Skip to content
RiDERgy RiDERgy
Smart Charge · 10 April 2025 · 1 hr 30 min

Ep. 9: Jonas van Ouwerkerk – RWTH, Accure, Sonnen, Northvolt

V2G, Energiemanagement, Innovation, Flotten

Transcript

Cleaned up from a machine transcript. Translations are machine-generated and may contain errors.

Welcome to the Smart Charge by RiDERgy Podcast. This is Claudio Geyken, Founder and CEO of RiDERgy. This is your show to learn about all things energy management and smart charging innovation for electric vehicles and fleets.

Yes. Hello, Jonas. How are you doing today? Great that you're here. Yes. Hello. I'm very pleased to be here. Thank you so much for the invitation. And yes, I'm doing quite well so far. Yes, it's always a long journey to Berlin. But it's definitely worth it. Yes. You're in the west of the country and at RWTH in Aachen. But you said you live in Cologne? Exactly. I live in Cologne. It's actually like the big brother, I'd say, of Aachen. Exactly, but the commute between them does work out

actually. And yes, many people who work in Aachen are in Cologne. Exactly. And yes, RWTH is then in Aachen. That's where my workplace is, so to speak. And exactly I'm there about three times a week. So before we really get into the topic with batteries perhaps – how did you get into this, what do you do, or who are you as a person? Maybe you could pick up the listeners a bit. Feel free to take some time, how you feel about it. Yes, I'd be happy to. How did I come

to RWTH? I'm from the region, grew up around Krefeld. And yes, energy topics have been relevant to me from the start somehow. Especially electromobility actually. As far back as I can remember, I've always been very enthusiastic about it and followed everything. Yes, all the developments, when Tesla came and so on, I was of course always very excited and rooting along. Yes, so after my school-leaving exams the logical

step was actually to go to RWTH Aachen somehow. Simply because that's in the region, I think, the renowned address for these topics. And yes, so I started my bachelor's degree in Aachen in 2012, in electrical engineering actually, and then I focused quite quickly on energy technology. You can already do that somewhat at the end of the bachelor's programme. I looked into the topics, and I wrote my bachelor's thesis directly on the battery topic. And yes, that's where the first connection

came from. And then I continued with my master's degree at RWTH and deepened it again, really on energy technology, and then had more and more contact with the ISEA Institute, that's the Institute for Power Electronics and Electrical Drives, which is indeed the biggest address in electromobility in Aachen as well. And exactly I wrote my master's thesis there. And yes, then we had a really exciting situation where the results of my master's thesis were kind of recycled for a start-up.

So we founded Cure Battery Intelligence, or rather yes, Kai-Philipp Kiries – he certainly means something to many – my colleague and also my former bachelor's thesis supervisor at the time, he founded that, together with two others. And yes, in the whole founding group there were many from the department involved as well. And so the question naturally came up for me: do I stay more at the institute, or would I perhaps prefer to go directly into the start-up space? And I actually did decide, after

longer consideration, to continue on the scientific path for now. So I started in 2019 as a research associate at RWTH Aachen, so to speak with the goal of doing a PhD. And exactly, in recent years I've focused very strongly on battery storage topics in my research. It started more from energy system analysis at the beginning, so actually larger energy models, also nationwide energy system models that we developed and improved there. And of course it was always about flexibility and storage. And

then increasingly also topics towards industrial storage and large-scale storage, so the stationary sector, where we were also well positioned in our research. For example, we managed the large monitoring programme for home storage systems at the institute. And exactly that's how I really got into these topics. Yes, and then in 2022 I took on the department head position in the Department for Grid Integration and Storage System Analysis. And exactly, we're a team of 10 to 15 – always somewhat changing – research associates, and we dedicate ourselves to all topics where somehow batteries interact with the grid. This can be electromobility, smart charging, or also, as I said, the area where I'm more focused: stationary battery storage systems, home storage, industrial storage, commercial storage, large-scale storage. So exactly the whole range. Exciting. We'll certainly go into that more. Before we do that, perhaps a few more words about the institute, given that it plays such a prominent role – maybe you could give a few key facts about how the institute became so prominent, who the players are, how an institute sets itself up to maintain this excellence. Yes, I'd be happy to. So, the institute originally – there's been the ISE institute for about 60 years now. ISE stands for Institute for Power Electronics and Electrical Drives. That means, initially the topic actually wasn't batteries at all, but of course it was about

electromobility, smart charging, or also, as I said, the area where I'm somewhat more focused: stationary battery storage systems, home storage, industrial storage, commercial storage, large-scale storage. So exactly the whole range. Exciting. We'll certainly go into that more. Before we do that, perhaps a few more words about the institute, given that it plays such a prominent role – maybe you could give a few key facts about how the institute became so prominent, who the players are, how an institute sets itself up to maintain this excellence. Yes, I'd be happy to. So the institute is originally – there's been the ISE institute for about 60 years now. ISE stands for Institute for Power Electronics and Electrical Drives. That means, initially the topic actually wasn't batteries at all, but of course it was about

power electronics and electrical drives in general. And then over the decades, especially as electromobility became more and more important, the institute also developed more and more expertise in this area. Today we're one of the leading research institutions in Europe for topics around batteries, electromobility and energy storage. We have around 80 to 100 employees, depending on the project phase, and we work on everything from fundamental research to applied projects with industry partners. The institute is also part of the RWTH cluster for electromobility and energy storage, which brings together different departments and institutes to work on these cross-cutting topics. And yes, I think what's important is that we always try to stay at the forefront of research and development, that we collaborate closely with industry partners, and that we also train the next generation of scientists and engineers in these areas.

mobility, drivetrain technology, a lot also in the rail sector, and also very strongly in power electronics. And we actually have Professor Doncker, one of the leading scientists in this field, at our institute. He's regarded globally, I believe, as one of the most experienced people in this area and has, among other things, developed or co-developed something like the Dual-Active Bridge – for those who are a bit more into the subject matter. And that was exactly the starting point. Batteries really only came

into their own in the 2000s. And then at the beginning of the 2000s, Professor Dirk Uwe Sauer joined the institute as a junior professor and essentially established the chair for electrochemical energy storage. Since then, the battery field has grown steadily. We have around 150, or more than 150, scientific staff members at the institute today – so really a very large institute. And while that was maybe roughly 50:50 a few years ago between power electronics and battery storage technology, it's now shifted a bit more towards battery storage.

The boom on the markets, of course – the topics that have gained significantly more interest in recent years have naturally led to more being built up in research as well. And a flagship of the institute, I think, is definitely the new center building. It's not from the institute alone, but we are part of this battery center building as an institute. It's called CARL – Center for Aging, Reliability and Lifetime Prediction of Batteries and Power Electronic Devices. So a long name. But

as the name suggests: a major focus on service life analysis and aging of battery storage systems. It's essentially a center building – we opened it in 2022. And the building really has all the bells and whistles you can imagine in science, from Nano-CTs – really, you can go to the smallest resolutions, so to speak, to research material properties in batteries. Really spectacular, I think, what you can do there – right down to a very important aspect: testing at our place. So we have thousands of test channels, really, where we can connect batteries in parallel

and then conduct cell tests and accordingly can also investigate aging and so on. And then of course the whole thing continues up to pack aspects and then to the systems area, which is where I come from. Really, we cover practically the entire range when it comes to topics. Production, I have to say, is a bit of an exception – so really large-scale production is of course a very difficult topic, and of course research-wise you need significant investment. And of course we also have

the research factory in Münster, where we have connections. So that's the only area where we might not be quite so heavily involved, but otherwise the whole range. It's certainly still important to mention: the data topic has become very big. So Big Data – we also now have a professorship with Doctor Won Lee, who is very strong in this area and where we're now focusing on Artificial Intelligence for Batteries, so to speak. Really smart algorithms that can then evaluate the data

– the huge amounts of data that come from batteries. Maybe a couple of words about my department. As I said, we're more systems-focused. That means, for us, it's about how we can operate the systems reliably, how we can solve certain energy management issues – so when should the storage system charge, when should it discharge, and so on, how can we best integrate into the markets. And we have a very exciting infrastructure for this, namely the large-scale storage facility in FÜNF-B. Not

sure if anyone has heard of it before. So it's a research storage facility on a megawatt scale, and the storage has 7.5 MWh capacity. We're continuously marketed on the markets. We've mainly done FCR, so primary control power, over the last – yes, it's been eight years now that we've been on the market. So extremely long for large-scale storage, because large-scale storage really only took off in recent years. That means we were able to

