This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


EnerVault Nears Completion of Its First Commercial-Scale Flow Battery

Founded in 2008, California-based storage startup EnerVault has remained relatively quiet on its progress. 

The flow battery market is, after all, defined more by grandiose claims from companies than by commercial projects in the ground.

But with $24.5 million in funding and an executive team hailing from SunPower, Tesla, and a range of battery, power plant engineering and fuel cell companies, EnerVault is now going public with its performance expectations.

“We’ve been particularly quiet about achievements,” said Jim Pape, EnerVault’s CEO and former president of residential and commercial solar at SunPower. “Part of that is our investors; part of that is that we don’t want to put out statements we have to later jump over.”

Here’s a bold statement that EnerVault is now ready to make: The capital cost of its first commercial project, a 1-megawatt-hour system completing construction this week, will get the company close to beating DOE’s cost targets (PDF) for commercial-scale redox flow batteries.

That “magic number” for capital cost is $250 per kilowatt-hour and a levelized cost of energy at $0.20 per kilowatt-hour. Jim Pape and EnerVault Chief Strategy Officer Craig Horne didn’t provide specific data, but said the capital costs for current bids would be “well below” DOE’s targets and their systems will “compete on an LCOE basis” with peaking natural gas plants in California.

The current project, located in Turlock, California, will provide 250 kilowatts of power for four hours to Pacific Gas & Electric. It was supported by the DOE’s storage demonstration program under the stimulus package, which provided $4.7 million in assistance. The flow battery will be co-located with a PV system and a water pump.

A storage tank is installed at EnerVault’s first commercial site in Turlock, California. Image credit: EnerVault

Flow batteries convert chemical energy into electricity by pumping electrolytes through a stack of electrochemical cells. EnerVault’s “Engineered Cascade” technology arranges the stacks in a series of stages optimized to the electrolytes’ state of charge, which the company says better utilizes the electrolytes by operating in a broader state-of-charge range. The initial commercial systems are expected to be more than 60 percent round-trip efficient, all losses included.

That’s significantly lower than lithium-ion batteries, which offer efficiencies above 80 percent. Two of EnerVault’s competitors developing aqueous-based electrolyte storage, Eos and Aquion Energy, claim 75 percent and 85 percent efficiencies, respectively.

EnerVault’s flow battery technology uses iron-chromium electrolytes. Horne said the chemistry is safer and less acidic than vanadium (“you can spill it on your hand and it’s a mild irritant”) and less expensive than other chemistries being developed (“they are universally abundant elements”).

However, reliability can be an issue due to the pumping systems needed to circulate electrolytes. That’s why leading storage developer AES, a company open to a variety of technologies, says it prefers “sealed batteries” like lithium-ion and is still skeptical about new battery companies that don’t have a “track record and balance sheet.”

Horne said EnerVault’s hydraulic pumping system will last “several thousand hours” and could be replaced within a matter of hours. He also said the low chemical aggressiveness of iron chromium will improve the lifespan of the battery. But that will only be proven when the Turlock project is commissioned and has been operating long enough to test those projections.

For the last year and a half, EnerVault has been running a 30-kilowatt demonstration system in its laboratory. Pape said the project was coming “within a few percent” of forecasted performance, giving the team confidence in its commercial project. 

“We continue to match our models. We’re really on the right track and we’re going to be well below the DOE target” for cost, he said. “We see ourselves as an equivalent to a combustion turbine.”

EnerVault’s investor set includes materials company 3M and French oil & gas major Total, which Pape said have provided important technical and strategic advice for deployment. 

Because of lower efficiencies, toxicity concerns and reliability issues, flow batteries are still a very small portion of the storage mix, however.

According to the Department of Energy’s global energy storage database, there are 24.6 gigawatts of total storage projects in operation around the U.S. There are 28.8 megawatts of flow batteries in the U.S. pipeline — but only 950 kilowatts in actual operation. Around the world, there are only 13 megawatts of flow batteries in operation.

While deployment is limited, flow batteries do offer longer, more consistent energy delivery — a reason why startups and project developers are still attracted to the technology.

Utilities with a high sensitivity to technology risk may not be as enthusiastic. But Pape said the storage procurement process is becoming more favorable for flow batteries. Southern California Edison’s recent 50-megawatt storage target includes technologies that can provide four hours of service, for example.

“A procurement system aligned with long-duration storage is a golden opportunity,” he said. That sets the technology apart from lithium-ion, which companies with competing technologies say is better suited for frequency regulation and spinning reserve.

At 250 kilowatts of capacity, EnerVault’s first commercial project is significantly smaller than some of the biggest vanadium flow batteries in operation today. But it’s the biggest iron-chromium flow battery in the world “by a factor of ten” in energy delivery, said Horne.

In an industry with limited commercial deployment and field testing, EnerVault’s flow battery will be another step toward better understanding the cost, reliability and energy delivery capabilities of the technology.

greentech mediaGreentech Media (GTM) produces industry-leading news, research, and conferences in the business-to-business greentech market. Our coverage areas include solar, smart grid, energy efficiency, wind, and other non-incumbent energy markets. For more information, visit: , follow us on twitter: @greentechmedia, or like us on Facebook:

Stephen Lacey's picture

Thank Stephen for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jan 11, 2014 7:32 pm GMT

Stephen, EnerVault’s “we see ourselves as an equivalent to a combustion turbine” delusion is a classic example of the reality distortion field which swirls around renewable energy, prompting otherwise-sensible people to abandon physics for fear of missing out on their version of the Rapture, or DOE funding, or both.

Batteries will never be equivalent to dispatchable generation, because when they run out of energy they become $multi-million boat anchors.

This battery, in particular, is not competitive on price and it’s not “commercial scale”. For comparison, Walnut Creek Energy Park in Industry, CA is a brand new state-of-the-art gas peaker built by SoCal Edison. Its capacity is 500MW, meaning EnerVault’s 1MWh battery, attempting to perform the same function, would last 7.2 seconds before having to be recharged by solar, or wind, or Walnut Creek Energy Park.

Can’t we just skip the battery?

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Jan 11, 2014 10:52 pm GMT

Can’t we just skip the battery?

No, we desparately need utility-scale exerience with batteries.  The battery cost and technology viability is a very important part of solar cost and viability.  Without batteries (and desert climates), solar PV is just a way to lock-in fossil fuel backup.

One might think a paper study (e.g. with a “goal” like $0.20/kWh) would be enough to show that solar+batteries is not cost competitive compared to nuclear, but proponents need only publish their own papers showing a declining cost curve due to the “learning effect”.  When faced with the dilema of whose projections to believe, it turns out that the public (with its boundless technology optimism) would rather spend tax dollars on actual large-scale demonstrations.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »