Alternative Energy: A Transformative Storage Boom? Part 2 Written by Veronica Zhang, this is part two of a two-part series that explores the growing opportunities in alternative energy and battery storage. Read Part 1.
California: A Model Fit for Storage
The challenge to meet two-way grid functionality is most pressing in California, which is on track to meet its goal of generating 33% of electricity from renewables in 2020. The oft-cited ”Duck Curve” forecasts the topology of electricity demand that conventional power utilities must meet in California as the state becomes more renewable-dependent. This illustrates the magnitude of the inflection in expected conventional electric demand when solar contributes the majority of its supply during daylight hours and, conversely, when solar ”shuts off” when the sun sets. This phenomenon is magnified in the winter months (the sun sets before the evening peak load), as well as during outages and natural disasters, all factors that would likely increase the state’s vulnerability to price spikes and power disruptions. The seasonal volatility and potential for over/undergeneration as we approach the 2020 scenario calls for a solution to normalize demand, as the current state of the grid is not equipped to fluctuate so dramatically to meet demand. The answer from a cost and reliability perspective: battery storage.
Indicative Hourly Conventional Electric Utility Demand
Source: CAISO. California’s Duck Curve: Illustrative trajectory of grid electricity demand as more homeowners switch to solar, thus not needing to tap the grid at hours at which the sun is strongest. As California achieves higher penetration each year, grid demand continues to fall, exacerbating the slope of demand ramp-up when the sun ”shuts off” and grid turns on. This phenomenon is named after the resemblance to the profile of said water fowl.
The Need for Bigger, Better, Cheaper Batteries
The technology behind battery storage for the grid initially emerged from batteries used in laptops, consumer electronics, and electric vehicles (EV), with declining input prices and improving technology driving the adaption into larger-scale formats. There is currently extensive debate on the particular chemistry of the ”optimal” grid battery (it differs from that of EV batteries, which must be light, dense and compact as they are installed in vehicles, versus the storage battery, which can be larger and remains stationary). While absolute capital costs are important, the crucial element here is the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), which measures the all-in cost of electricity produced by a given source, and is a metric that regulators use to compare different methods of electricity generation.
Quick Math: Traditional lithium ion batteries have at max 1,000 cycles (full charge to full discharge), with a degrading tail end after a few hundred cycles. Assuming 90% efficiency over its lifetime, a $100/kWh battery would equate to $0.11/kWh electricity storage ($100 divided by 1,000 cycles @ 90% efficiency). For scope, retail electricity in the U.S. averages ~$0.12/kWh.
Tesla: Pioneering the Cost Curve
Tesla’s 10kWh PowerWall battery retails for $3,500, or $350/kWh. This looks expensive and uneconomical relative to the LCOE math, but it is worth noting that the product is testing a niche market and the manufacturing itself has significant room for cost reduction when production becomes mainstream. Tesla projects battery costs to drop to $100/kWh by 2020, a target seconded by General Motors (GM), which predicts hitting the $100/kWh mark by 2021.
Similar to the decline in the cost of solar photovoltaic/PV (which includes price of polysilicon, installation costs, and sales/customer acquisition costs) of 50% in just five years, the same is expected of battery storage system price declines (lithium metal, increasing density per gram, and manufacturing in scale). The LCOE of combined solar and storage, while not a means to go fully ”off-grid” permanently, is headed in a direction competitive with traditional power generation.
Source: RMI. Long-term outlook: Illustrative graph charting the difference between grid-only electricity at 3% annual escalator (top line), combination of grid +solar (middle line), and grid +solar + battery (bottom line). The first scenario is self-explanatory. The second reflects savings from solar, which has lower LCOE than traditional power generation, but still relies on the grid during evening hours and, thus, pays grid pricing when utilized. The third scenario, where electricity is predominantly supplied by solar and battery with grid access during outages and unforeseen events, reflects how customer insulation from utility price increases could be achieved. The cluster of states and their estimated electricity prices in 2050 are scattered around the bottom line, with state-by-state variance driven by the number of sunshine hours per day.
This is Only the Beginning for Storage
The debate on how to change the way we power our lives is a continuing one, although the conclusions are far more in favor of alternative energy and battery storage than ever before. Not limited only to an economic rationale, the unmeasured benefits on the environmental impact of replacing coal with the sun is another incentive spurring the change. The storage industry, while still nascent in implementation and from an investment perspective, is developing rapidly due to a need to complete the formula for the argument for solar, and why it should be here to stay.
by Veronica Zhang, Analyst
Analyst Veronica Zhang is a member of the Hard Assets Team that manages our Natural Resources Equity strategy. Zhang focuses on the industrials and alternative energy sectors, and holds a BA in Economics and Statistics from Columbia University.
IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE
This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed on this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction. You can obtain more specific information on VanEck strategies by visiting Investment Strategies.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s), but not necessarily those of VanEck, and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Historical performance is not indicative of future results. Current data may differ from data quoted. Any graphs shown herein are for illustrative purposes only. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck.
Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers investment portfolios that invest in the asset class(es) mentioned in this post. Hard assets investments are subject to risks associated with natural resources and commodities and events related to these industries. Commodity investments may be subject to the risks associated with its investments in commodity-linked derivatives, risks of investing in a wholly owned subsidiary, risk of tracking error, risks of aggressive investment techniques, leverage risk, derivatives risks, counterparty risks, non-diversification risk, credit risk, concentration risk and market risk.
Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. An investor should consider investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of any investment strategy carefully before investing. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Van Eck Securities Corporation.
Michael Saylor’s bold Bitcoin bet and Strategy’s risk analysis
Bitcoin price technical analysis: Where are the liquidation levels?
What are real-world assets and why do we need tokenization?
Michael Saylor’s bold Bitcoin bet and Strategy’s risk analysis
Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has amassed a staggering $43 billion in Bitcoin, positioning itself at the forefront of the corporate “reserve race.” Under the leadership of Bitcoin maximalist Michael Saylor, the company now boasts an $84 billion market cap. But with such an aggressive strategy, how sustainable is its approach—and what risks lie ahead? We break it down in today’s analysis.
Bitcoin price technical analysis: Where are the liquidation levels?
A drop below $72,000 could flush longs, while a breakout above $90,000 may squeeze shorts. One key positive indicator is that Bitcoin continues to print higher lows since March 10, which preserves a bullish market structure in our view. Dive into our technical analysis.
What are real-world assets and why do we need tokenization?
Imagine owning a slice of a skyscraper or a piece of fine art with just a few clicks. Tokenization, the act of converting ownership rights to real-world assets (RWAs) into tradable tokens, has surpassed $10 billion in on-chain value, unlocking global 24/7 access to once-exclusive markets with liquidity, efficiency, and yield. Find out how it works.
Research Newsletter
Each week the 21Shares Research team will publish our data-driven insights into the crypto asset world through this newsletter. Please direct any comments, questions, and words of feedback to research@21shares.com
Disclaimer
The information provided does not constitute a prospectus or other offering material and does not contain or constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction. Some of the information published herein may contain forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties and that actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. The information contained herein may not be considered as economic, legal, tax or other advice and users are cautioned to base investment decisions or other decisions solely on the content hereof.
Invesco BulletShares 2030 EUR Corporate Bond UCITSETF EUR Acc (BSE0 ETF) med ISIN IE000I25S1V5, försöker följa Bloomberg 2030 Maturity EUR Corporate Bond Screened-index. Bloomberg 2030 Maturity EUR Corporate Bond Screened Index följer företagsobligationer denominerade i EUR. Indexet speglar inte ett konstant löptidsintervall (som är fallet med de flesta andra obligationsindex). Istället ingår endast obligationer som förfaller under det angivna året (här: 2030) i indexet. Indexet består av ESG (environmental, social and governance) screenade företagsobligationer. Betyg: Investment Grade. Löptid: december 2030 (Denna ETF kommer att stängas efteråt).
Den börshandlade fondens TER (total cost ratio) uppgår till 0,10 % p.a. Invesco BulletShares 2030 EUR Corporate Bond UCITSETF EUR Accär den billigaste och största ETF som följer Bloomberg 2030 Maturity EUR Corporate Bond Screened index. ETFen replikerar det underliggande indexets prestanda genom samplingsteknik (köper ett urval av de mest relevanta indexbeståndsdelarna). Ränteintäkterna (kupongerna) ackumuleras och återinvesteras.
Invesco BulletShares 2030 EUR Corporate Bond UCITSETF EUR Acc är en mycket liten ETF med tillgångar på 6 miljoner euro under förvaltning. Denna ETF lanserades den 18 juni 2024 och har sin hemvist i Irland.
