Energy Vault

Since 2009, the World has invested over $2.6 trillion in renewable energy across solar, wind, and geothermal assets. Today, clean renewable energy represents 17% to 20%+ of the power mix in the United States and is quickly growing as additional projects are commissioned and coal plants rapidly retire.

As renewable generation proliferates, one would think our reliance on fossil fuels or energy sources with significant negative externalities would materially decrease. But this has not yet happened.

The modern electrical grid was designed many years ago, with the bulk of our existing infrastructure built without an expectation of any shift to renewable energy generation. To simplify, today’s grid has been built to accommodate one-way transfer of energy produced at large single point sources (such as large coal power plants), fed into the network of power lines that transmit energy, ultimately reaching distribution to homes and businesses. This grid expects power generation to be consistent.

Thus, our grid has a big problem with renewable assets: the source of energy is intermittent. This does not mean that the energy generation cannot be predicted — we know that the sun shines during the day and we will get more sun in certain places and during certain parts of the year. It means that the energy generation comes in waves and does not steadily provide energy over a 24/7/365 cycle. In other words, the sun sets. If power has to be used close to the time that it is generated, our electrical grid has times of great power generation by renewables and times of very little.

Both cause problems for our electrical grid. Though renewables produce plenty of energy, we lack control over how much energy is produced by these nature-based generation assets. The result is that we cannot control the assets to avoid over-injecting energy when that energy is not needed (and similarly, cannot ramp up production to produce more energy when needed).

If power that is generated then has to be injected into the grid immediately, the grid must to absorb this power and direct it to customers. If customer demand for this power is low, however, the power is stuck within the grid. This leads to serious problems, including blackouts.

In 2020, California experienced numerous daytime blackouts caused by large rises in demand for energy. Without sufficient storage capacity installed, grid operators are forced to either import more power from other states or intentionally blackout service areas. When there is little demand for power but a high supply of it, generators often lose money.

Human energy usage does not map well with when renewable energy is available. During the sunniest part of the day, most urban environments require only a moderate amount of power. Most metropolitan areas require the most power when people head home from work for the day and households and families convene just as the sun is setting.

When we lack effective methods for accessing energy when we need it most or for harnessing self-generating energy when we don’t need it at all, we can severely harm our electrical grid, our economy, and our life at home.

Given the need for reliable power, baseload power generation sources need to be available around the clock. Unfortunately, the most reliable baseload power sources available today rely on fossil fuels or nuclear energy. To provide control and balance out the inconsistency of renewables, we still rely on coal, natural gas, and some nuclear power generation assets – systems designed to allow human intervention to increase or reduce energy generation as markets and consumers demand – to prevent blackouts.

Therefore, as we’ve pushed towards a world of renewables, we’ve also become more dependent on certain dirty energy sources. So how do we make a truly sustainable and renewable power generation regime? How do we fix the intermittency problem with renewables and make fossil fuel generation extinct?

The solution lies within finding an economical way of storing renewable generated power that can then be injected into the grid on a more predictable and reliable schedule. In practice, this means taking power generated from, for instance, solar farms and capturing it in a storage device rather than immediately releasing the power to the grid. In a world where we are trying to move toward a decarbonized electric economy, we need grid-scale energy storage.

Without storage, we cannot move toward a fully renewable energy generation economy. Beyond a certain point, adding extra renewable capacity is actually harmful due to over-injection issues. Over-generation, and thus over-injection, in times of low demand (and the opposite) create big problems for the grid. If we can store energy that is generated during periods of low demand and repurpose this energy during periods of high-demand and low-generation we then reduce the need for baseload energy. As such, we enable the efficient use of power and eliminate reliance on fossil fuel power generation assets.

Energy storage is a $59bn+ a year industry with over 160 GWhs installed globally. This has increased massively — by 117% from 2019 to 2020 alone — and is projected to grow by 91% through 2035.

Energy storage is not a new concept. For many years, the electrical grids in many countries have used gravity-based storage devices that utilize a highly abundant resource–water–to store and release energy. This solution, called pumped-storage hydropower (or colloquially “pumped hydro”), starts by taking energy that a client wishes to store and using it to pump water from a reservoir at a low altitude upwards to a reservoir at a higher altitude. When energy is needed, the water is then released from the upper reservoir and through a turbine that generates power through its connection to a large motor or generator. As of 2018, pumped hydro accounted for 95% of grid-scale energy storage in the United States.

But there is a problem with pumped hydro. Its topographical requirements restrict where the large systems can be built.

