Twelve Principles for Green Energy Storage in Grid Applications

Subscriber access provided by CMU Libraries - http://library.cmich.edu

Article

Twelve Principles for Green Energy Storage in Grid Applications Maryam Arbabzadeh, Jeremiah X. Johnson, Gregory A. Keoleian, Levi T. Thompson, and Paul G Rasmussen Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03867 • Publication Date (Web): 02 Dec 2015 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 8, 2015

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 41

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Twelve Principles for Green Energy Storage in Grid Applications

2 3

Maryam Arbabzadeh*a, Jeremiah X. Johnsona, Gregory A. Keoleiana, Levi T. Thompsonb, Paul G. Rasmussenb

4

Corresponding Author: * Phone: 1 (516) 641-2447, Email: [email protected]

5 6

a

Center for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

7

b

8

Abstract

9

Energy storage technologies represent a potential solution for several grid applications such

10

as integration of renewables and deferring investments in transmission and distribution

11

infrastructure. The integration of energy storage systems into the electrical grid can lead to

12

different environmental outcomes based on the grid application, the existing generation mix,

13

and the demand. Given this complexity, a framework is needed to systematically inform

14

design and technology selection about the environmental impacts that emerge when

15

considering energy storage options to improve sustainability performance of the grid. To

16

achieve this, 12 fundamental principles specific to the design and grid application of green

17

energy storage systems are developed to inform policy makers, designers, and operators. The

18

principles are grouped into three categories: (1) system integration for grid applications, (2)

19

the maintenance and operation of energy storage, and (3) the design of energy storage

20

systems. We illustrate the application of each principle through examples published in

21

academic literature, illustrative calculations, and a case study with an off-grid application of

22

vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs). In addition, trade-offs that can emerge between

23

principles are highlighted.

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

24

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


25

Page 2 of 41

Abstract Art

26 27

1. Introduction

28

Energy storage is expected to play an important role in the future of a sustainable electrical

29

grid [1]. Energy storage may serve as a solution to the integration challenges of variable

30

renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and increase grid reliability [2].

31

Options for grid-connected energy storage vary greatly, including flow batteries, Li-ion

32

batteries, compressed air energy storage (CAES), flywheels, and pumped-storage

33

hydroelectricity. Each storage technology has specific operating characteristics such as

34

response time, ramp rate, round-trip efficiency, service life, and discharge duration, which

35

make it suitable for a particular grid application. Eyer and Corey reviewed energy storage

36

technologies’ technical characteristics and identified their potential grid-scale applications

37

and benefits [3]. Another study by Department of Energy examined the state of energy

38

storage in the U.S. and abroad, describing grid applications for each storage system [4].

39

Recent policies have mandated the integration of energy storage (e.g., California’s

40

requirement of 1,325 MW of storage by 2020 [5]) or created more favorable conditions for

41

their integration (e.g., the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency Order 755 [6]). These


Page 3 of 41


42

developments suggest the potential for greater use of energy storage on the grid in coming

43

years.

44

Not only do the grid benefits vary greatly across technologies, the design, manufacturing,

45

deployment, and operation of energy storage systems may lead to significantly different

46

environmental impacts. Other researchers have considered and analyzed the environmental

47

performance of energy storage systems. Larcher and Tarascon argued that the only viable

48

path towards greener and more sustainable batteries is rooted in designing electroactive

49

materials that cost less energy and release less CO2 emissions during production, while

50

providing comparable performance to today’s electrodes [7]. In another study, Tarascon

51

emphasized that, regardless of energy storage technology, materials with minimum

52

environmental footprint must be integrated in new research towards greener storage systems

53

[8]. Poizot and Dolhem highlighted that to improve the environmental footprint of

54

rechargeable batteries and to sustain the benefits of using them, it is necessary to decrease the

55

consumption of non-renewable resources, energy, and waste produced [9]. They also

56

emphasized that “greenness” of a battery does not depend solely on the type of materials

57

used in the battery, but also on how the battery is managed throughout its life. Indeed, the

58

environmental outcomes of integrating energy storage within the power grid depend on the

59

grid application, the existing generators, and the demand profile. Carson and Novan

60

examined the social benefits of integrating bulk energy storage in Texas electricity market,

61

which has a large amount of renewable capacity [10]. Their results showed that energy

62

storage for arbitrage would increase the average daily GHG emissions in Texas due to an

63

increase in off-peak fossil fuels generation.



64

Trends suggest that energy storage is poised to play an increasingly important role in power

65

system operations, with the potential to greatly influence emissions. Denholm analyzed the

66

environmental benefits of a biomass-based CAES integrated with wind energy in Midwestern

67

US [11]. In this system, the natural gas fuel of the CAES is replaced by biomass fuel, leading

68

to reduction in net CO2 emissions and the need for transmission expansion. In an overview of

69

energy storage technologies for mitigating the fluctuations of renewable energy generations,

70

both Beaudin et al. and Evans et al. examined the environmental benefits and challenges of

71

such systems [12], [13]. In another study, Denholm and Kulcinski showed that the energy

72

systems including renewables integrated with large-scale energy storage offer lower life

73

cycle emissions [14].

74

These and other studies [15], [16], [17], show how design, development, and application of

75

energy storage systems within the power grid influence environmental sustainability

76

outcomes. They all provide valuable insights into the complexity associated with the

77

environmental outcomes of integrating energy storage systems. However, those who design,

78

maintain, and operate such systems lack a comprehensive and systematic set of principles

79

that can yield improved environmental outcomes.

80

This paper provides a comprehensive set of principles specific to the design and grid

81

applications of green energy storage systems to guide their research, development, and

82

deployment. These principles for green energy storage build upon previous research that

83

aims to improve environmental outcomes through better design and operation.

84

In a guidance manual for life cycle design, Keoleian and Menerey emphasized the

85

importance of addressing environmental issues in design in order to achieve a more

Page 4 of 41


Page 5 of 41


86

sustainable system [18] and a variety of tools to support green design have evolved. Anastas

87

and Zimmerman made an important contribution through their development of 12

88

engineering principles to guide design of environmentally benign products and processes

89

[19]. McDonough et al. illustrated the industrial application of these principles [20] while

90

Diwekar used the green engineering principles to develop an integrated computer-aided

91

framework for chemical process design [21]. Before the development of the green

92

engineering principles, Anastas and Warner developed 12 principles for green chemistry

93

[22]. Kirchhoff highlighted the impact of decisions made by chemists on the options

94

available to engineers, as she defined green chemistry as a foundation on which to design the

95

green engineering technologies needed to produce sustainable products, processes, and

96

systems [23]. Krichhoff demonstrated that combining green chemistry with green

97

engineering would lead to maximum efficiency and minimum waste.

98

While these studies have successfully provided guidance and structure to green design and

99

products, energy storage technologies pose unique assessment challenges that are not fully

100

addressed by those approaches. Given the complexity of the grid, this study fills a research

101

gap by providing a transparent set of principles to guide integration, operation and

102

maintenance, design, and material choices that influence environmental impacts from

103

integrating energy storage systems. The objective is to guide designers, decision makers, and

104

utility operators on design options and deployment scenarios. Through analysis of expected

105

outcomes based on application of these principles, one can assess the trade-offs that may

106

emerge when faced with competing responses.