Produktbeskrivning
Invesco BulletShares 2030 EUR Corporate Bond UCITSETFAccsyftar till att ge den totala avkastningen för Bloomberg 2030 Maturity EUR Corporate Bond Screened Index (”Referensindexet”), minus avgifternas inverkan. Fonden har en fast löptid och kommer att upphöra på Förfallodagen.
Referensindexet är utformat för att återspegla resultatet för EUR-denominerade, investeringsklassade, fast ränta, skattepliktiga skuldebrev emitterade av företagsemittenter. För att vara berättigade till inkludering måste företagsvärdepapper ha minst 300 miljoner euro i nominellt utestående belopp och en effektiv löptid på eller mellan 1 januari 2030 och 31 december 2030.
Värdepapper är uteslutna om emittenter: 1) är inblandade i kontroversiella vapen, handeldvapen, militära kontrakt, oljesand, termiskt kol eller tobak; 2) inte har en kontroversnivå enligt definitionen av Sustainalytics eller har en Sustainalytics-kontroversnivå högre än 4; 3) anses inte följa principerna i FN:s Global Compact; eller 4) kommer från tillväxtmarknader.
Portföljförvaltarna strävar efter att uppnå fondens mål genom att tillämpa en urvalsstrategi, som inkluderar användning av kvantitativ analys, för att välja en andel av värdepapperen från referensindexet som representerar hela indexets egenskaper, med hjälp av faktorer som index- vägd genomsnittlig varaktighet, industrisektorer, landvikter och kreditkvalitet. När en företagsobligation som innehas av fonden når förfallodag kommer kontanterna som fonden tar emot att användas för att investera i kortfristiga EUR-denominerade skulder.
ETFen förvaltas passivt.
En investering i denna fond är ett förvärv av andelar i en passivt förvaltad indexföljande fond snarare än i de underliggande tillgångarna som ägs av fonden.
”Förfallodag”: andra onsdagen i december 2026 eller sådant annat datum som bestäms av styrelseledamöterna och meddelas aktieägaren
Det betyder att det går att handla andelar i denna ETF genom de flesta svenska banker och Internetmäklare, till exempel DEGIRO, Nordnet, Aktieinvest och Avanza.
Since President Trump appointed Mark Uyeda as acting SEC chair two months ago, many investigations into crypto businesses have been dropped, as the SEC moves away from regulation by enforcement and works to create a framework for digital assets. As regulations become clearer and news flow turns more positive, crypto prices—which dropped sharply this week—should begin to better reflect the new regulatory landscape in the US.
We believe this regulatory shift could ultimately help trigger the next leg of the current bull run, as investors better understand the significance of regulatory clarity and seek to acquire bitcoin and altcoins at what we believe are currently very favorable levels.
Market Highlights
SEC Dismisses Crypto Enforcement Actions
The SEC dropped its enforcement actions against crypto-related companies Kraken, Consensys, and Cumberland DRW.
This indicates a shift in SEC’s regulatory approach, favoring clearer guidelines over enforcement actions. Such a pivot could foster a more predictable environment, encouraging innovation within the sector.
Banks to Engage in Crypto Activities
The FDIC has rescinded previous guidelines which prevented financial institutions from engaging with crypto activities without prior sign-off.
By removing bureaucratic hurdles, banks may more readily offer crypto-related services, potentially leading to broader adoption and integration of digital assets.
Bitcoin ETFs Inflow Streak Surpassed $1 Billion
US spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded a 10-day inflow streak exceeding $1 billion marking the longest such streak in 2025.
This underscores growing institutional and retail investor confidence in Bitcoin as an asset class that helps increase market stability and possibly paving the way for the approval of other crypto-based financial products.
Market Metrics
All NCITM constituents had negative performance last week, with XRP (-10.8%) and UNI (-10.7%) seeing the steepest declines. ETH also experienced a sharp drop (-9.1%), contributing to NCITM’s underperformance relative to BTC (-2.9%). The NCITM -4.2% decline reflects a broader risk-off sentiment in the crypto market, as investors reassess their positions amid ongoing macroeconomic uncertainties.
NCITM (-4.2%) extended its underperformance last week, deepening year-to-date losses. Traditional indices like the S&P 500 (-1.5%) and Nasdaq 100 (-2.4%) saw smaller declines. The gap between crypto and other risk assets continues to widen, while gold has emerged as the top performer in 2025, gaining nearly 20% amid ongoing macroeconomic uncertainties. This trend highlights a growing risk-off sentiment, with investors shifting toward defensive assets and away from high-volatility investments.