A Shockingly Inept Report From The IEA On Battery Storage Of Energy

In my self-designated role critiquing various schemes for total transformation of the world energy system, I get to review large amounts of poor, shoddy, and incompetent work. When people get into advocating for this “energy transition,” the stars regularly align to bring forth the most extreme levels of ineptitude. Start with the fact that the “smartest” people are filled with arrogance and hubris, but are not actually very smart. Add that many innumerate Politics and English majors have flooded into a field that cries out for engineering calculations. Add too that groupthink and orthodoxy enforcement prevent anyone from pointing out obvious flaws. And then throw in a strong dose of religious zealotry that obstructs the intrusion of anything resembling critical thinking. All in all, it’s a prescription for catastrophe.

But in a field rife with bad, worse, still worse, and even dangerously incompetent work, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything as shockingly inept as the Report just out from the International Energy Agency with the title “Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions.” The Report has a date only specified to the month of “April 2024,” but the press release came out just two days ago on April 25.

If I had been given the assignment by the North Koreans to write the Report to somehow induce the West to self-destruct, I don’t know how I would have done it differently.

Are you familiar with the International Energy Agency? It is not part of the UN, but rather a separate consortium currently of some 40+ countries, mostly Western and mostly rich, founded in the wake of the oil shocks of the 1970s with a then-goal of promoting energy security. It is based, of course, in Paris. The current (and since 2015) head is a guy named Fatih Barol. Here is a picture of Barol from Wikipedia:

Somewhere along the line the IEA completely lost track of the energy security mission, and turned into an unabashed advocate for the green energy transition. That’s where they are today.

I don’t know how many people work at the IEA, but it seems like most to all of them got in on writing this Report. On page 5 there is a list of some 35 “directors,” “lead authors,” and “principal authors” from among IEA employees, plus another 4 who provided “support,” and then, on pages 6 to 8, some 89 people said to be “high-level government representatives and international experts from outside of the IEA” who somehow “contributed to the process.” From the content of the Report, one has to wonder if any of these people ever completed the study of arithmetic at the sixth-grade level, let alone if any have read any of the important work in this area.

The thesis of the Report is that batteries, and particularly lithium ion batteries, are the key to the impending energy transition, and need to be scaled up massively and immediately with whatever amount of government subsidies and handouts that it takes. Here are a few quotes from the press release:

After their deployment in the power sector more than doubled last year, batteries need to lead a sixfold increase in global energy storage to enable the world to meet 2030 targets. . . . In the first comprehensive analysis of the entire battery ecosystem, the IEA’s Special Report on Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions sets out the role that batteries can play alongside renewables as a competitive, secure and sustainable alternative to electricity generation from fossil fuels. . . . IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol [said,] “Batteries will provide the foundations in both areas, playing an invaluable role in scaling up renewables and electrifying transport while delivering secure and sustainable energy for businesses and households.

I suppose it would be too much for me to expect these grandees to have read my energy storage report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation in December 2022. But if you are claiming that you have at hand a “competitive, secure and sustainable alternative to electricity generation from fossil fuels,” as these guys are, there is a series of very obvious question that must be addressed. Those include:

- Quantitatively, how much energy storage, in watt-hours (or gigawatt-hours) will be necessary to provide full back-up to a national electricity grid once all fossil fuel back-up has been banished and the storage is all that is available when the instantaneous generators are not supplying the full demand?

- What is the maximum length of time that energy must be held in storage before it is called upon, and is the proposed storage technology capable of the task of storing energy for that period of time?

There are other comparably important questions, but at least those are absolutely essential.

What we get instead is endless happy talk about the wonders of lithium ion battery technology, how the costs are falling rapidly, how deployments are soaring, and how utopia (i.e., meeting UN COP 28 emissions reduction targets) is right around the corner if only we accelerate the process with massive government “support.” The full Report is some 159 pages (with appendices and references), so I can only give you a small sample. But here are a few choice quotes from the Executive Summary:

- From page 11: “Batteries are an essential part of the global energy system today and the fastest growing energy technology on the market. Battery storage in the power sector was the fastest growing energy technology in 2023 that was commercially available, with deployment more than doubling year-on-year.”

- Also from page 11: “Lithium-ion batteries dominate battery use due to recent cost reductions and performance improvements. Lithium-ion batteries have outclassed alternatives over the last decade, thanks to 90% cost reductions since 2010, higher energy densities and longer lifetimes.”

- From page 12: “Policy support has given a boost for batteries deployment in many markets but the supply chain for batteries is very concentrated. Strong government support for the rollout of EVs and incentives for battery storage are expanding markets for batteries around the world.” [For the obtuse among the readership, “policy support” is code for vast subsidies and handouts.]

- More from page 12: “Batteries are key to the transition away from fossil fuels and accelerate the pace of energy efficiency through electrification and greater use of renewables in power.”

- Still on page 12: “To triple global renewable energy capacity by 2030 while maintaining electricity security, energy storage needs to increase six-times. To facilitate the rapid uptake of new solar PV and wind, global energy storage capacity increases to 1 500 GW by 2030 in the NZE Scenario, which meets the Paris Agreement target of limiting global average temperature increases to 1.5°C or less in 2100. Battery storage delivers 90% of that growth, rising 14-fold to 1200 GW by 2030.”

Check out that last bullet point. Yes, they are so dumb that they discuss energy storage capacity in GW rather than GWh. How did they come up with the line that to reach their goals “energy storage needs to increase six-times” when they don’t even know the right units to do the calculations? You won’t find an answer in this Report. In my own energy storage report, I calculated that to reach a zero-emissions electricity sector that could get through a year without fossil fuel back-up would require increasing energy storage by something around 10,000 times. I used the correct units and showed how my calculations were done.

And how about the question of the length of time that energy must remain in storage to back-up a wind/solar powered grid, and whether the proposed technology is up to the task? In my own report, which only considered scenarios of getting through a single year, I showed that much of the stored energy would need to be held for 6 - 12 months before use. In a further blog post on September 28, 2023, I covered a new report then out from the UK’s Royal Society (described by me as “semi-competent”), which used 37 years of data. Based on the 37 years of data, that report concluded that hundreds of hours worth of grid peak usage would need to be held in storage for multiple decades in order to get through worst-case sun and wind droughts. I had this quote from the Executive Summary of the Royal Society report:

Wind supply can vary over time scales of decades and tens of TWhs of very long-duration storage will be needed. The scale is over 1000 times that currently provided by pumped hydro in the UK, and far more than could conceivably be provided by conventional batteries.

(Emphasis mine.). I’m ready to forgive these IEA guys for not being familiar with my own report, but not for complete ignorance of the Royal Society’s effort.

The entire discussion that I can find in the IEA Report on the problem of need for massive amounts of very long duration storage consists of a chart and one paragraph of text on page 47. Here is the chart:

Iron air and other battery technologies that potentially could enable the storage of electricity over longer durations measured in weeks, are still in their infancy. Currently it is not clear whether those technologies can be developed so as to provide what is required in a cost-efficient way. For even longer duration storage, such as seasonal storage, battery technologies are not fit for purpose, and other mechanical, e.g. pumped storage hydro, and chemical, e.g. hydrogen storage, technologies need to be deployed.

So 90 plus percent of the storage needed to back up the intermittently-supplied grid needs to be stored for months and years, but the only battery technologies that can even last for “weeks” are things that are “in their infancy” and where it is “not clear” that they can be provided in a “cost-efficient way.”

Overall, a shockingly inept and embarrassing piece of work from the IEA. Undoubtedly our government will react by piling forth a few more hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize batteries to do a job for which they are completely “unsuitable.”

If we are to reach the lofty goals of windmill and solar farm driven energy sufficiency by 2030 or 2050 or whenever, battery storage of sufficient size to at least power a small city for days or weeks would have to be at least in a demonstration mode to show the feasibility of battery back supported grid. So far we haven’t seen anything bigger than Musk’s huge battery farms that supposedly could provide an hour or two of backup to the grid. In Australia one of these battery farms caught fire and burned for three days before being contained. The current capacity and reliability of the best battery technology is far from meeting these lofty goals in the even not too distant future.

“If we get to that point it is going to be mass starvation.

If we can’t get food to markets, and people don’t have money to buy that food, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I don’t think that is hyperbolic. People don’t realize how close we are to that in this country of 330 million people. They won’t be able to grow food.

Personal electricity consumption is going to be the least of anyone’s worries. It is going to be food and potable water.”

Yep, exactly right. This is where we are headed very soon and everyone is going to get caught with their pants down.

And Chikensoup, to answer your question we should be worried, we should be discussing this reality. But there are two problems. One half this country believe the lies about how a perfect utopia is being created, and the other half still insist “It will never happen here” like most of this board here.

Both are going to get caught with their pants down... Right now the folks who are ahead of the game are moving to the RV lifestyle with small scale solar and portable wind power. They will be able to live a better lifestyle than most, and will be able to chase resources as needed.

If one reads that article, and there is little in it that is surprising to me-it is there for all to see.

Everyone wants to kick it down the road.

Next election cycle.

Until their fat income stream disappears.

Until their lives end.

I am hoping my life ends before we see the fruit this insanity is going to bear, but unfortunately, unless I suffer trauma or get an unexpected health issue, I will probably live to see it.

It isn’t that I want to die. It is just that my time left on earth is likely a minor fraction of the life I have been fortunate enough to have lived to this point.

"...They will be able to live a better lifestyle than most, and will be able to chase resources as needed..."

Oops! No gas at the gas stations because it isn't being produced, and the gas can't be transported there because there is no gas for the trucks. And no money to buy the gas when it gets there, unless you have gold or can barter.

I don't know if they are going to be able to chase the resources, though I like the idea.