107

Principles and frameworks are valuable as a guideline to develop sustainable solutions for

108

environmental problems that continue to become more complex [24]. 12 green chemistry 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


109

[22], 12 green engineering [19], and EPA’s green engineering principles [25] have been used

110

by industry and adopted in curricula, guiding effectively academic research and training

111

future practitioners [26]. Inspired by and building off the 12 engineering principles [19], we

112

propose 12 principles for green energy storage to provide insights into and improve the

113

environmental outcomes when integrating energy storage systems into power grid.

114

Interactive, participatory, and multi-disciplinary research is key in sustainability science to

115

integrate the best available knowledge [27]. Therefore, to create the broad set of principles,

116

we first convened a multi-disciplinary group of scholars including chemical engineers,

117

industrial ecologists, chemists, and electrical engineers. Drawing on existing academic

118

literature and conducting novel research, the group created an extensive list of potential

119

principles. We recognized that for the principles to be widely deployed, the final list would

120

need to be sufficiently succinct and broadly applicable across energy storage technologies.

121

Wide and effective application of green engineering and green chemistry principles has

122

demonstrated that twelve principles have proven to be both sufficiently comprehensive, while

123

still being manageable [19], [22]. This was a motivation for authors to consolidate similar

124

concepts, resulting in a robust set of twelve principles specific to green energy storage

125

systems. To solicit feedback, we presented these principles at several conferences with

126

diverse audiences including electrochemists, engineers, industrial ecologists, and

127

sustainability scientists [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Throughout this two-year process, we

128

refined and finalized this set of principles presented in this article.

129

1.2. Elements of Principles for Green Energy Storage

Page 6 of 41


Page 7 of 41


130

The principles for green energy storage are grouped into three categories, which address

131

impacts related to: (1) system integration for grid applications, (2) the maintenance and

132

operation of energy storage, and (3) the design of energy storage systems including materials

133

and production.

134

The first category of principles addresses the impact of energy storage due to system

135

integration for a variety of grid applications. The environmental impacts of integration of

136

energy storage are greatly influenced by power system characteristics such as the existing

137

grid infrastructure and electricity demand profiles. Also, the balance of rated power and the

138

hours of storage capacity, as influenced by the application, have significant impact on the net

139

environmental impact.

140

There is a distinction between energy storage systems classified as those best suited for

141

capacity applications and those best suited for energy applications [3]. For capacity

142

applications, energy storage is used to displace or defer the need for installing new

143

infrastructure such as transmission and distribution (T&D) lines or substations [3]. In such

144

applications, a limited amount of energy storage discharge capacity may be needed for such

145

applications. However, in energy-driven applications such as renewable curtailment

146

reduction, the storage technology may require multiple hours of energy storage to achieve the

147

desired results. The environmental impacts of integrating energy storage for each of these

148

applications should be analyzed in the context of the application for which it serves.

149

For example, applications of energy storage to reduce wind curtailment (which would nearly

150

universally lead to improved environmental outcomes) must be evaluated in a manner

151

different than applications to defer T&D projects. In the first application, energy storage



Page 8 of 41

152

environmental burdens are compared with the displaced fossil fuel generation emissions. In

153

the second application, energy storage provides the capacity needed to defer the construction

154

of new T&D infrastructure. In this case, the energy storage burdens are compared with the

155

displaced T&D infrastructure’s environmental footprint.

156

The second category of principles addresses impacts associated with operation and the

157

importance of effective maintenance of energy storage systems to achieve the desired outcomes.

158

The principles included in the third category relate to the impacts associated with materials and

159

production, which are also among the foci of the 12 engineering principles developed by Anastas

160

and Zimmerman [19]. Targeting improvements in materials, device production, and also their

161

end of life are critical in advancing clean and sustainable energy storage systems for grid

162

applications. This category details the interventions that can occur during the design of the

163

energy storage technology, highlighting the importance of performance characteristics such as

164

efficiency and service life, while addressing the impacts from materials and manufacturing.

165

We provide supporting examples for each principle to illustrate their application to a range of

166

energy storage technologies such as, batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, and compressed air

167

energy storage (CAES). Examples are drawn from existing literature, as well as novel analysis of

168

a case study. In this case study, we analyze a micro-grid to demonstrate the utility of several

169

principles (Principles # 4, 6, and 11).

170

Principles for Green Energy Storage in Grid Applications

171

The three categories of principles are shown in Fig.1 and they are explained in the next section.


Page 9 of 41


172 173

Fig.1. List of principles for green energy storage systems.

174 175

2.1 The Principles

176

2.1.1

177

This principle addresses use-phase emissions from generators on the grid. The net emissions

178

during the operation of energy storage depend on three main factors: the emissions associated

179

with the electricity that charges the energy storage system, the round-trip efficiency of the

180

storage technology, and the emissions associated with the displaced generation resource. The

181

generators that can be attributed with charging the energy storage system, as well as those

182

determined to be displaced by the discharge of the energy storage system, are typically the

183

marginal generators during the hours of charging and discharging. This means that, for many

Principle #1: Charge clean & displace dirty.



Page 10 of 41

184

power systems, the generation that is increased or displaced will often vary by the time of day

185

and season of the year. This also suggests that variable renewables such as wind and solar, which

186

may be considered to have no dispatch costs, would typically not change their generation upon

187

the introduction of an energy storage system. A notable exception to this would be the reduction

188

of curtailment of these resources.

189

For many power systems, determination of the generators impacted by energy storage would

190

require extensive modeling (e.g., deployment of unit commitment and economic dispatch

191

models). However, a basic understanding of the system’s operations can inform one about the

192

type of generator that is typically the marginal unit during off-peak and on-peak hours

193

throughout the year. Using such information, we provide the following approach to estimate the

194

net use-phase emissions.

195

The emissions associated with fossil fuel based electricity generation technology are defined by

196

the generator’s heat rate (HR) and its fuel’s upstream and combustion emissions factors (EFU,

197

EFC). To illustrate the range of outcomes for net emissions, we examine several common plant

198

and fuel types and a range of plant efficiencies. A range of annual heat rates for each technology

199

is obtained from the annual electric utility data provided by the U.S. Energy Information

200

Administration, and the net use-phase emissions are calculated for multiple combinations of

201

charge-displace patterns using the 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% percentiles for heat rates for

202

each technology, excluding low-used generators and outliers [33].

203

Net emissions (NE) during the operation of energy storage system in tons of CO2eq per MWh are

204

calculated using Eq. 1, where EFC and EFU are the combustion and upstream emissions factors of

205

coal and natural gas fuels. Their assumptions are provided in Supporting Information. In this


Page 11 of 41


206

example, the system boundary includes the use-phase emissions during operation of energy

207

storage system, and also the upstream emissions of natural gas and coal fuels, excluding

208

emissions associated with the power plants construction and energy storage production burden. ∗ + = ( ) − ( ∗ + ) /1000 ( . 1)

209

The net emissions in different charge-displace scenarios of an energy storage system are shown

210

in Fig.2, assuming 75% round-trip efficiency (η) [1]. As shown in Fig. 2, the green areas

211

represent charge-displace combinations for which energy storage reduces net emissions from

212

grid generation, while the energy storage increases net emissions for the red combinations. This

213

figure shows the importance of fuel type and generator efficiency on emissions for both the

214

charging and displaced technologies.