Given the size of the system, environmental groups and local residents often oppose construction plans. Even without opposition, the areas suitable for a pumped hydro asset, which on their own are very few and hyper-specific, tend to be in more rural, less developed areas that are far from existing generation assets and urban centers. Altogether, the environmental restrictions and impact, coupled with the size and related cost of pumped hydro assets, have limited interest in building new assets. In fact, the last pumped hydro asset came online in the US in 2012, with the bulk of our existing assets built in the 1970s. Project overruns around the world stymie future pumped hydro projects.

In addition, pumped hydro systems are simply too big to pair with generation assets. Even if size compatibility were not an issue, renewable assets like solar farms are often prohibitively located hundreds of miles or more from the nearest pumped hydro facility. In the absence of on-site storage alternatives, when a solar farm generates power, it releases this power onto the grid at the interconnect where it is located, at the time the power is generated, at a price determined by supply and demand dynamics at that precise moment. In order to manage fluctuating injection prices and maximize revenue, solar farms, which generate large volumes of electricity at periods of low demand, are therefore incentivized to invest in on-site solutions that allow them to store this energy for injection at periods of high demand when associated injection prices are higher.

Chemical batteries, which currently occupy the second largest market share in energy storage, are one such solution.

With more than 1,200 MWH’s of installed battery storage in the US as of 2018, the battery energy storage market is expected to grow to roughly 20 bn by 2027.The primary battery storage technology is lithium ion, which represented more than 90% of battery storage in the US in 2018. Nickel, sodium, and lead-based batteries also exist, though their use is far less widespread. Some companies are also developing redox flow battery designs, which rely on the flow of two liquids. The cost curve for battery storage has declined 89% from 2010 to 2020, and experts predict continued, yet flattening, reductions moving forward.

But there are drawbacks to chemical batteries. First, they require the extraction of diminishing elemental resources (such as lithium, cobalt, and magnesium) and the vast majority of mining activity occurs in only a handful of countries. These include China, the Democratic Republic of Congo (the DRC), Australia, Chile, and Argentina. And though Australia owned nearly half of global lithium reserves in 2019, the bulk of this output was refined in China, who has also heavily invested in the DRC, which mined over 70% of global cobalt output in 2017. Countries including Russia, Cuba, Australia, and Canada mined the remaining 30%. Now as ever, reliance on highly consolidated, finite resources carries significant geopolitical risk.

Second, chemical batteries degrade very quickly, a process accelerated by frequent use. Most chemical batteries are expected to last no more than 10 to 15 years and grid scale chemical batteries may last only 7 to 10 years. Additionally, chemical batteries pose safety concerns. A massive 2019 Arizona lithium ion battery farm fire, for example, raised questions about the compatibility of chemical battery storage with solar assets in desert environments that provide optimal sunlight conditions for power generation.

Ongoing research has informed the development of chemical battery variations including solid state batteries (using solid key components, enhancing safety), lead-acid batteries, redox flow batteries (leveraging the flow of liquid key components), sodium-sulfur batteries, sodium metal halide batteries, and zinc-hybrid cathode batteries.

These technologies vary across key categories such as performance, cost, resiliency, efficiency, and sustainability. Some utilize cheaper, more common raw materials than lithium ion batteries, but degrade more quickly. Others have a longer operational lifetime, but generally require ongoing maintenance or part replacement. Some demonstrate built-in resiliencies to higher temperatures, while others are housed in climate controlled environments, making them more compatible with warmer climates. Temperature stabilization methods, however, are generally more expensive than other technologies.

Given the limitations of battery storage technologies, certain players in the energy storage industry have begun to focus on new types of batteries or storage devices that are (1) non-chemical; (2) smaller and cheaper than pumped hydro; (3) grid scale; and (4) affordable and efficient. Examples of these technologies include gravitational storage (using the potential energy of gravity to store and generate energy), thermal storage (which stores energy as heat and generates energy by using the heat to create steam to drive a turbine), compressed air storage (storing compressed air and the energy generated from compression), flywheel storage (storing energy by spinning a rotor), cryogenic liquid air storage (cooling air down to a liquid, storing energy as the cooled and pressurized liquid air), and hydrogen storage (using excess power to run electrolysis, creating hydrogen gas to be stored).

While many of these technologies and the companies developing them are promising, most suffer from several, if not all, of the following flaws: (1) the technologies are unproven and still require millions of dollars in R&D investment; (2) the storage devices are not ready to be built for customers; (3) they are not cost competitive with chemical batteries; and (4) the complexity of the designs make it difficult to build at scale, and ever more expensive.