collect data from the beginning – minute-by-minute measurement data from all the systems we have there – to then make statements about: How reliable is it? How efficient? Where do we actually still need to do more work? And in the storage facility, perhaps also important to mention, there are five different technologies. So we have lead technologies, which back then were still somewhat candidates. Today no longer, I have to say, but that's changed somewhat – of course it quickly became apparent that it's rather not

well suited. But also three lithium-ion technologies. That means we can also benchmark different technologies against each other. I think that's super important. And maybe one last point I should also mention, I think. We've also been very active in market research in recent years. So with Battery Charts and Mobility Charts, among others, we've provided instruments, I believe, that many people have used and where you can track developments in battery markets. Interesting, somewhat like the well-known

also Energy Charts from Fraunhofer ISE – actually somewhat inspired by that, but of course then with a deep focus on battery applications. Well, exciting. Yes, and a topic that I also find very exciting, which people in Germany always want to push, is: how do you manage to achieve spin-offs from universities with start-ups? I believe that RWTH and entrepreneurship in Germany are extremely successful examples. Maybe you can also say a few words about this, particularly in the transition to Accure, how it comes about that

RWTH is such a good ecosystem in your view. Yes, gladly. I can share a bit of what I've experienced. I think basically the conditions are very good at RWTH, you have to say. We have a lot of successful spin-offs there. If you look at the battery sector, then we have, yes, I would say, almost the entire value chain of the battery represented in start-ups to some extent. Maybe production is a bit of an exception. But that's a difficult topic anyway

in Germany. Can you name a few examples? I think Scilip for example for recycling. Then there's Woltfang for example, which mainly does second-life commercial storage. And then of course there were also many successful spin-offs at our institute. We have for example the Battery Engineers. That's more, yes, I'd say a testing operation so to speak, where you can then test batteries under any aspects. And then we also have, yes, really in terms of deep technology, for example Safeion as a spin-off.

They do ultrasound examinations on batteries so to speak and can then determine what the state of the cell is, aging and so on, and try to also integrate that into the application so that you can do constant monitoring. Also very interesting. Ebus-Plan comes to mind – so, as the name suggests, more in the direction of planning bus fleets. Exactly, and of course Accure then at that point, so yes, large-scale monitoring of battery storage systems and aging prognosis as well as safe operation as

an argument. Exactly, I think the examples all show that it works very well in Aachen. I picked up a bit on that, of course also through Accure, that there are many opportunities to be centrally in one place at RWTH – RWTH Innovation there, which takes care of people and also gives them tips on what to do and so on, also with funding applications and such. So I think that's definitely very good. And

perhaps also an aspect of why it works so well. I think simply the connection to industry is definitely very good in Aachen. That means you also get in research – so, for example when I was a research associate, I could very quickly dive into projects that we had very close with industry partners. And of course ideas develop faster there, where things are missing on the market, so to speak, and where maybe you have an idea. There I could go. I think that's

also important. You always need a good idea at the beginning, and it has to be able to emerge somewhere in the environment. I think that's possible there. Okay. And then let's talk a bit about Accure's origin story – or what exactly was your master's thesis? And maybe a few anecdotes about how it came about. Yes, that was a very exciting time, I have to say. In my master's thesis I mainly took care of – or it was about, so to speak, determining aging or

so to speak the remaining capacity from home storage data of the systems. The big advantage was, or why that was only possible with us in the first place, was that we had collected data over years so to speak in storage monitoring – so the big, nationwide monitoring program for home storage, which I think also contributed to the market's later success. And there we equipped around 20 systems, or even a few more, with measurement systems, with high-resolution ones, really measuring all important voltage, current and temperature data by the second there and could then of course

evaluate all that data. And that was what my master's thesis was about. Then I developed a method of how you can, based on ampere-hour counting with certain data filtering and relaxation phase determination and so on, determine the remaining capacity relatively reliably so to speak. Because with home storage systems it quite often happens that the system empties and fills, so really the full cycle happens. That is of course a prerequisite for the ampere accounting to work. It doesn't work

in all applications, but exactly for this application it works very well. And I think the results were then actually very promising and were then sort of reused for Accure to build on that and then create a significantly more complex algorithm. And yes, that's how I got into it, so to speak, and of course also through the good contacts with my colleagues Kai Philipp and Jan Fegener, who also had a big hand in it. Yes, the whole founding phase was then quite lengthy. I think, looking back now – wow, that must have been a good three quarters of a year before a lot really happened. Then of course you have to see how you even start, who gets involved how and so on. Those are always the big questions at the beginning, especially when you have a lot of people – not so simple. You have to conduct that discussion of course. But I think humanly we were always on a very good track at the institute, and that worked out very well. Yes, and then Accure could be founded