215

Therefore, it is very crucial to consider the marginal units that are dispatched to charge the

216

energy storage system and the marginal units that are displaced by energy storage within an

217

interconnected grid. For example, if a pumped-hydro storage facility is charged by coal during

218

off-peak hours at night and its stored electricity is used to displace natural gas during the day, the

219

net emissions would increase. On the other hand, when the battery is charged with CO2 free

220

technology such as wind that would have otherwise been curtailed due to transmission constraint,

221

the environmental benefits (green area) increase as the discharged electricity is used to displace

222

more polluting fossil fuels, up to 1.2 t of CO2/MWh when used to displace an inefficient coal

223

plant.



Page 12 of 41

224 225

Fig.2. Net GHG emissions in different charge-displace scenarios for an energy storage system with 75%

226

round-trip efficiency.

227

(*Net Emissions include fuels’ combustion and upstream emissions for the fuel. Negative amounts are shown in

228

parentheses.)

229 230

Principle #2: Energy storage should have lower environmental impact than displaced

231

infrastructure.

232

In capacity applications, energy storage can be used to displace or defer the need for other

233

equipment and lead to both financial and environmental benefits [3]. For example, energy

234

storage can be utilized to defer the need to buy new generation capacity (e.g. a simple cycle

235

combustion turbine) to meet peak demand [3]. Energy storage systems can also be utilized to

236

defer the need to build new T&D infrastructure [34], [35]. Growing electricity demand can strain

237

T&D infrastructure as the peak power pushes the equipment’s limits and causes congestion. At

238

locations where T&D resources are stretched, installing a small amount of energy storage 12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 13 of 41


239

capacity can defer upgrades of transmission systems, cables, or substations for several years

240

depending on growth in demand [36]. The energy storage systems for grid applications typically

241

have a service lifetime of at least five years [37], and when installed for infrastructure deferral,

242

they are typically only used for that purpose a small percentage of the year, when the demand

243

exceeds the infrastructure capacity at maximum peak times [36].

244

When assessing the environmental benefits of using energy storage for T&D upgrade deferral, it

245

is essential to consider both the lifetime of the energy storage and the expected length of time the

246

T&D can be deferred. Eyer et al. developed a method to calculate two key storage system

247

parameters to defer T&D upgrade for one year: the power output and discharge duration (or the

248

amount of energy that must be stored) [35]. They define the amount of power required from the

249

storage system at a given T&D node as the portion of the peak electric demand, which exceeds

250

the load carrying capacity at that node. Discharge duration is estimated based on the shape of the

251

load profile expected when peak demand occurs and the amount of energy needed if the storage

252

systems is to serve load. Deferral for additional years must consider impacts of load growth [35].

253

There are environmental impacts associated with both the displaced equipment and the energy

254

storage system life cycle. For example, Jorge et al., developed a life cycle environmental

255

assessment of electricity T&D systems including power lines, cables, transformers, and

256

substation equipment [38]. For such applications, energy storage life cycle environmental impact

257

should be lower than the environmental impacts associated with the displaced infrastructure in

258

order to improve the sustainability performance of the grid.

259

As an illustrative example, we compare a 375 kW energy storage system with 3.5 hours

260

discharge duration to a substation upgrade. The energy storage defers the need for upgrading a

261

15 MW substation, for one year. The upgrade requires a 5 MVA additional capacity to meet 2%



Page 14 of 41

262

load growth per year [3], [36]. Using life cycle GHG emissions of a VRFB and a 10 MVA

263

substation and matching their sizes with this example results in 9 tons of CO2-eq, per year for the

264

scenario with energy storage, which is far less than 76.6 tons of CO2-eq per year for the additional

265

capacity scenario [38], [39].

266 267

Principle #3: Match application to storage capabilities to prevent degradation.

268

In general, all energy storage technologies experience fatigue and wear over their service lifetime

269

[40]. For example, the degradation of batteries occurs gradually over time as manifested by

270

declining capacity, increasing internal resistance, and elevated self-discharge [41], [42].

271

Different studies have evaluated the degradation of energy storage systems and the factors that

272

affect it. A study by National Renewable Energy Laboratory reviewed models for predicting

273

battery chemical degradation and mechanical stresses [43]. Chawla et al. presented a method to

274

evaluate a batteries’ cycle degradation under dynamic cycle duty. They showed that selection of

275

energy storage for a specific grid application depends on its size, power to energy ratio,

276

discharge duration, ramp rates, and life cycle cost [42]. The degradation of energy storage

277

systems over time, specifically batteries, depends on how they are used in the application. In

278

general, every charge-discharge cycle results in some degradation [42].

279

There are a variety of energy storage systems for grid applications. The features of each

280

technology such as power rating, response time, or spacing requirements make it suitable for

281

each application [44]. For example, flywheels have high charge/discharge rates for many cycles.

282

However, their self-discharge rates are high, which leads to energy efficiency degradation when

283

cycling is not continuous and energy is stored in the flywheel system for a period of time [45].

284

Therefore, these systems should not be a good match for grid applications that require long-term 14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 15 of 41


285

energy storage. Regarding their capabilities, one of the main applications of flywheels is to

286

provide reliable standby power [45]. On the other hand, deep charges can shorten the cycle life

287

of Li-ion batteries, because their capacity loss is dependent on temperature, rate, and depth of

288

discharge [46]. Thus, they may not be utilized for back-up generation where they need to be

289

discharged completely [45]. Therefore, matching the grid application to storage capabilities such

290

as discharge duration, and charge/discharge characteristics can reduce the storage system

291

degradation.

292

Principle #4: Avoid oversizing energy storage systems.

293

Energy sizing in terms of rated power and the hours of storage capacity, as influenced by the

294

application, is a significant driver for the net environmental impacts. Oversizing the storage

295

system can lead to an unnecessary environmental impacts through increased material and

296

manufacturing burdens, if the storage sizing does not appropriately match application

297

requirements.

298

A micro-grid model is analyzed in two scenarios to test the impact of VRFB sizing on total

299

emissions of the system. In this micro-grid, electricity is provided for an off-grid system

300

comprised of a VRFB for energy storage, wind energy, and natural gas generation. This system

301

has an assumed annual demand of 10.6 MWh per capita and annual peak demand of 22 MW.

302

The life cycle model developed by the authors for the case study is presented in greater detail in

303

Arbabzadeh et al. [39]. In this off-grid system, wind energy is treated as a must-take resource;

304

wind in excess of demand is stored in the battery. Natural gas reciprocating engines provide

305

back-up generation when there is not enough wind energy or stored electricity.



Page 16 of 41

306

In the first scenario, the off-grid system is comprised of five 3-MW wind turbines and in the

307

second scenario it is comprised of 25 turbines. Total emissions include life cycle emissions

308

associated with system components: wind turbines, VRFB, and natural gas engines [39]. As

309

shown in Fig.3, in case of five wind turbines, there is not enough wind energy that needs to be

310

stored in the battery. Therefore, for higher than 50 MWh of battery capacity, there is no change

311

in the amount of stored electricity delivered to demand and this oversizing of the battery results

312

in increasing the total emissions of the system associated with the production burdens of the

313

battery. However, in the other scenario with 25 wind turbines, there is enough wind energy to be

314

stored in the battery that would have otherwise been curtailed. Therefore, a bigger battery leads

315

to reducing more CO2-eq emissions by reducing wind curtailment and offsetting more natural gas

316

combustion. This demonstrates that the generator mix and load profile affect the environmental

317

outcomes of integrating energy storage systems.


