The United States may be in for another resource boom.  Data from researchers at the University of Wyoming suggests that brines in the Rock Springs Uplift in that state could contain 228,000 tons of lithium.

It’s easy to forget how reliant we are on natural resources, such as lithium, for our clean technologies.  We typically think of natural resources in concert with energy ‑ it’s hard to forget that natural gas, oil, and coal are natural resources since we literally drill and mine them out of the ground.

However, new energy technologies are also reliant on natural resources.  Certain metals are key components in clean energy technologies.

For instance, fuel cells are reliant on platinum and platinum group metals (found primarily in South Africa and Russia).  Lithium ion batteries require lithium (found primarily in China, Bolivia, and perhaps now the United States).  Rare earth metals are used in smartphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and oil refining.  China famously – or infamously – instituted an informal ban on exports of rare earth metals.

Blood and Treasure

The reliance on these natural resources is frequently cited as a downside of new energy technologies.  The distribution of these metals is inequitable, and demand for them creates an inherent risk to changing the energy paradigm and adopting new energy technologies.

Why risk a conflict over rare earth metals, when we have the means to keep drilling for gas?

For one thing, we alredy risk conflict daily – and spend piles of money – to develop fossil fuel resources.  In the United States, we’ve had a century and a half to perfect the science and engineering behind finding, exploiting, and delivering petroleum resources.  In contrast, it’s still early days for new energy technologies.  As these metals become more desirable and valuable, more treasure ‑ and, likely, blood ‑ will go toward exploration and production of these elements.

By way of example, in 2011, Total’s exploration budget was $2.1 billion (independent of production).   Petrobras recently announced that it would spend $236 billion over the next 5 years on oil exploration and production.  In 2013, PEMEX, Mexico’s state oil monopoly plans to spend $19.98 billion on exploration and production.  Chevron’s budget for exploration and production in 2013 is $33.03 billion.

The magnitude of these investments far outweighs that for exploitation of lithium, rare earth elements, and other resources required for new energy technologies.  Needless to say, if there’s a run on lithium for EV lithium ion battery packs – it’s likely a forward-thinking miner or two who will put some resources to finding more.

The Washington, D.C. area’s bike share program – Capital Bikeshare – is frequently cited as one of the best in the country.  This is a minor claim to fame, considering that programs in Canada and Europe are far more developed than ones in the United States.  However, it’s refreshing for the nation’s capital to be cited as a leader in urban planning, since it’s frequently in the news for less desirable reasons.

Since Washington is actually a small city, the Bikeshare program has grown through partnerships with neighboring municipalities.  With a population of about 600,000 within the city limits, Capital Bikeshare would struggle without the participation of three neighboring jurisdictions: the city of Alexandria, Virginia’s Arlington County, and Montgomery County in Maryland.  Capital Bikeshare continues to work to enlarge the service area and broaden its appeal, which helps secure its position in D.C.’s transportation network – unlike SmartBike, a similar service in the District that finally failed in 2011.

Battery Powered

Capital Bikeshare doesn’t specify what type of battery is used in its stations, just that the stations need at least 4 hours of sunlight to charge each station’s “solar battery.”  These batteries, together with the solar PV at each station, are used to power the locking and release mechanisms that secure the bikes, as well as the computerized system that allows users to rent bikes.  In all likelihood, the battery in each station is something like the “solar” series of lead-acid batteries from East Penn.

Capital Bikeshare has over 175 stations in the D.C. metro area.  Bixi, the company that manufactures the bikes and the stations, also operates in Montreal (the original pilot project launched in 2008), Toronto, Boston, Pittsburgh, and New York.  All told, Bixi likely has between 1,100 and 1,400 stations in operation.  If all these follow the same formula as the stations in D.C., that’s up to 1,400 battery storage installations in urban centers across North America.

Other cities with successful bikesharing programs include Barcelona (420 stations), London (570+ stations), and Paris (estimates range between 1,200 and 1,450 stations).  Of the non-Bixi programs, it isn’t clear which use solar (and consequently batteries) to power stations.