Accure was founded

And at the beginning, I also got quite involved myself, I made sure the results from my master's thesis could be well transferred, the insights, and that we could really get into a product quickly. What I think contributed to Accure's success in the early years is simply that you were in the right place at the right time – because, as is often the case: home storage systems were of course really developing into a commercial market at that time.

We're talking about 2017–2018. The founding was 2020. But right before that was the phase when the market really took off, 2017 and onwards. And that of course gave us very good conditions to initially enter this market. And we had the contacts from the monitoring program. We could start working with the right people, set up large projects from the start, and thus achieve this scaling effect right from the beginning – for the software, I would say. And then of course, yes, you have to say the next step came.

And that was actually perfect, because then the large-scale storage market came along at some point. Of course, you have the advantage there: you don't have to integrate into individual systems, but instead you integrate tens, hundreds of megawatt hours directly. That's of course much easier than integrating the small systems one by one into the software. And yes, honestly, that was another huge boost, which led to the next rounds of financing going quite well, I think.

And yes, I think from a forward-looking perspective, e-mobility is still a big aspect where we already have good projects, but where we also need to push further, because that gives you another scaling factor. But of course it's not so easy with the big OEMs and so on. I think everyone who tries to set up things in that area knows that. It's just harder than when you have a large storage operator who maybe has two, three systems.

Then you can talk to them on a relatively flat level, on equal terms. And with the OEMs – until you have the right contact, that's always difficult. Absolutely. Yes, and looking back on this topic – would you have done it and not decided to go the academic route – with some regret, or not at all? And how did you come to that decision? What was the decision-making process like for you back then? Yes, very good question.

I almost expected that one to come. Exactly. Yes, I tend not to question it very much, because I think they were two very good paths I could have taken at that point. And I ultimately decided again for the academic route, simply because I was convinced that a lot of research work still needed to be done. For me, this impact factor was important, so that somehow with what you do, you also have a big impact. And I wanted to continue contributing in research.

I also think the conditions and contacts at the institute were very good. And for example, I always had a very good relationship with Dirk Uwe Sauer. He's just a super pleasant person as a professor. And you have to say, that of course made the decision easier, to say: I feel comfortable there, I want to continue down that path for another five or six years. And that's exactly what I decided to do. And looking back now, I wouldn't say I regret it. Of course there are always ups and downs and also advantages and disadvantages when you look at, for example, doing a doctorate.

I have to say clearly: sure, you get to participate in top-level research, that's a lot of fun. You of course have a certain – yes, how it is at universities – major bureaucratic overhead that you of course have to deal with. And things maybe take longer than you'd like. And you don't get things implemented as quickly as you'd like. You are of course – yes, I think overall you have to say it's very challenging to get everything under one roof, because theoretically you can do everything you want. You're not limited.

You have to cope yourself, I would say. And that's not prescribed from above – do this, do that – but you're very free in that regard, so to speak, always at the institute. And you can always do more, so you have to think: what do I focus on? I still have teaching that I have to do on the side somehow, I have many things that I have to manage together. And yes, just this self-management, I think, can also be very challenging. But of course you also learn extremely much, I think. The opportunity to eventually do department leadership as well, that opens up new possibilities that I think you might not have achieved quite so quickly in industry, to get those insights.

I think that's why I don't regret it overall, because I've taken a lot away from it. And what are the most exciting topics that preoccupy you, or that are really at the forefront of research right now in your field, maybe worldwide as well, what preoccupies the top researchers at the moment? Yes, there are of course several topics for us specifically. We're just at the

stage where we – yes, there are naturally quite a few topics there. We're just at the – well, there are exciting topics that really drive research forward in my field, maybe worldwide too, what's occupying the top researchers at the moment. Well, there are of course several topics for us specifically right now.

stationary storage systems quite strongly as well. And I kept getting drawn further into that, even though I'm actually a big E-Mobility fan. But I also got more and more into stationary topics. And I think, especially with large-scale storage systems, a lot has been happening right now. There's a lot of research – well, I'd say these are aspects like: various new battery technologies keep coming up. We keep getting enquiries about different cell chemistries and different novel systems that we then always scrutinize very critically.