Page 17 of 41


318 319

Fig.3. The impact of battery sizing on emissions intensity of delivered electricity and stored electricity

320

utilization in two scenarios with (a) 5 wind turbines and (b) 25 wind turbines.

321

322

Principle #5: Maintain to limit degradation.

323

In Principle #3, we discussed the importance of appropriate technology selection for a given

324

application to mitigate energy storage degradation and ensure favorable environmental

325

outcomes. A similar logic applies to the maintenance of energy storage systems to limit

326

degradation. The regular preventative maintenance of energy storage systems lessens the

327

likelihood of their degradation and failing and maximizes their performance and life expectancy

328

[47], [48]. Some energy storage systems require routine and proper maintenance based on their 17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 18 of 41

329

characteristics. For example, a study by the U.S. Department of Bureau of Reclamation outlined

330

the proper maintenance processed of batteries. The processes include readings of temperature,

331

voltage, specific gravity and connection resistance, visual inspection, cleanliness, and

332

neutralizing spilled electrolyte, among others [48]. EPRI has identified the operation and

333

maintenance requirements for pumped-storage hydro plants, which can limit the wear and tear

334

imposed to mechanical and electrical equipment due to frequent operational mode changes and

335

vibration during pumping [49]. As mentioned in Principle #3, maintaining the appropriate

336

temperature for Li-ion batteries is necessary to avoid capacity fade, which can be increased by

337

14% when the temperature is increased from 10 °C to 46 °C [46]. In addition, a protection circuit

338

is required to maintain safe operation for these fragile batteries to limit the battery overcharge

339

and lithium plating [45]. Thus, it is necessary to maintain the energy storage systems effectively

340

based on their requirements and specifications, to help limit system degradation and forced

341

outages.

342

343

Principles #6: Design and operate energy storage for optimal service life.

344

Service life affects the materials and energy requirements for energy storage systems production

345

and operation. Therefore, this principle is also relevant to design, since service life should be

346

considered in both stages of energy storage design and also operation.

347

From a life cycle perspective, replacing products causes additional environmental impacts

348

associated with material production and processing [50]. To demonstrate this trade-off, two

349

scenarios are considered for the micro-grid case study presented in Principle #4. In the first

350

scenario, a 60% efficient VRFB is utilized for 20 years (only the necessary materials are replaced


Page 19 of 41


351

over this period of time). However, in the second scenario, a far more efficient (round-trip

352

efficiency=95%) battery becomes available in Year 10, and the operators have the option to

353

switch the old battery with the new one. It is assumed that the micro-grid model is comprised of

354

25 wind turbines, a 150 MWh (65 MW) VRFB, and natural gas reciprocating engines as back up

355

generation. As shown in Fig.4, if the battery is exchanged at Year 10, there is an increase in total

356

GHG emissions of the system in that year associated with the production burden of the battery.

357

However, there will be fewer emissions after 20 years if the battery is replaced with the more

358

efficient one (the blue line). In this example, we assume an improvement to the technology offers

359

the potential for markedly better round-trip efficiency in Year 10. For the given technology, we

360

assume that the round-trip efficiency is optimized (and fixed) over the lifetime of the energy

361

storage system for simplicity.

362 363 364

Fig.4. Total GHG emissions of the off-grid configuration after 20 years in 2 scenarios: Replacing the battery (η=60%) with a more efficient one (η =95%) at Year 10 and no replacement scenario.

365 366



Page 20 of 41

367

Principle #7: Design and operate energy storage with maximum round-trip efficiency.

368

Round-trip efficiency is one of the most important parameters for energy applications of energy

369

storage systems, and needs to be considered in both the design and operation phases. It defines

370

the ratio of energy input to energy retrieved from the storage system [37]. Higher round-trip

371

efficiency means that less energy is lost during charge and discharge cycles.

372

As discussed in Principle #1 and shown in Eq. 2, round-trip efficiency is one of the main three

373

factors that affects the net use-phase emissions during the operation of energy storage systems.

374

To demonstrate the impact of round-trip cycle efficiency, Fig. 2 is modified to assume three

375

values for round-trip efficiency of the energy storage system to test the use-phase emissions

376

results: 65%, 75%, and 85%. Fig.5 shows the impact of increasing battery round-trip efficiency

377

on net use-phase emissions during the operation of energy storage in different charge-displace

378

scenarios. It is clear that increasing efficiency yields greater environmental benefits (green area)

379

for a greater number of charge-displace combinations. The round-trip efficiency of an energy

380

storage device is determined by intrinsic properties of the technology, as well as operational

381

strategies once deployed. In the latter category, thermal management strategies can mitigate the

382

heat produced during rapid charge and discharge cycles of Li-ion batteries, yielding improved

383

efficiency [51], [52]. In this example, it is assumed that round-trip efficiency is fixed over the

384

lifetime of the energy storage system for simplicity.


Page 21 of 41


385 386

Fig.5. Net use-phase GHG emissions in different charge-displace scenarios, assuming 3 values for the energy storage

387

round-trip efficiency.

388

(Net use-phase emissions include fuels’ combustion and upstream emissions for the fuel. Negative amounts are shown

389

in parentheses.)

390 391

Principle #8: Minimize consumptive use of non-renewable materials.

392

The growing demand for energy storage systems requires the need for advanced materials

393

research and development to address many challenges associated with storage systems

394

economics, technical performance, and design. Consumptive use of non-renewable materials and

395

resources changes their forms and contents in such a way that they are no longer available for

396

their original use, reducing their availability and limiting the future generations’ access to these

397

resources [53]. While energy storage systems can offer different grid applications, their design

398

and production should minimize the consumptive use of non-renewable materials; otherwise

399

depletion of materials can pose constraints on the continued deployment of these systems.

400

Materials selection will also play an important role in making energy storage technologies

401

affordable, efficient, and reliable [54]. Consumptive use of materials can be reduced either

402

through end-of-life recovery or by substitution using renewable materials. There is considerable



Page 22 of 41

403

research interest in the latter category, with the aim of developing suitable material substitutes.

404

For example, renewable and organic biomass-derived materials are introduced for developing

405

sustainable energy storage technologies such as battery’s electrodes [54], [55]. In another study,

406

renewable synfuel derived from biomass gasification replaces non-renewable natural gas in

407

CAES [11]. Huskinson et al. also indicated that wide-scale utilization of flow batteries is limited

408

by the abundance and the cost of their materials [56]. They described a class of energy storage

409

materials utilized in a metal-free flow battery. The research on investigating materials with lower

410

environmental implications is not limited to energy storage and includes other energy systems

411

such as thin-film photovoltaic technologies [57].

412

413

Principle #9: Minimize use of critical materials.

414

Energy storage systems can be material intensive and if they are to be widely deployed, their

415

feedstock elements will be needed in large quantities [58]. A report by Sandia National

416

Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory presents a strategic material selection for

417

energy storage systems [59]. This strategy emphasizes that while cost reduction of storage

418

technologies is highly important and material costs have the biggest share in the cost of these

419

technologies, it is critical that both abundant and low cost materials are used in storage devices.