I am beginning to wish I were more familiar with horses.

“Oops! No gas at the gas stations because it isn’t being produced, and the gas can’t be transported there because there is no gas for the trucks.”

Yes you are right. It will indeed come to that point. But it will get bad for a long time before it gets to that point and you will still fare better than most. When it does come to that point we will be in caveman stage again anyhow. That is when you find a safer place to park with natural resources available for personal survival. You will still have shelter and minimal power at least and won’t have to live in a cave. And the industrius with mechanical knowledge will know how to make the vehicle run such as wood gas. Or even steam power. Just like third world countries there will be no EPA or Government regulations to worry about being enforced anymore anyhow.

Here is the perspective about horses. A small steam engine adapted into a vehicle is still enough power to move it along at 15 miles an hour in low gear. 15 miles an hour is still better than only 20 miles a day for a horse. :)

Here is a vehicle with only a 6.5 horsepower engine and it gets a hundred miles to the gallon. But it doesn’t go fast of course, but it goes...

A small wood fired steam engine could be adapted to do the same thing in any vehicle. I know your capabilities and knowledge so it would be no problem for those like us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSc9CVyje5Y

“...about storage in GW instead of GWh.”

In responding to a thread I did some research regarding the amount of energy from windmills vs. nuclear vs. dams. The windmill output was either in peak MW or “supply X amount of homes”. The nuke and dams was usually in MWh or number of homes.”

I think that is to show wind power in a better light and/or to make direct comparisons difficult. One article I read said that it takes 5 times as much wind power MW to equal the same MW output of a dam. Probably estimating an annual average, factoring in that the wind isn’t blowing all the time?

I think that is to show wind power in a better light and/or to make direct comparisons difficult.

I agree. My solar panel array could be advertised as 20kW and be 100% true -- but you have to factor in that I get an average of 5 peak solar hours per day. So on average I get 100kWh of solar power which is awesome --- as long as:

1. I have need for no more than 20kW to utilize it during the daytime hours (i.e. my home has so many appliances running and lights on at the same time to consume the 20kW of power coming in at high noon),

2) Or have battery storage capacity to store it for later.

Another factor is DC to AC conversion. Because dams and coal plants are always considered part of the grid, they're stated in AC power. With solar it's often stated in DC power to inflate the #'s -- there's a conversion loss they hope you overlook. In my case, there's about 5% to 10% conversion loss when going from the DC power generated by solar to AC power supplied to my home's electrical panels. If I have major appliances running while charging my EV -- the most continuous AC power my inverters can produce is 18kW (anything over that and my inverters have to pull the difference from the grid). When that happens, I'm pulling close to 20kW from solar and/or battery stack (10% loss during the DC to AC conversion). But in reality I'm getting only 18kW of useful power (AC power) that my home needs.

Right, deep cycle batteries are old school. Big heavy thick plates. Automotive start batteries, traditional lead acid or calcium “maintenance free” batteries are constructed differently, with many more thin plates. This increases surface area to allow for greater instantaneous current supply necessary for cold cranking frozen engines. But they will be destroyed in short order if placed into steady drains and deep discharges.

These deep cycle batteries, coming from an automotive guy takes some getting used to. I never let my truck batteries get down to 12.0 volts! I’d have a coronary, that just ain’t done.

Thing with long series strings, each individual cell always has to be on the same sheet of music in terms of temperature, state of charge, internal resistance, age, and preferably lot #’s.

Those 3 year old used batts, 4 12V in series mentioned - means 24 individual cells, without a history I’d not try that. If they were brand new and commissioned correctly it should work. It may be required to boost charge them in pairs, I seem to remember some manufacturers don’t recommend charging that many cells in series, probably for reasons mentioned.

“Those 3 year old used batts, 4 12V in series mentioned - means 24 individual cells, without a history I’d not try that. If they were brand new and commissioned correctly it should work. It may be required to boost charge them in pairs, I seem to remember some manufacturers don’t recommend charging that many cells in series, probably for reasons mentioned.”

Huge problem with batteries hooked up in series is they need to be rotated in the bank pretty regularly. They never charge or discharge at the same rate in that series. More batteries in a series the more often they need to be rotated. 4- 12v in a series would need to be rotated every month to keep from killing two of the four pretty quickly.

This is why when we lived off grid I would only have a 12v parallel system. And... The hookups have to be correct for proper evenly distributed charge/draw on each battery. Even then they still need to be rotated around in the bank every couple months as regular maintenance.

And it has the advantage of being able to hook up your vehicle to the bank and shove some juice in it in an emergency. I made a portable charger with a small 6.5 Hp engine and car alternator that I could use to put some in my bank if needed or jump cars with, and it doubled as a portable DC arc welder. You can only have this redundancy with a 12v system.

“Heh, that guy looked like a critter...”

Yeah they are swamp critters. lol

Those are short, but if you dig around more for that 6.5 hp towtruck there are some others. :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.