The last data release for storage capacity was as of September 2015. Since then more capacity has been built, but we will only get EIA data on this at the end of May 2016 for March 2016.
iii The line in the chart represents the weighted average break-even oil price i.e. the Brent oil price at which net-present value is zero using a real discount rate of 7.5%. The bands around the break-even represent the 60% confidence interval. Producing fields have a low break-even due to CAPEX already sunk and cheap Middle East oil.

Important Information

General

This communication has been issued and approved for the purpose of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by ETF Securities (UK) Limited (“ETFS UK”) which is authorised and regulated by the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”).

The information contained in this communication is for your general information only and is neither an offer for sale nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This communication should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value.

This document is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, an advertisement or any other step in furtherance of a public offering of shares or securities in the United States or any province or territory thereof. Neither this document nor any copy hereof should be taken, transmitted or distributed (directly or indirectly) into the United States.

This communication may contain independent market commentary prepared by ETFS UK based on publicly available information. Although ETFS UK endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the content in this communication, ETFS UK does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or correctness. Any third party data providers used to source the information in this communication make no warranties or representation of any kind relating to such data. Where ETFS UK has expressed its own opinions related to product or market activity, these views may change. Neither ETFS UK, nor any affiliate, nor any of their respective officers, directors, partners, or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication or its contents.

ETFS UK is required by the FCA to clarify that it is not acting for you in any way in relation to the investment or investment activity to which this communication relates. In particular, ETFS UK will not provide any investment services to you and or advise you on the merits of, or make any recommendation to you in relation to, the terms of any transaction. No representative of ETFS UK is authorised to behave in any way which would lead you to believe otherwise. ETFS UK is not, therefore, responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients and you should seek your own independent legal, investment and tax or other advice as you see fit.