420

Another study identifies a class of chemical elements that are critical to energy sector and their

421

shortage would significantly limit and transform the way energy is produced, transmitted, stored

422

and conserved [59]. Risks to a material’s availability, whether that is absolute scarcity,

423

vulnerable supply chains, or monopolistic suppliers, can be a potential constraint for rapid

424

deployment of energy storage systems. For example, near criticality of tellurium [57], [60], [61],


Page 23 of 41


425

[62] may present a potential risk to its widespread use in batteries [63], [64]. On the other hand,

426

magnesium is not typically considered a critical material [62], [65] and has promising

427

performance for battery storage systems’ electrode [65], making it potentially more desirable

428

than its more critical counterparts.

429

The method adopted by the U.S. Department of Energy to assess the criticality of materials in

430

energy sector, is framed in two dimensions: importance to clean energy and supply risk [60]. In

431

another study, Graedel et al. characterized the criticality of metals and metalloids in three

432

dimensions: supply risk, environmental implications, and vulnerability [62]. Considering these

433

criticality dimensions in materials selection for energy storage systems that are used for grid

434

applications can enhance sustainability performance.

435

436

Principle #10: Substitute non-toxic and non-hazardous materials.

437

Safety must be emphasized within energy storage systems at every level to enable the success of

438

these technologies in increasing grid environmental performance. As described in a safety

439

strategic plan by U.S. Department of Energy, detailed hazard analysis must be conducted for

440

entire systems to identify failure points caused by abuse conditions [66]. The possibility of

441

cascading events should also be determined to prevent large-scale damage. There are different

442

levels of toxicity or hazard associated with each energy storage system that needs to be

443

understood to manage the trade-offs between safety and system performance. For example, in

444

case of a CAES in depleted natural gas reservoirs, the risk of ignition and explosion exists [67].

445

In batteries, there are risks associated with their basic electrochemistry [66]. For example, the

446

utilization of large-scale nickel-cadmium batteries has been reduced due to cadmium toxicity and 23 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 24 of 41

447

associated recycling complexity [68], [69]. Although Li-ion batteries are used widely in devices

448

such as cell phones or laptops, their grid-scale usage needs to be examined from a safety point of

449

view, since these grid applications require higher energy and power capacities [70]. When

450

batteries are misused or facing abnormal environments, their inherent hazards cause accidental

451

scenarios. In this case, if the active materials are highly energetic, their contact with flammable

452

organic solvent-based electrolyte may cause dangerous situations, such as combustion of the

453

electrolyte [70].

454

The EPA describes the toxic effects of chemicals as adverse health effects they may cause and

455

how the extent of these effects depends on dose, route and duration of exposure. The toxicity

456

assessment is divided into two parts: (1) characterizing and quantifying the non-carcinogenic

457

effects of a chemical, and (2) addressing the carcinogenic effects of a chemical [71].

458

The EPA also describes hazard identification in two steps. The first step determines whether

459

exposure to an agent can cause adverse health effect and whether this effect is likely to occur in

460

human beings. The second step is called dose-response evaluation, which evaluates

461

quantitatively the toxicity information and characterizes the relationship between the dose of

462

received contaminant and the incidence of adverse health effects in the exposed population.

463

From this quantitative analysis, toxicity values are determined and are used in the risk

464

assessment to estimate the potential for adverse health occurring in humans at different exposure

465

levels [72].

466

467

Principle #11: Minimize the environmental impact per unit of energy service for material

468

production and processing. 24 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 25 of 41


469

Materials production and manufacturing phases have significant environmental burden among

470

energy storage systems’ life cycle stages. To demonstrate this principle, the total emissions of the

471

micro-grid system, first presented in Principle #4, are tested using three values for representing

472

VRFB production burden. The VRFB material production emissions comprise two parts: energy-

473

dependent materials emissions in grams of CO2-eq per kWh (Emtrl,S) and capacity-dependent

474

materials emissions in kg of CO2-eq per kW (Emtrl,P) [39]. The detailed GHG emissions

475

assumptions for VRFB materials production and manufacturing are provided in Supporting

476

Information.

477

Fig.6 shows the total emissions of the micro-grid system, which is comprised of the system

478

components’ greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in in this diagram, the total emissions of the

479

micro-grid system decrease, as more battery capacity is available to offset more natural gas

480

combustion. However, this reduction is steeper when the battery production burden is decreased.

481 482

Fig. 6.The impact of decreasing battery production burden on total emissions in the micro-grid case study, which

483

includes 25 wind turbines, natural gas, and VRFB.



Page 26 of 41

484

Principle #12: Design for end-of-life.

485

Recently, increased attention has been paid toward environmental impacts of energy storage

486

systems’ end of life [73]. Careful analysis of environmental burdens associated with disposal of

487

storage systems is necessary to determine the best disassembly, recycling, remanufacturing, and

488

reuse approaches.

489

Herman et al. argues that due to the increasing demand for Li-ion batteries, economically

490

beneficial and technically mature disassembly systems are necessary for the end-of-life of these

491

systems [74]. End-of-life approaches such as, recycling and reuse can significantly reduce global

492

demand for extracted materials [60]. Designing energy storage systems such as batteries with

493

recyclable materials leads to environmental improvements and cost reduction [75]. Wang et al.

494

argues that eliminating landfilling as a result of recent disposal bans on rechargeable batteries

495

increases the need for development of alternative end-of-life management strategies such as

496

recycling valuable metals contained within the battery [76]. As opposed to traditional recycling

497

of batteries, refunctionalization of cathodes is the remanufacturing of active materials to regain

498

electrochemical performance at end-of-life, offering economic and environmental savings [77].

499

One example of battery reuse is the emerging trend of utilizing used batteries that first served in

500

automotive applications, in grid-scale stationary applications [78]. Reuse of electric vehicle (EV)

501

Li-ion batteries can offset the production burden of new batteries by extending battery service

502

life [79]. One of the promising applications of second use batteries is to replace combustion

503

turbine peak plant and provide peak-shaving grid application [80]. However, one of the critical

504

methodological challenges is the allocation of environmental impacts of batteries across their

505

mobile and stationary applications [79], [81]. The challenge is to take into account the allocated


Page 27 of 41


506

environmental impacts associated with the production of EV battery’s cells and module, end of

507

life management, refurbishment, and efficiency losses into the overall environmental burden of

508

the refurbished EV battery that will have a stationary application [79].

509

510

3. Discussion

511

There has been a rapid development in energy storage technologies and the demand for energy

512

storage is expected to grow due to recent policies such as California’s requirement of 1,325 MW

513

of storage by 2020 [5] and the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency Order 755 [6]. Energy storage

514

systems can be utilized for different grid applications such as renewable integration, load

515

leveling, and T&D upgrade deferral. However, the deployment of energy storage systems within

516

the electrical grid creates unique challenges for integration and can yield different environmental

517

outcomes. These challenges and outcomes depend on grid characteristics, electricity demand,

518

and existing generation assets; therefore, a framework is needed to systematically assess the

519

environmental outcomes of energy storage systems integration. The primary objective of this

520

article is to provide a robust set of principles specific to energy storage systems to inform

521

decision makers, utility operators, and energy storage designers about these challenges and

522

environmental outcomes.

