DOE OSTI2021
Arbitrage is the opportunistic buying and selling of a commodity during local pricing valleys and peaks respectively to maximize economic value. This report evaluates options for energy arbitrage integrated with existing light water reactor (LWR) nuclear power plants (NPPs) where nuclear energy could be stored in a variety of forms and later recovered to generate electrical power during periods when grid electricity demand and pricing are high. The forms of energy storage examined in this report include the potential value of batteries, hydrogen, and thermal energy storage for coupling with nuclear power. Various large demand response options are also analyzed, including the production of liquid nitrogen via air separation and liquefaction, liquefaction of hydrogen, compressed hydrogen, and the cryogenic capture of CO2. Demand response refers to dispatchable loads that can cycle up or down depending on-grid electricity demand to aid in balancing the grid. Large demand response options could dispatch to aid nuclear power stations in avoiding power turndowns by providing an alternate disposition for electrical energy by producing marketable products (e.g., liquid nitrogen, hydrogen, or captured CO2). Static conditions were chosen and analyzed in this report for each option. Dynamic operation or optimization of energy arbitrage or demand response are out of scope for this report. The analysis is based on storage systems with discharge capacities of 500 MW for which various durations of storage and costs of charging (electricity cost) are examined. While the value of thermal energy to an industrial user for flexible plant operations has been previously proven as a business case, this report evaluates costs of hydrogen energy storage and leading thermal energy storage options, and large demand response loads that could be integrated with LWRs in comparison to utility-scale battery storage for use of off-peak nuclear energy. Compilation of this information will be used by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) RAVEN/HERON systems integration and economics tool to evaluate thermal energy dispatch to industrial users. Relative ranking of energy storage options was done using a levelized cost of storage (LCOS) metric which calculates a rough breakeven cost for the system, taking into account the capital and operating costs as well as the revenue from arbitrage. Table ES1 below shows the LCOS for each of the energy storage options considered. First, in the table, lithium iron (Fe) phosphate batteries are listed as the base case for comparison against the other options. Next is hydrogen storage where most of the hydrogen analyses assumed the hydrogen to be produced using solid oxide electrolytic cell (SOEC) high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE). The others used existing models of polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) low temperature electrolysis to produce hydrogen. HTSE performance parameters and costs were taken from existing INL models. Various means were assumed to convert the hydrogen to electricity, including PEM fuel cells (FCs) and a gas turbine mixed in a 30 vol% mixture with natural gas. Physical storage (pressure vessels) and geological storage (natural underground features) were used to store the hydrogen as noted. Geological storage is more economical, but the locations are limited because of the requirement for pre-existing geological formations that will support storage. Thermal energy storage (TES) options were also analyzed including electro-thermal energy storage (ETES) and four different liquid sensible heat TES storage media as noted (Hitec, Hitec XL, Therminol-66, and Dowtherm A). The ETES process considered was modified using existing public documentation on an Echogen process and uses a separate supercritical CO2 charge and discharge cycle with sand as the heat storage media.