This isn’t to say that integrating small solar PV for bikesharing stations will be the next big market for energy storage.  However, anything that helps consumers to understand what storage can do for solar PV (and vice versa) – even at bikesharing stations – will eventually help those same consumers understand the benefits of storage in their homes, businesses, and transportation networks.

Pike Research tracks seven major market segments for the energy storage industry, ranging from well-understood and mature markets such as bulk storage to new and relatively undeveloped markets such as residential energy storage.  The three most successful markets are bulk storage, non-UPS applications for commercial buildings, and ancillary services.

The leading market segment by far is bulk storage, which is largely made up of the 160 traditional pumped storage installations that all provide load-leveling and peak-shifting services.   Bulk storage is the most technologically diverse market segment, with as many as 13 technologies represented.  Although the remaining six market segments (including ancillary services, commercial buildings, community storage, microgrids, and remote systems) will undoubtedly grow over the next several years, the fundamental issue that storage addresses is matching electricity supply with demand – exactly what bulk storage does.

This need is unlikely to change over time.  Bulk storage is here to stay.

The commercial buildings market (for non-UPS applications) is the next most active market segment, reflecting demand for energy cost management solutions from commercial and industrial customers.   This market primarily draws on thermal storage (CALMAC, Baltimore Aircoil, Cryogel, FAFCO, and Ice Energy) and NaS batteries (NGK Insulators).  Thermal storage is excluded from the chart as this is a technology that is commercial, mature, and grossly underreported.  Again, the problem that is being solved by non-UPS commercial storage is matching electricity supply with demand.  Although in this case, the party with the demand for electricity is seeking the solution.

The ancillary services market segment is a nascent market segment for the energy storage industry.   It includes diverse applications that either maintain the quality of energy on the grid or act as a reserve or backup for the grid.  Ancillary services address the problems of reliability and power quality but are one step removed from aligning supply and demand.   Growth in this segment reflects three key trends: increased volatility in load and generation, liberalization of market structures and utility attitudes, and a higher opportunity cost for delivering ancillary services using thermal generation assets such as coal and gas power plants.   In terms of technologies, as many as seven technologies totaling 207 MW were delivering ancillary services to the grid globally as of 4Q 2012.

Deployed Installations by Market Segment and Technology, World Markets: 4Q 2012

(Source: Pike Research)

In London a few weeks ago I spotted a hydrogen fuel cell bus in London.  Once the shock of seeing a fuel cell vehicle on the road wore off, and I stopped waving enthusiastically at the driver, other changes became apparent.

Level 1 and 2 charging points (free parking, anyone?) and bike sharing stations also figure in the London transport mix.  These options make the most sense in central London, where the congestion charge provides a financial incentive to avoid polluting the city center.

It might seem surprising that London is so actively pursuing electrified transportation, considering that energy efficiency, particularly in buildings, is the low-hanging fruit when it comes to meeting EU energy targets in the United Kingdom.  Building stock in the United Kingdom is frequently cited as being older and less efficient than, say, German building stock.  Part of this is a holdover from when energy prices were low, thanks to Scottish oil and gas.  London has been making efforts to transform the city’s buildings, but those efforts are largely invisible.

In contrast, changes to transport are highly visible, have more direct impact on air quality, and frequently engender strong opinions.  Like the weather and politics, transportation is one of those subjects on which everyone has a strong opinion.  Views on energy-efficient light bulbs tend to be less visceral.

Demonstrations like the fuel-cell bus I spotted, in London and other major cities, allow cities to learn what strategies and technologies make the most sense for their constituents, and provide other municipalities with examples, some positive and some negative, of how to integrate cleantech into the urban fabric.  World cities, the alpha consumers of smart cities technology, are arguably more meaningful for the market than, say, isolated demonstrations in the desert.  Urban managers in big cities must manage the daily challenges of running a city under serious budget constraints, while reconciling competing interests.  They’re the proving ground for cleantech.

Macro trends aside, in a city where buses and cyclist share a lane, I was most excited at the prospect of cycling behind buses that emit steam instead of exhaust.