523

This new set of principles for the design and application of green energy storage systems builds

524

upon the 12 engineering principles developed by Anastas and Zimmerman [19], but departs from

525

them in two key aspects. First, these principles are designed to directly address challenges and

526

issues of integration that relate to unique aspects of the deployment of these technologies.



Page 28 of 41

527

Secondly, the principles are grouped into three categories that target different audiences: namely

528

system operators, load serving entities, and energy storage systems designers.

529

For each principle, we provided examples of improved environmental outcomes, using published

530

studies, illustrative calculations, and a case study with an off-grid application of VRFB. These

531

principles are designed to be universally applicable to all energy storage technologies such as

532

various types of batteries, flywheels, pumped-storage hydroelectricity, and CAES. The grid

533

applications for these energy storage systems can also span a broad range including reserve

534

capacity, T&D upgrade deferral, and renewable integration, among others. Different

535

environmental impact categories including GHG emissions, resource depletion, criticality, and

536

toxicity were considered in these examples.

537

These principles provide broad guidance for design considerations, operations, and grid

538

integration that can yield sustainability improvements. When viewed in isolation, each of them

539

achieves this stated goal. However, in real applications, the principles may conflict with each

540

other and create the need to evaluate trade-offs. For example, Principle #7 seeks to increase

541

round-trip efficiency. On the other hand, enhancing the efficiency may require additional

542

materials or energy inputs, such as adding sulfuric acid to activate the graphite felt surface of

543

VRFB and decrease its internal resistance and consequently increase the round-trip efficiency

544

[82], [83]. This can increase the environmental impacts associated with the material production

545

and conflict with Principle #11, which focuses on decreasing an energy storage system’s material

546

production burden. Another example of such trade-offs relates to Principle #4, in which avoiding

547

oversizing energy storage systems, yield to environmental benefits. However, the use-phase may

548

dominate and displacing additional coal generation (Principle #1) may be well worth any


Page 29 of 41


549

material burdens associated with oversizing. Limiting energy storage system’s size may also lead

550

to degradation. This conflicts with Principle #5, which focuses on limiting degradation.

551

In such instances when the principles conflict, a robust sustainability assessment is required to

552

evaluate different options to find the most sustainable approach in energy storage systems’

553

design, deployment, and operation scenarios. The goal of this paper is to present a robust

554

framework to guide initial decisions, as well as identify such areas of conflict where further

555

analysis is needed. In future work, we will apply the principles in a sustainability assessment

556

algorithm based on LCA methods to evaluate the sustainability performance of different energy

557

storage systems to meet specific grid applications, particularly for cases where the principles

558

conflict.

559

560

Acknowledgments

561

This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Sustainable Energy

562

Pathways program (Grant #1230236: Non-Aqueous Redox Flow Battery Chemistries for

563

Sustainable Energy Storage).

564

Supporting Information

565

Additional information as noted in the text is provided in Supporting Information. This

566

information is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

567 568 569



Page 30 of 41

570

4. References

571

[1] Electricity Energy Storage Options, A white paper on applications, costs, and benefits; EPRI

572

1020676; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2010;

573

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/doshay1/docs/EPRI.pdf.

574

[2] The role of energy storage with renewable electricity generation; NREL NREL/TP-6A2-

575

47187; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Boulder, CO, USA, 2010;

576

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47187.pdf.

577

[3] Energy storage for electricity grid: benefits and market potential assessment; SAND2010-

578

0815; Sandia National Laboratory: Livermore, CA, USA, 2010;

579

http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2010-0815.pdf.

580

[4] Grid Energy Storage; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2013;

581

http://www.sandia.gov/ess/docs/other/Grid_Energy_Storage_Dec_2013.pdf.

582

[5] California Public Utilities Commission. Order instituting rulemaking pursuant to Assembly

583

Bill 2514 to consider the adoption of procurement targets for viable and cost-effective energy

584

storage systems, 2013; https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/435ea164-60d5-433f-90bc-

585

b76119ede661/R1012007_StorageOIR_D1310040_AdoptingEnergyStorageProcurementFramew

586

orkandDesignProgram.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

587

[6] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Order No. 755, Frequency regulation compensation

588

in the wholesale power markets: Comments of ISO/RTO council, 2011;

589

https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2011/102011/E-28.pdf

590

[7] Larcher, D.; Tarascon, J-M. Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical

591

energy storage. Nature Chemistry. 2015, 7(1), 19-29; DOI 10.1038/nchem.2085. 30 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 31 of 41


592

[8] Tarascon, J-M. Towards Sustainable and Renewable Systems for Electrochemical Energy

593

Storage ChemSusChem. 2008, 1(8-9), 777-779; DOI 10.1002/cssc.200800143.

594

[9] Poizot, Ph.; Dolhem F. Clean energy new deal for a sustainable world: from non-CO2

595

generating energy sources to greener electrochemical storage devices. Energy & Environmental

596

Science. 2011, 4 (6), 2003-2019; DOI 10.1039/C0EE00731E.

597

[10] Carson, R. T.; Novan, K. The private and social economics of bulk electricity storage.

598

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.2013, 66 (3), 404-423; DOI

599

10.1016/j.jeem.2013.06.002.

600

[11] Denholm, P. Improving the technical, environmental and social performance of wind energy

601

systems using biomass-based energy storage. Renewable Energy. 2006, 31 (9), 1355-1370; DOI

602

10.1016/j.renene.2005.07.001.

603

[12] Beaudin, M.; Zareipour, H.; Schellenberglabe, A.; Rosehart, W. Energy storage for

604

mitigating the variability of renewable electricity sources: An updated review. Energy for

605

Sustainable Development. 2010, 14 (4), 302-314; DOI 10.1016/j.esd.2010.09.007.

606

[13] Evans, A.; Strezov, V.; Evans, T. Assessment of utility energy storage options for increased

607

renewable energy penetration. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012, 16 (6), 4141-

608

4147; DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.048.

609

[14] Denholm, P.; Kulcinski, G. Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions

610

from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Conversion and Management. 2004. 45 (13-14),

611

2153-2172; DOI 10.1016/j.enconman.2003.10.014.



Page 32 of 41

612

[15] Stiel, A.; Skyllas-Kazacos, M. Feasibility Study of Energy Storage Systems in Wind/Diesel

613

Applications Using the HOMER Model. Applied Sciences. 2012, 2 (4), 726-737; DOI

614

10.3390/app2040726.

615

[16] McManus, M. Environmental consequences of the use of batteries in low carbon systems:

616

The impact of battery production. Applied Energy. 2012, 93, 286-295; DOI

617

10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.062.

618

[17] Galvez, G. H.; Probst, O.; Lastres, O.; Ugas, A. N.; Duran, E. A.; Sebastian, P. J.

619

Optimization of autonomous hybrid systems with hydrogen storage: Life Cycle Assessment.

620

International Journal of Research. 2011,36 (6), 749–763; DOI 10.1002/er.1830.

621

[18] Keoleian, G. A.; Menerey, D. Sustainable development by design: review of life cycle

622

design and related approaches. Air & Waste Management Association. 1994, 44 (5), 645-668;

623

DOI 10.1080/1073161X.

624

[19] Anastas, P. T.; Zimmerman, J. Design through the 12 principles of green engineering.

