Interview with Wytske Postma (NSC) on the role of energy storage in energy transition
The Lower House elections are just around the corner, and Energy Storage NL is curious to see how energy storage is included in the party programs of various political parties. In the run-up to the elections, Energy Storage NL is focusing on 'energy storage in politics'. For this campaign we interviewed several members of parliament about what they think is the importance of energy storage in the energy system. This time speaking: Wytske Postma, Member of Parliament on behalf of the NSC.
What do you think is the main added value of energy storage in the energy system, in the short and long term? And how do you see the role of storage within the energy system itself?
For me, the biggest added value of energy storage right now is that it helps maintain the balance on the grid. Fortunately, we have an awful lot of solar panels in the Netherlands and we're doing well with onshore and offshore wind. This means that we regularly have large surpluses, especially in cold periods with a lot of sun and wind. Then you have to get rid of those peaks somewhere, and storage is essential for that.
In the short term, it's mostly about balancing during the day, actually on an hourly basis. That's something a good battery can do extremely well: store energy when there's a peak, and feed it back when demand increases. It's really a balancing function.
In the long run, we also need storage that can get us through the dark winter months - think December and January. That requires a completely different form of storage, because batteries won't make it. You then need solutions like hydrogen storage or thermal storage, which can hold energy for longer periods of time.
What role do you see for energy storage in countering grid congestion, and do you think this potential is currently being adequately exploited?
I think energy storage can really make an important contribution here, but we have to organize it smartly. What you see now is that there are a lot of applications for batteries that are actually haphazardly placed on the grid. That's because of the old rules, where the "first come, first serve" principle applied. That doesn't help us move forward.
We need to look much more strategically at locations. Because for companies that invest in storage, it often doesn't matter whether they put their battery in spot A or spot B. Then it makes sense for us to send them to the places where the grid is most relieved. That not only saves us costs for grid expansion, but also makes the business case stronger.
I also see opportunities on a smaller scale, for example in cooperative forms. Companies or neighborhoods setting up an energy hub together with solar panels, a wind turbine and a battery. That way you solve local bottlenecks, prevent networks from becoming overloaded, and work together in a smart way.
What do you think is the main reason that the development and integration of storage is still lagging behind in the Netherlands?
There are actually several things at play. First, I think cost is still an important factor. Batteries may have gotten cheaper, but in some ways storage is still on the expensive side. That sometimes makes investments difficult to calculate around.
I also notice that network operators are often somewhat reserved. After all, their culture is risk-averse: they are used to offering security above all else and prefer to keep new technologies at bay for a while. Storage is something new for them, and that makes it exciting.
Another reason is that policy and incentives are not yet sufficiently designed for storage. Take home batteries, for example. These are readily available nowadays and not so expensive, but the rollout lags behind because there are few incentives. Especially now that the net-metering scheme is coming to an end, many people with solar panels are looking for alternatives to use their energy smartly. If we were to use subsidies or other incentives for that, for example, it could really boost the market. The combination of high costs, reluctant grid operators and a lack of clear incentives means that storage in the Netherlands is not yet growing as fast as it could.
How do you assess the current storage strategy and what do you think should be improved?
Frankly, I don't see a real strategy from the government at this time. There are separate initiatives and projects, but there is a lack of coherence and clear direction. While that is very important, because you cannot expand the electricity grid indefinitely. So you have to make smarter use of what is already there.
In my opinion, a good strategy should mainly focus on location choice: where does storage have the most effect? For example, near large wind farms or solar fields, or in areas where structural peaks occur. If you include that in the planning at the front end, you can work much more efficiently.
In addition, I think the national government should take much more of a lead. Municipalities and provinces are now often left out in the cold: they receive requests for batteries but have no clear framework or direction. This leads to uncertainty. While in my view it is precisely a national responsibility to determine how we better utilize the grid and where storage adds the most.
What do you think it takes to go from "think is important" to true priority?
I think that above all there should be clear rules and incentives. Now you often hear that everyone thinks storage is important, but in practice you see that it is not yet taken into account structurally. A concrete example is transmission tariffs: storage projects now pay a hefty price for this, while they could actually help to relieve the burden on the grid. It would make more sense to give discounts where batteries really contribute to reducing grid congestion.
In addition, cooperation is crucial. TenneT, the regional grid operators and market parties need to work much more closely together. It still happens too often that companies put their battery where the land is cheap, while that is not always the smartest place in the system. That requires give and take from both sides. Grid operators must become more flexible, and companies must accept that the optimal location may not be the cheapest.
If we get rules and incentives right and strengthen that collaboration, then storage can truly become a priority rather than something we mostly "care about.
What can we expect from NSC on storage ahead of the election?
Storage has been given a clear place in our party program. We emphasize decentralized solutions: neighborhood batteries, energy hubs and cooperatives in which residents and businesses work together on their energy supply. This not only solves local grid congestion, but also makes people truly part of the energy transition.
At the same time, we are also looking at large-scale storage. This is not just about batteries, but also, for example, gas storage in fields such as in Norg. With this we can guarantee security of supply in the winter, when demand is high. So we see storage very broadly: from small-scale in the neighborhood to large-scale on a national level.
What I think is important is that storage is no longer an afterthought, but a normal part of the energy system. Just as generation and transmission are. Only then can we really build a robust and future-proof system.
