Den här artikeln är automatöversatt.
An article by Bloomberg describes the current dynamics around battery storage – in particular its scaling and the increasing volatility in the energy markets.
A technology boom – driven by increasing storage capacity and falling costs – is also visible, but at the same time a systemic reaction to increasing pressure in the overall system. What the article does not explicitly formulate, but clearly shows, is the underlying shift in the logic of infrastructure investments.
The drivers are known, but now work at the same time:
The problem is therefore no longer production alone, but the ability to bring supply and demand together in time.
Storage addresses exactly this gap – first of all at the system level.
For investors, it becomes interesting when this systemic necessity translates into resilient revenue mechanics.
Development is already well advanced in several markets:
A rapidly growing share of renewable energies meets grids that are not designed for this volatility. This leads to increasing price fluctuations and – in extreme cases – to the shutdown of generation.
At the same time, geopolitical factors are reinforcing this dynamic. Rising gas prices and uncertainties in supply are causing price spreads to widen – and thus also the revenue potential for storage facilities.
On the capacity side, this is visible: The expansion of battery storage systems in Europe is likely to increase significantly in the short term, with an expected jump from around 50 to 75 gigawatts within a year.
This makes Europe a market in which the logic described above can be directly observed: volatility is not a side effect here, but part of the revenue structure.
The figures cited in the article are clear: storage costs have fallen by around 75% since 2018, with further downside potential. This fundamentally changes the role of batteries in the project context. What used to be considered as an additional option is now part of the basic assumption.
Even more remarkable is the speed with which this development is taking place. In Australia, AGL Energy began construction of a large battery storage facility in New South Wales in mid-2024. Just six months later, another project was approved in the same state – at about half the cost per megawatt hour.
In many markets, it is no longer just a question of cost, but of feasibility. Traditional power plant capacities are reaching their limits – not only in terms of regulation, but also in practical terms: supply chains for turbines, approval procedures, grid connections.
This is particularly evident in the USA. Data centers need large amounts of reliable power supply in the short term, while conventional capacities cannot be built up quickly enough.
The pragmatic answer to this is increasingly combining renewable generation and battery storage systems – often initially to secure one's own needs.
Technically, however, these are the same systems that are also used in classic grid-serving storage projects. The difference lies less in the technology than in the integration: once behind the grid connection point for self-supply, once as part of the electricity system with marketing on the market.
It's the same hardware – just connected differently and marketed differently. It is precisely this interchangeability that is crucial.
This is because it means that every additional installation – regardless of whether it is primarily for self-consumption or actively participating in the electricity market – strengthens the same industrial basis: scaling, standardization and falling costs.
For investors, this has a double effect.
Not only do costs fall, but so does the time to commissioning. Capital can be deployed faster, plants go into operation earlier, cash flows start running earlier.
Storage systems are gaining ground not only because they are becoming cheaper – but also because they are fast and can be flexibly integrated into different business models.
A look at the revenue mechanics shows why the topic is also gaining substance from an investor's point of view.
Storage systems generate their revenues predominantly not through long-term fixed remuneration, but through market mechanics: price differences, short-term bottlenecks, ancillary services. In other words, exactly where volatility arises.
In essence, this is nothing more than what is often discussed in infrastructure under the keyword "merchant risk".
Anyone who remembers that risks are not always where they are first suspected will recognize a familiar pattern here.
From an investor's point of view, however, something else is decisive: What looks like uncertainty at the system level can be translated into scenarios at the project level and priced accordingly. Volatility does not disappear because of this, "the cat remains in the bag". But from an investor's point of view, it can be modeled in such a way that it is remunerated on a risk-adjusted basis. It makes a significant difference to the stability of the cash flow how the structure is chosen: for example, whether investments are made in operators or whether they are only provided with battery storage systems by way of leasing models, and at what point in the fund life cycle cash flows are collected and when not.