625

Environmental Science& Technology.2003, 37(5), 94A-101A; DOI 10.1021/es032373g.

626

[20] McDonough, W.; Braungart, M.; Anastas, P. T.; Zimmerman, J. B. Applying the principles

627

of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environmental Science &Technology 2003, 37

628

(23), 434A-441A; DOI 10.1021/es0326322.

629

[21] Diwekar, U. M. Greener by design. Environmental Science &Technology. 2003, 37 (23),

630

5432-5444, DOI 10.1021/es0344617.

631

[22] Anastas, P. T., Warner, J. C. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice. Oxford University

632

Press: New York, 1998. 32 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 33 of 41


633

[23] Kirchhoff, M. M. Promoting green engineering through green chemistry. Environmental

634

Science &Technology. 2003, vol. 37 (23), 5349-5353, DOI 10.1021/es0346072.

635

[24] Vesilind, P.; Morgan, S.; Heine, L. Introduction to Environmental Engineering; CENGAGE

636

Learning: Stamford, 2010.

637

[25] Principles of Green Engineering; http://www2.epa.gov/green-engineering/about-green-

638

engineering - principles.

639

[26] Kumar, V.; Haapala, K.; Rivera, J.; Hutchins, M.; Endres, W.; Gershenson, J.; Michalek, D.;

640

Sutherland, J. Infusing sustainability principles into manufacturing/mechanical engineering

641

curricula. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2005, 24 (3), 216-225.

642

[27] Lang, D.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.;

643

Thomas, C. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and

644

challenges. Sustainability Science. 2012, 7 (Supplement 1), 25-43; DOI 10.1007/s11625-011-

645

0149-x.

646

[28] Arbabzadeh, M.; Johnson, J.X.; Keoleian, G.A. Design principles for green energy storage

647

systems. Michigan Green Chemistry and Engineering Conference. 2015, Ann Arbor, Michigan,

648

USA.

649


650

systems. Electrochemical Society 228th Abstract Meeting. 2015, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

651


652

systems. International Society for Industrial Ecology Conference. 2015, Surrey, Guildford, UK.



Page 34 of 41

653

[31] Arbabzadeh, M.; Johnson, J.X.; Keoleian, G.A. Using design principles for green energy

654

storage systems to evaluate renewable energy integration. International Symposium on

655

Sustainable Systems and Technology. 2015, Dearborn, MI, USA.

656


657

systems. Engineering Sustainability; Innovation and Triple Bottom Line. 2015, Pittsburgh, PA,

658

USA

659

[33] 2015 EIA form 923-Annual Electric Utility Data;

660

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

661

[34] EPRI-DOE handbook of energy storage for transmissions & distribution applications; EPRI

662

1001834; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2003:

663

http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/ESHB%201001834%20reduced%20size.pdf.

664

[35] Estimating electricity storage power rating and discharge duration for utility T&D deferral;

665

SAND2005-7069; Sandia National Laboratory: Livermore, CA, USA, 2010:

666

http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2005/057069.pdf.

667

[36] T&D upgrade deferral; http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technology-applications/td-

668

upgrade-deferral.

669

[37] Chen, H.; Cong, T.; Yang, W.; Tan, Ch.; Li, Y.; Ding, Y. Progress in electrical energy

670

storage system: A critical review. Progress in Natural Science. 2009, 19 (3), 291-312; DOI

671

10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014.


Page 35 of 41


672

[38] Jorge, R. S.; Hawkins, T. R.; Hertwich, E. G. Life cycle assessment of electricity

673

transmission and distribution- part 2: transformers and substation equipment. International

674

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2012, 17 (2), 184-191, DOI 10.1007/s11367-011-0336-0.

675

[39] Arbabzadeh, M.; Johnson, J.X.; De Kleine, R.; Keoleian, G.A. Vanadium redox flow

676

batteries to reach GHG emissions targets in an off-grid configuration. Applied Energy. 2015,

677

146, 397-408; DOI 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.005.

678

[40] Ibrahim, H.; Ilinca, A.; Perron, J. Energy storage systems—Characteristics and

679

comparisons. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2008, 12 (5), 1221-1250; DOI

680

10.1016/j.rser.2007.01.023.

681

[41] Battery degradation and power loss;

682

http://www.batteryeducation.com/2006/04/battery_degrada.html.

683

[42] Chawla, M.; Naik, R.; Burra, R; Wiegman, H. Utility energy storage life degradation

684

estimation. IEEE Conference on innovative Technologies for an Efficient and Reliable

685

Electricity. 2010, 302-208; DOI 10.1109/CITRES.2010.5619790.

686

[43] Models for battery reliability and lifetime; NREL/CP-5400-57746; National Renewable

687

Energy Laboratory Technical Report: Boulder, CO, USA, 2013;

688

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/57746.pdf.

689

[44] Ribeiro, P.; Johnson, B.; Crow, M.; Arsoy, A.; Liu, Y. Energy storage systems for advanced

690

power applications. Proceedings of IEEE. 2001, 89 (12), 1744-1756; DOI 10.1109/5.975900.



Page 36 of 41

691

[45] Hadjipaschalis, I.; Poullikkas, A.; Efthimiou, V. Overview of current and future energy

692

storage technologies for electric power applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

693

Reviews. 2009, 13 (6-7), 1513-1522; DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.028.

694

[46] Wang, J.; Purewal, J.; Liu, P.; Hicks-Garner, J.; Soukazian, S.; Sherman, E.; Sorenson, A.;

695

Vu, L.; Tataria, H.; Verbrugge, M. Degradation of lithium ion batteries employing graphite

696

negatives and nickel-cobal-manganese oxide + spinel manganese oxide positives: Part 1, aging

697

mechanisms and life estimation. Journal of Power Sources. 2014, 269, 937-948; DOI

698

10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.07.030.

699

[47] Achieving operational excellence; http://www.neces.com/products-

700

services/services/service-and-maintenance-programs/.

701

[48] Storage battery maintenance and principles; Facilities instructions, standards, and

702

techniques, vol. 3-6; U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation: Denver, CO, 1998.

703

[49] Operation and Maintenance Experiences of pumped-storage plants; EPRI GS-7325;

704

Electric Power Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1991;

705

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=GS-7325.

706

[50] Kim, H. C.; Keoleian, G. A.; Horie, Y. A. Optimal household refrigerator replacement

707

policy for life cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost. Energy Policy. 2006, 34 (15),

708

2310-2323; DOI doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.04.004.

709

[51] Nieto, N.; Díaz, L.; Gastelurrutia, J.; Blanco, F.; Ramos, J.; Rivas, A. Novel thermal

710

management system design methodology for power lithium-ion battery. Journal of Power

711

Sources. 2014, 272, 291-302; DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.07.169.


Page 37 of 41


712

[52] Rao, Z.; Wang, S. A review of power battery thermal energy management. Renewable and

713

Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011, 15, 4554-4571; DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.096.

714

[53] Kemp, D. The Environment Dictionary; Routledge: London,1998.

715

[54] Chen, H.; Armand, M.; Demailly, G.; Dolhem, F.; Poizot, P.; Tarascon, M. From biomass to

716

a renewable LixC6O6 organic electrode for sustainable Li-ion batteries. ChemSusChem.

