Welcome to the latest edition of FairGreen where we talk about LDES commercialization including financing, manufacturing, and deployment.

We observe comparison mania in the juxtaposition of LDES technologies with little or no practical commercial basis. I have been guilty of this mistake myself and this article presents my chance to make amends. Imagine you are in the market for a multi-purpose vehicle with the objective of maximizing passenger and cargo space, you would be unlikely to compare minivan models like Toyota Sienna to sports car models such as Porsche. In the same breath, if you are shopping for an executive car model like BMW, you are unlikely to expand your exploration to subcompact models such as Mini Cooper. You get the point - functionality trumps general brand strength!

Comparison mania phenomenon manifests in 3 major ways in the LDES industry:

LDES technologies are typical classified in 2 ways: the form of the energy storage medium / means by which stored energy is converted to end-use energy form (chemical, electrochemical, thermal and mechanical) and discharge duration (diurnal, multi-day and seasonal). These categories can be combined in several ways to produce different comparison matrices which can lead to conflation of technical factors with commercial ones.

The next issue involves disregarding the distinct value propositions of disruptive LDES technology by comparing them to lithium iron phosphate (LFP) BESS. In this mode, a competitor technology is expected to meet all the performance metrics of LFP and top it off with a premium. Major culprits here tend to be OEMs chasing all possible sales opportunities and utilities/independent power producers (IPPs) looking to replace their LFP assets.

ITM is the first repeatable market segment/use-case with verifiable commercial traction. What this means for an LDES offering is this is the smallest viable market willing to pay for the product’s main strength. This main value proposition tends to reduce the competitiveness of the incumbent solution in the said market segment. The biggest benefit of an ITM is it provides a launch pad to the mass market by increasing an offering’s deployment maturity, independent validation and performance assurance. ITM might look too small and unprofitable but the technology provider must implement a lower cost structure to meet the lower prices.

These 3 manifestations causes technology providers to focus on broader non-aligned market opportunities at the expense of smaller, expandable, profitable ones.

The sections below show how 5 LDES products are cutting through the noise with promising ITM strategies.

Invinity has positioned its Endurium Enterprise vanadium flow battery (VFB) ESS as a higher utilization and higher safety alternative to LFP BESS in BTM CCI projects.

FairGreen’s take: Invinity has recently strengthened its position in its ITM by winning both large-scale (FlexBase Data Center Hub) and medium-scale BTM projects. The company is expanding into the front-of-the-meter (FTM) market segment with projects like Copwood VFB Energy Hub. Invinity could improve its competitive advantage by pursuing jurisdictions with stricter safety regulations including outright LFP moratoriums and bans.

CellCube has positioned its VFB Gen 4.2 offering as a faster response, lower emissions, multi-service alternative to diesel generators in the BTM CCI market segment.

FairGreen’s take: In the short term, higher diesel cost caused by prevailing heightened geopolitical tensions is likely to boost demand for CellCube’s offering. CellCube is yet to deploy an FTM project thus its progress from ITM to mass market is difficult to verify.

Antora has positioned both heat delivery and power delivery models of HeatCore as lower CapEx and lower emissions alternative to gas boilers. Antora offers zero upfront cost through its heat-as-a-service business model which aims to match the price of boiler-generated steam.

FairGreen’s take: Since Antora’s ITM and mass market are the same, Antora’s progress is best judged through new commercial projects. The company is demonstrating strong commercial traction with large-scale projects such as POET.

Form Energy has positioned its multi-day storage ESS as a lower emissions, higher autonomy and lower LCOS alternative to natural gas peaker plants.

FairGreen’s take: Form Energy is expanding its ITM through projects to replace utility-owned fossil-fuel baseload and peaker plants. The company is expanding into the mass market through data center power supply projects involving renewables integration.

Peak Energy positions its GS1.1 BESS as a lower LCOS and higher reliability alternative to LFP BESS mainly based on its use of a passive thermal management architecture.

FairGreen’s take: Peak Energy’s pursuit of its ITM has largely been through its SolarTac demonstration project. Early commercial deployments are expected to pave its way into the mass market by means of large-scale commercial projects with independent power producers (IPPs) and utilities.

Remember, effective commercial benchmarking takes 3 steps:

Along the way, it serves you well to:

This newsletter strives to become your #1 LDES commercialization education partner. Remember, consistency is key!

Let us know how we are doing.

Until next time :)