This study determines the lifetime cost of 9 electricity storage technologies in 12 power system applications from 2015 to 2050. We find that lithium-ion batteries are most cost effective beyond 2030, apart from in long discharge applications. The performance advantages of alternative technologies do not outweigh the pace of lithium-ion cost reductions. Thus, investments in alternatives might be futile, unless performance improvements retain competitiveness with lithium ion. These insights increase transparency around the economic viability of electricity storage and can help guide research, policy, and investment activities to ensure cost-efficient deployment. HIGHLIGHTSLifetime cost for 9 storage technologies in 12 applications from 2015 to 2050 Lowest lifetime costs fall by 36% (2030) and 53% (2050) across the 12 applications Lithium-ion batteries are most competitive in majority of applications from 2030 Pumped hydro, compressed air, and hydrogen are best for long discharge applications Schmidt et al., Joule 3, 81-100 January 16, SUMMARYThe future role of stationary electricity storage is perceived as highly uncertain. One reason is that most studies into the future cost of storage technologies focus on investment cost. An appropriate cost assessment must be based on the application-specific lifetime cost of storing electricity. We determine the levelized cost of storage (LCOS) for 9 technologies in 12 power system applications from 2015 to 2050 based on projected investment cost reductions and current performance parameters. We find that LCOS will reduce by one-third to one-half by 2030 and 2050, respectively, across the modeled applications, with lithium ion likely to become most cost efficient for nearly all stationary applications from 2030. Investments in alternative technologies may prove futile unless significant performance improvements can retain competitiveness with lithium ion. These insights increase transparency around the future competitiveness of electricity storage technologies and can help guide research, policy, and investment activities to ensure cost-efficient deployment.

The feasibility of large-scale biological CO 2 removal to achieve stringent climate targets remains unclear. Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) offers an alternative negative emissions technology (NET) option. Here we conduct the first inter-model comparison on the role of DACCS in 1.5 and 2 °C scenarios, under a variety of techno-economic assumptions. Deploying DACCS significantly reduces mitigation costs, and it complements rather than substitutes other NETs. The key factor limiting DACCS deployment is the rate at which it can be scaled up. Our scenarios’ average DACCS scale-up rates of 1.5 GtCO 2 /yr would require considerable sorbent production and up to 300 EJ/yr of energy input by 2100. The risk of assuming that DACCS can be deployed at scale, and finding it to be subsequently unavailable, leads to a global temperature overshoot of up to 0.8 °C. DACCS should therefore be developed and deployed alongside, rather than instead of, other mitigation options.

No abstract

Whether and how long-term energy and climate targets can be reached depend on a range of interlinked factors: technology, economy, environment, policy, and society at large. Integrated assessment models of climate change or energy-system models have limited representations of societal transformations, such as behavior of various actors, transformation dynamics in time, and heterogeneity across and within societies. After reviewing the state of the art, we propose a research agenda to guide experiments to integrate more insights from social sciences into models: (1) map and assess societal assumptions in existing models, (2) conduct empirical research on generalizable and quantifiable patterns to be integrated into models, and (3) build and extensively validate modified or new models. Our proposed agenda offers three benefits: interdisciplinary learning between modelers and social scientists, improved models with a more complete representation of multifaceted reality, and identification of new and more effective solutions to energy and climate challenges.

No abstract