717

2008,1(4), 348-355; DOI 10.1002/cssc.200700161.

718

[55] Xu, G.; Han, J.; Ding, B.; Nie, P.; Pan, J.; Dou, H.; Li, H.; Zhang, X. Biomass-derived

719

porous carbon materials with sulfur and nitrogen dual-doping for energy storage. Green

720

Chemistry. 2015, 17 (3), 1668-1674; DOI 10.1039/C4GC02185A.

721

[56] Huskinson, B.; Marshak, M. P.; Suh, Cha; Er, S.; Gerhardt, M. R.; Galvin, C. J.; Chen, X.;

722

Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Gordon, R. G.; Aziz, M. J. A metal-free organic-inorganic aqueous flow

723

battery. Nature. 2014, 505 (7482), 195-198; DOI doi:10.1038/nature12909.

724

[57] Bergesen, J.; Heath, G.; Gibon, T.; Suh, S. Thin-film photovoltaic power generation offers

725

decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing environmental co-benefits in the long term.

726

Environmental science & technology. 2014, 48 (16), 9834-9843; DOI 10.1021/es405539z.

727

[58] Securing materials for emerging technology; America Physical Society: Washington, DC,

728

USA, 2010; http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/elementsreport.pdf.

729

[59] Advanced materials and devices for stationary electrical energy storage applications;

730

Sandia National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: CA, USA, 2010;

731

http://energy.tms.org/docs/pdfs/Advanced_Materials_for_SEES_2010.pdf.



Page 38 of 41

732

[60] Critical Materials Strategy; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, D.C., USA, 2011;

733

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf.

734

[61] Houari, Y.; Speirs, J.; Candelise, C.; Gross, R. A system dynamics model of tellurium

735

availability for CdTe PV. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications. 2014. 22 (1),

736

129-146; DOI 10.1002/pip.2359.

737

[62] Graedel, T. E.; Harper, E. M.; Nassar, N. T.; Nuss, P.; Reck, B. K. Criticality of metals and

738

metalloids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America. 2015,

739

112 (14), 4257-4262, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1500415112.

740

[63] The Role of the Chemical Sciences in Finding Alternatives to Critical Resources, A

741

workshop summary; Chemical Sciences Roundtable; National Research Council: Washington,

742

DC, USA, 2012; DOI 10.17226/13366.

743

[64] Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Bigio, D.; Wang, C. Lithium–tellurium batteries based

744

on tellurium/porous carbon composite. Journal of Material Chemistry A. 2014, 2 (31), 12201-

745

12207; DOI 10.1039/C4TA02075H.

746

[65] Bradwell, D.; Kim, H.; Sirk, A.; Sadoway, D. Magnesium-antimony liquid metal battery for

747

stationary energy storage. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2012, 134 (4), 1895-1897;

748

DOI 10.1021/ja209759s.

749

[66] Energy storage safety strategic plan; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, D.C., USA,

750

2014;

751

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/12/f19/OE%20Safety%20Strategic%20Plan%20Decembe

752

r%202014.pdf.


Page 39 of 41


753

[67] Potential hazards of compressed air energy storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs;

754

SAND2011-5930; Sandia National Laboratory: Livermore, CA, USA, 2011;

755

http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2011/115930.pdf.

756

[68] Baker, J. New technology and possible advances in energy storage. Energy Policy. 2008, 36,

757

4368-4373; DOI 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.040.

758

[69] Vazquez, S.; Lukic, S.; Galvan, E.; Franquelo, L.; Carrasco, J. Energy Storage Systems for

759

Transport and Grid Applications. IEEE Transaction on Industrial Electronics. 2010, 57 (12),

760

3881-3895; DOI 10.1109/TIE.2010.2076414.

761

[70] Ribiere, P.; Grugeon, S.; Morcrette, M.; Boyanov, S; Laruelle, S.; Marlair, G. Investigation

762

on the fire-induced hazards of Li-ion battery cells by fire calorimetry. Energy and Environmental

763

Science. 2012,5 (1), 5271-5280, DOI 10.1039/C1EE02218K.

764

[71] Toxicity Assessment; http://www2.epa.gov/region8/hh-toxicity-assessment.

765

[72] Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment; EPA/630/P-03/001F; U.S. Environmental

766

Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2005; http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-

767

09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf.

768

[73] Bernardes, A. M.; Espinosa, D. C. R.; Tenorio, J. A. Recycling of batteries: a review of

769

current processes and technologies. Journal of Power Sources. 2004, 130 (1-2), 291-298, DOI

770

10.1016/j.jpowsour.2003.12.026.

771

[74] Hermann, C.; Raatz, A.; Andrew, S.; Schmitt, J. Scenario-based development of

772

disassembly systems for automotive Lithium Ion battery systems. Advanced Materials Research.

773

2014, 907 (4), 391-401, DOI 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.907.391. 39 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 40 of 41

774

[75] Byrne, J. A. What you need to know about stationary battery recycling. IEEE 34th

775

International Telecommunication Energy Conference.2012, 1-7; DOI

776

10.1109/INTLEC.2012.6374464.

777

[76] Wang, X.; Gaustad, G.; Babbitt, C. W.; Bailey, Ch.; Ganter, M. J.; Landi, B. J. Economic

778

and environmental characterization of evolving Li-ion battery waste stream. Journal of

779

Environmental Management. 2014, 135, 126-134; DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.021.

780

[77] Ganter, M. J.; Landi, B. J.; Babbitt, C. W.; Anctil, A.; Gaustad, G. Cathode

781

refunctionalization as a lithium ion battery recycling alternative. Journal of Power Sources.

782

2014, 256, 274-280, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.01.078.

783

[78] Economic analysis of deploying used batteries in power systems; ORNL/TM-2011/151; Oak

784

Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2011;

785

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/psd/mst/pcm/pdf/Publication%2030540.pdf.

786

[79] Richa, K.; Babbitt, C.; Nenadic, N.; Gaustad, G. Environmental trade-offs across cascading

787

lithium-ion battery life cycles. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2012, 1-16;

788

DOI 10.1007/s11367-015-0942-3.

789

[80] Identifying and overcoming critical barriers to widespread second use of PEV batteries;

790

NREL/TP-5400-63332; National Renewable Energy laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2015;

791

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63332.pdf .

792

[81] Dewulf, J.; Van der Vorst, G.; Denturck, K.; Van Langenhove, H.; Ghyoot, W.; Tytgat, J.;

793

Vandeputte, K. Recycling rechargeable lithium ion batteries: Critical analysis of natural resource


Page 41 of 41


794

savings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2010, 54 (4), 229-234; DOI

795

10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.004.

796

[82] Rudolph, S.; Schröder, U.; Bayanov, I.; Hage, D. Measurement, simulation and in situ

797

regeneration of energy efficiency in vanadium redox flow battery. Journal of Electoanalytical of

798

Chemistry. 2014, 724, 72-80; DOI 10.1016/j.jelechem.2014.05.033.

799

[83] Sun, B.; Skyllas-Kazacos, M. Chemical modification of graphite electrode materials for

800

vanadium redox flow battery application-Part II. Electrochimica Acta. 1992, 37 (13), 2459-2465;

801

DOI 10.1016/0013-4686(92)87084-D.

802


Twelve Principles for Green Energy Storage in Grid Applications

Recommend Documents