We have to, because you have to clearly say: Lithium-ion technology is simply extremely advanced. And it's difficult for any technology to break through. Then there was sodium-ion as a topic, redox-flow, things like that which come up. But also again and again – I mean, with redox-flow we've had a system offered to us every few years over the last ten years where it was said, this is now the breakthrough. So far it hasn't really worked out, and you can see it on the market quite well that we actually have almost

only lithium, and lead of course also played a major role for a long time – because it was simply standard in uninterruptible power supply. So, new technologies definitely. I think especially also the reliability of storage systems, of large-scale storage systems. We've done a lot on that. In our research we looked closely: what are the problems? There were many problems with the BMS, battery management system, where the algorithms often didn't do the right things or balancing problems occurred. Things like that which then led to

us also having frequent failures in our large-scale storage system. Balancing – to explain again for the listeners – is that the cells are, so to speak, all in the same state, in the same state of charge. And that's actually not so trivial depending on the technology. So, if we're now talking about LFP, that's lithium iron phosphate technology, we have the problem there that the voltage curve over the state of charge is relatively flat. That means, I don't know exactly: am I at 20, 30, 40, 50%

state of charge? And as a result, shifts can occur in the cells. That means, with these systems, a maintenance charge then has to be performed continuously, so basically once fully charged, so the system can calibrate again. And the cells then have to be balanced if they drift apart – essentially automatically. And now we saw, for example, with the first systems that that didn't work so well. We actually did install incorrect balancing resistors. So we're of course

in the first generation with the systems. That means, many things have certainly improved significantly over the last few years, but definitely – we made a lot of experience there which we then also published and could show: folks, you have to be a bit careful that this works well with these systems. I have two topics before we go into that deeper, which are so relevant right now. Northvolt has been prominent in the media in recent weeks.

That would be one of the biggest battery initiatives in Europe, to build strong battery production in Europe, with players from Europe. That even when billions have flowed in and really from prominent names – Volkswagen and major banks etc. – and commission support, it didn't work, or at least didn't work out the way they hoped. And I think it's continuing further, but let's see how exactly. How do you see this topic, particularly production in Europe and this dominance by China? Yes,

I think that's our biggest problem that we have in Germany. Because ultimately that could really hit us hard if we don't make sure we catch up quickly somehow. I mean, the whole supply chain behind it. Of course. So, so to speak, Peckbauer and also other companies that have now established themselves in the battery ecosystem. That's become a very large area, also in Germany. And if we're so dependent on the Asians and especially also

on China so to speak in production, we have a huge problem of course. Because if geopolitical tensions arise and cell supply is no longer guaranteed, then everything is at risk. That's why those are certainly not good news that we got with Northvolt. Definitely. We of course don't have such production aspects. But we certainly see that we need to improve there in Germany or rather need more staying power now.

A lot needs to be invested. We need to go from 0 to 100, so to speak. In China this has developed over ten years now. They had a clear guideline there too, so to speak from above, clear conditions. And then the whole thing could develop. And we didn't have that in Germany. We always had changing conditions, no political framework conditions that spoke in favor of really going all-in there. And that's of course also where politics is needed, to

create clear framework conditions. And it has to be clear – as I said, a lot of money has to be invested – that you can't quickly pull out if things don't work, but that you have to stick with it. Because otherwise we have no chance of catching up. Many also always say: well, we can try to focus on the next generation of cells somehow. But that's also difficult when you see, actually it's

it's not really the new technologies with higher energy density that are exciting, but rather what's actually exciting is: how do we produce the cheapest battery cell? We probably will never be able to compete with Asia on that. But we would need to at least manage to produce about 15 percent here, so that we have at least some leverage, some influence on it. Exactly. And I don't see us getting to the level that we're seeing right now with lithium iron phosphate any time soon with solid-state batteries.

We're seeing an extreme price collapse in China over the last few months, simply due to market competition. There are thousands of battery manufacturers competing against each other and some of them are closing down again, so to speak, they were only on the market for a short time. And simply this competition has led to prices being able to fall like that. Unfortunately, we're far from that. But yes, an important topic. We need to make sure we stay on top of it.

