Cooperative energy storage, towards a feasible business case?

Cooperatives & energy storage

Towards a feasible business case?

Energy Storage as Technological Innovation System

• Technological Innovation Systems:

• Actors

• Interaction

• Institutions

• Infrastructures

• Two types:

• Generic TIS, e.g. wind energy (large scale)

• Configurational TIS, e.g. heating

• Thesis Wesche et al.: Generic TIS leads to faster energy transition

• Strong institutions

• Dominant design

• Less actors

• No influence of users Wesche et al. ERSS 52 (2019) 99-113 Bne: Association of Energy

Market Innovators

Storage arrangements

• Special applications – e.g. boats, holiday homes &

vehicles

• Individual dwellings – e.g. Tesla battery

• Local SMEs – e.g. Pollepleats

• Cooperative electricity grids – domestic storage facilities

• Cooperative electricity grids– storage envisaged in

‘stage 2’

• Mixed neighbourhood system – e.g. Hoogdalem

• Municipal / cooperative system – Zuidhorn

• Service provision – e.g. mobile battery &

carsharing

Small size/

1 actor

Medium size/

1 actor

Variable sizes/

multiple actors

Size & Complexity of project

Specials:

Solar boat racing

• MG Energy systems

• Capacities from 7.5 kWh to several MWh

• Started with first Dutch Solar Boat Challenge in 2009

Individual Dwellings

• Iwell Cube

• Target groups include housing corporations

• Capacity: 7,65/10,2/20,4 kWh

• Tesla Power Wall

• Dwellings

• Capacity: 13,5 kWh

Storage for SMEs:

Pollepleats

• Wellness & events farm in Fryslan

• Large production facility with PV-panels (check!)

• Storage needed to prevent system costs and use own energy effectively

• Installed capacity: check

Storage for cooperative

electricity grids: in stage 2

• In stage 2, because …

• Cheaper storage capacity

• Regulation improvements (hopefully)

• Examples

• Vredeoord Sint Trudo - Eindhoven

• Aardehuizen Deventer

• Groene Mient – Den Haag

Neighbourhood battery

• Rijsenhout

• Early experiment (2016)

• Prevent overvoltage

• Lessons learned:

• Price of storage capacity too high

• Double taxes

• Regulation

• Split incentives

Buurtbatterij Rijsenhout

Mixed neighbourhood system

• Domestic batteries in Hoog-Dalem

• Energy system in individual dwellings

• Solar PV

• Battery Ecomulti 2,3 kWh Li-Ion (Victron)

• Smart start option for washing machines

• Neighbourhood system with ‘virtual battery’

• Lessons learned

• Batteries too small for real impact

• High energy loss in batteries and system, leads to new concept by ABB: Living Space (REACT batteries 3,6 or 4,6 kWh)

• Night charging very noisy due to inverter

• Neighbourhood battery not feasible due to double taxes

For comparison: Tesla Powerwall 13,5 kWh

Report: Energieproject Hoog Dalem, Stedin

Renewable energy and storage in Zuidhorn

• Stakeholders:

• Local energy cooperative

• Municipality (Gemeente Westerkwartier)

• Prorail (owner trainstation)

• Elements

• Solar panels combined with car park

• Storage facility

• Present:

• Workshop sessions with stakeholders

• Preparation proposal for municipality

• Development of business plan

Storage arrangements

Ce ntr al is ed ^{• DSO} Co m m un ity • Cooperative or

• Municipality or

• Housing

corporation

D om es tic ^{• Home-} _battery

• Specials

• Hybrid DSO, cooperative, software companies, etc.

• Hybrid cooperative, municipality, software companies, prosumers, etc.

Public acceptability of energy storage

• Engaging the public

• Vulnerable groups

• Independence and control

• Convenience & competence

• Large energy companies seen as distant, unaccountable and untrustworthy

Thomas, G., Demski, C. & Pidgeon, N.

Deliberating the public acceptability of energy storage in the UK,

RESTLESS project Working Paper Pimlico District Heating Thermal Store, London

Photographer: Fin Fahey. 21 January 2006.

Evaluative criteria for energy storage at different scales of governance

Evaluative criteria Centralised Community De-centralised (domestic)

Fairness Vulnerable groups – meeting needs

Vulnerable groups - budgeting Distrust of energy companies

Vulnerable groups – meeting needs

Equity – between areas

Equity – access to decentralised storage schemes

Reciprocity- rewarding local people

Vulnerable groups – penalised by time-of-use

Equity – access to storage Equity – time-of-use pricing imposing costs

Reciprocity – profits for storage owners

Reciprocity – lower bills Independence &

control Distrust of energy companies Lack of control

Encouraging wastefulness

Energy companies as competent

Community independence/

empowerment

Community agreement Municipal competence

Independence & self-sufficiency User competence & novel

models

Convenience Convenient for users

Reliable supplies Inconvenience – community schemes

Convenience local authority involvement

Inconvenience – demand response

Convenience & automation – domestic storage

Automation & control

Thomas, G., Demski, C. & Pidgeon, N.

Deliberating the public acceptability of energy storage in the UK, RESTLESS project Working Paper

Complex systems

• System builders in Hoogdalem:

• Net managers (DSOs) (Stedin)

• Construction companies (Heijmans)

• Software developers (7 partners in USEF)

• Energy cooperatives (ENDONA)

• Battery producers

Aspects of TIS

1. Entrepreneurial activities 2. Knowledge development 3. Knowledge diffusion

4. Guidance of search 5. Market formation

6. Resource mobilization

7. Legitimation/ support

Storage: configurational TIS

• Storage is configurational, because

• Many actors/ multiple actor types

• Lack of powerful networks

• Lack of formal institutions

• Unfavourable physical and legal conditions – difficulties for cooperative storage, no opportunities for DSOs, split incentives, etc.

• Scattered knowledge infrastructure

Recommendations

• For system builders

• Get organized

• Stronger institutions

• Standardization of technologies

• Exchange of knowledge

• Listen to customers J

• For cooperatives

Wesche et al. ERSS 52 (2019) 99-113

TIS

Cooperatives Prosumers