4.8 Article

Emissions and Economics of Behind-the-Meter Electricity Storage

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 1094-1101

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03536

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center
  2. Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE)
  3. National Science Foundation [ACI-1053575]
  4. Carnegie Mellon Climate and Energy Decision Making Center (CEDM) [SES-0949710]
  5. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  6. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1463492] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Annual installations of behind-the-meter (BTM) electric storage capacity are forecast to eclipse grid-side electrochemical storage by the end of the decade. Here, we characterize the economic payoff and regional emission consequences of BTM storage without colocated generation under different tariff conditions, battery characteristics, and ownership scenarios using metered loads for several hundred commercial and industrial customers. Net emissions are calculated as increased system emissions from charging minus avoided emissions from discharging. Net CO2 emissions range from 7S to 270 kg/MWh of delivered energy depending on location and ownership perspective, though in New York, these emissions can be reduced with careful tariff design. Net NOx emissions range from -0.13 to 0.24 kg/MWh, and net SO2 emissions range from 0.01 to 0.58 kg/MWh. Emission rates are driven primarily by energy losses, not by the difference between marginal emission rates during battery charging and discharging. Economics are favorable for many buildings in regions with high demand charges like California and New York, even without subsidies. Future penetration into regions with average charges like Pennsylvania will depend greatly on installation cost reductions and wholesale prices for ancillary services.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available