After deeply studying this field and various alternative storage devices, Helena invested in Energy Vault, believing it to be uniquely positioned for success in this sector.
Energy Vault’s designs are proven and ready for market. The units are cost competitive with chemical batteries and easily scalable. What’s more, Energy Vault’s technology leverages waste material remediation to provide additional environmental benefits beyond any other storage technology.

Energy Vault harnesses gravity and the potential energy gravity creates to store energy and release power. The company builds above ground vertical storage devices that are grid scale and long-duration. By lifting and dropping extremely dense mobile masses in coordinated autonomous movement, orchestrated by machine vision technology, Energy Vault can decouple energy from power and store many megawatt hours of power vertically.

Energy Vault’s storage solutions can be easily paired with renewable assets and effectively positioned to replace retiring generation assets. Per company statements, Energy Vault systems “deliver the benefits of a pumped hydro system but at a much lower price, starting size, and without the need for hard to find topography.”

Energy Vault outperforms existing storage solutions – most notably chemical batteries – due to its high efficiency (80% to 90% round trip), lack of system degradation and long operational life. Energy Vault presents a better and more sustainable solution with lower initial capex and levelized cost per kWh price.

System highlights include:

— Up to 40% lower levelized cost of storage versus incumbent storage technologies. Upfront costs and low operating expenses due to automation make Energy Vault cheaper than most existing energy storage solutions.

— Near-unmatched performance. Meaningfully high round-trip efficiency with a 30-year life (vs. batteries around 10-15 year life).

— Power storage longer than most battery solutions without losing much relative charge.

— Does not experience chemical degradation.

Beyond this, the block component of the Energy Vault system utilizes low-cost materials like on-site soil or waste materials and Energy Vault actually conducts significant environmental remediation by sequestering existing waste materials, such as coal ash, within its blocks for beneficial reuse.

Such innovations have allowed the company to reduce costs per unit and maximize environmental impact beyond that of making  renewables a baseload-like power source. And since Energy Vault localizes brick manufacturing, they reduce transportation emissions in the transportation of their building materials.

Helena is particularly excited about Energy Vault as it is one of the only non-chemical energy storage solutions ready to be deployed today. Helena Special Investments has invested in Energy Vault, joining its Board of Directors, and built a strong strategic partnership with the company in its mission to further decarbonize the planet.

Energy Vault’s first grid-scale constructed system is its Commercial Demonstration Unit (CDU).

Built in Lugano, Switzerland, the CDU achieved mechanical completion in July 2020, is connected to the Swiss national utility grid, and is now undergoing final testing and software commissioning.

The structure uses the architecture of Energy Vault’s first generation system, called EV1. A tall single tower with a central crane, EV1 lifts and lowers mobile masses to store and release energy. Specialized software controls the crane, ensuring the optimal descent for each brick.

The multi-phased partnership will commence with feasibility studies aimed at assessing deployment opportunities for EVx technology alongside Enel’s wind power plants.

The company aims to integrate the technology to diversify its already-existing storage solution portfolio, which includes lithium-ion batteries, to address wind’s intermittency.

A critical future phase of the partnership will assess feasibility for the integration of decommissioned turbine blades into the mobile masses used in Energy Vault’s storage systems, providing a circular remediation solution for a first generation of wind power plants nearing the end of their life cycle.

This integration will mark the first application of EVx’s toxic waste remediation capabilities.

The merger combines Energy Vault with Novus Capital Corporation II. Upon closing, the combined company will be named Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.

The transaction is expected to additionally provide up to $388 million in gross cash proceeds to Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. As part of the transaction, Novus II received commitments for a $100 million common stock PIPE, which will be used (among other uses) to fund the combined company’s growth strategy.

Robert Laikin, CEO of Novus Capital, stated: “Energy Vault is bringing an entirely new energy storage solution to the energy market and will lower the costs for utility companies and power producers that are transitioning to renewables but who need to maintain consistent energy supply to deliver dispatchable power.

Their unique approach to addressing the need for dispatchable power delivery through their creation of transformative technologies while reusing waste materials in their process, sets them apart from any other player in the market, and makes them an obvious choice as a partner. We are thrilled to be joining Rob and his team at such a pivotal moment for the company and have every confidence in their ability to capture the rapidly growing energy storage opportunity. Since our IPO in early 2021, we looked at over 100 companies and we found a fantastic company, with a public company ready management team addressing a massive global market need that is underserved with existing solutions today. In our view, Energy Vault is the only grid-scale pure ESG energy storage company that exists in the market today.”