The Influence of Regional Geophysical Resource Variability on the Value of Single- and Multistorage Technology Portfolios

Describing the model parametrization, costs, and presenting additional results; electricity sources, sinks, and storage technologies within the macroscale energy model (Figure S1); base case costs and efficiencies assumed for the short-, mid-, and long-duration storage technologies considered in this study (Figure S2); base case energy- and power-capacity total overnight costs of energy storage technologies modeled, where Li-ion total costs are shown as a dashed line (Figure S3); CONUS system costs for combinations of short-, mid-, and long-duration storage using predicted wind and solar costs for the year 2050 (Figure S4); if the cost of Li-ion batteries were much lower than current costs, deployment of Li-ion batteries would be much more effective for reducing total system costs, and would replace utilization of two mid-duration storage technologies (gravity energy storage and PSH) as compared to the base case (Figure S5); role of redox-flow battery (RFB) energy storage in CONUS (Figure S6), CAISO (Figure S7), ERCOT (Figure S8), ISO-NE (Figure S9), MISO (Figure S10) systems, role of pumped-storage hydropower (PSH) energy storage in CONUS (Figure S11), CAISO (Figure S12), ERCOT (Figure S13), ISO-NE (Figure S14), MISO (Figure S15) systems, role of gravity energy storage in CONUS (Figure S16), CAISO (Figure S17), ERCOT (Figure S18), ISO-NE (Figure S19), MISO (Figure S20) systems, role of thermal energy storage in CONUS (Figure S21), CAISO (Figure S22), ERCOT (Figure S23), ISO-NE (Figure S24), MISO (Figure S25) systems, role of compressed-air energy storage (CAES) in CONUS (Figure S26), CAISO (Figure S27), ERCOT (Figure S28), ISO-NE (Figure S29), MISO (Figure S30) systems, and role of metal–air battery energy storage in CONUS (Figure S31), CAISO (Figure S32), ERCOT (Figure S33), ISO-NE (Figure S34), MISO (Figure S35) systems with different combinations of short-, mid-, and long-duration storage; roles of storage technologies in least-cost CONUS systems with up to two storage options available (Figures S36 and S38); Figure 6 with the x-axes zoomed in to energy-capacity costs (Figure S37); storage technologies present in least-cost regional ISO systems and system cost reductions in systems with up to two storage options available (Figures S39 and S40); energy in storage over one year when hydrogen energy storage is the only storage technology available in a least-cost CONUS electricity system that relies on wind and solar generation (Figure S41); storage technologies present in least-cost CONUS systems and system cost reductions in systems with up to three storage options available (Figures S42 and S43); analogous plot to Figure S42 (Figure S44); the value of short-duration storage (Figure S45); when firm generators were available, the storage capacity required in least-cost systems decreased substantially (Figure S46); energy-capacity costs and power-capacity costs of energy storage technologies (Table S1); regional average wind and solar capacity factors for 2018 (Table S2); costs and assumptions for generation technologies (Table S3); base case costs and assumptions for storage technologies (Table S4); optimized discharge times (hours) (Table S5); equivalent annual discharge cycles (Table S6); least-cost system results when various single storage technologies are available (Table S7); least-cost system results when two storage technologies were available (Tables S8 and S9); least-cost system results when three storage technologies were available (Table S10); model nomenclature (Table S11) (PDF)