You mentioned – maybe you don't know either, but if you've looked into the topic a bit – it would be interesting to know: what makes production so complicated? Because that was also a major problem for Northvolt, particularly that they didn't manage to ramp up production as hoped. I have to say, I'm not an expert in production per se. What I hear or pick up on is simply that we have especially high scrap rates

when it comes to production. Every cell that goes out as scrap is of course bad for the overall balance of the factory. I think we didn't manage to consistently produce high quality. And although we're actually also a mechanical engineering country, I think we simply haven't managed to develop our own systems there. A lot of what has been built up in the cell factories also came from China simply again.

and we just didn't manage to maintain that reliable production. And how do you view others? So Northvolt was, if you will, a cell producer. But then there are a few successful examples from Germany that at least have established themselves on the market, like Sonnen or others. How do you view these players? Do you have thoughts on whether they will manage it or whether

also whether something else would need to be done? Well, I think fundamentally, we have really strong innovation capabilities and have found very good solutions. The companies were very innovative and contributed to us being among the first to really scale up the home storage sector, and we're also now a strong market for large-scale storage. There are other countries that are now even a bit stronger – Great Britain, for example, in the large-scale storage sector – but fundamentally, I would

say that we have many good companies here. Only, and I just mentioned this a bit: of course, they also depend on the cells. And I'd say, a BYD or similar, they can – they can not only make cells, but they can also eventually lead the whole thing into systems. And if they see, those are the big margins, they'll obviously do it at some point. And we're seeing it in the home storage sector. There we have now, so to speak, suddenly

well, years ago we had very, very few Chinese manufacturers. And now the market is flooded with these products. And the Chinese are leading again in that market. And that's obviously the big risk we face, that suddenly these market shares go back to China, because they also realize: okay, the cell has become so cheap, the margins are small for us. But in terms of the total system, we can make bigger margins. And yes, it then depends again on the production at

that point, so we can get better. Yes. And another trend – and then we can get into the topics of fleet management and so on, after we've covered this. Also, there's the battery boom that's happening in Germany right now. So from what I understand, there are 300 GW in power requests for grid connection capacity. And there's speculation that not much of it will actually connect to the grid, but it could. Of course, you don't know how the future will develop. But maybe

you have some thoughts on that topic too. Yes, definitely. Of course, that hasn't gone past us unnoticed. And we've also been asking ourselves more frequently now what that means. Well, in principle, I look at it very, very positively, because ultimately we've now managed to scale up this market, so to speak, so that it now works commercially. We don't need subsidies. The systems work in the market and can be profitable there. That's fantastic. So really great news for the energy transition. And

we also have a storage need in Germany that we've calculated in various studies. So Fraunhofer, for example, says we need around 100 GWh of batteries by 2030. Yes. And if you compare this figure with the connection requests, then you see: okay, that's suddenly moved into the feasible range. A few years ago we might have thought: oh, that's still going to be a big task. Now I'd look at it very positively, even if many of the storage systems maybe shouldn't be built – if they

Opportunities already exist in the market, so to speak. And I think that's a very, very positive message in that respect. And we certainly don't need to worry about that initially. Of course, now we need to make sure that we improve certain things as well. We've heard the argument more frequently now, of course: Yes, the storage systems are being built somewhere where they're not needed. The grid compatibility isn't really there. Because the storage systems then – among other things, there are examples where storage systems discharge and at the same time there's a lot of wind or photovoltaic power in the grid. Simply because, so to speak, the electricity market functions across the entire bid zone, that is, Germany. And we naturally have different local conditions due to grid bottlenecks and so on.

In this debate, though, one has to say: we actually don't see the problem with the storage systems themselves, but rather with the market perhaps. Of course, the whole thing could simply be resolved if we said we divide Germany into several bid zones – then the whole thing would naturally look different.

Only that is politically highly contentious, I would say. Of course, some federal states don't want to incur the disadvantage from that. We'll have to see whether that will be necessary afterwards – I really can't say now whether that will happen. But it would be one way to counter that. The other thing is, of course, grid expansion, definitely, to keep the bottlenecks as small as possible. We've certainly managed to pick up the pace in recent years in that area. Yes, and ultimately one should certainly make sure to create incentives for storage systems to be built where they make sense. You could do that, among other things, through a redispatch market – so Redispatch 3.0 is often promoted like that, where storage systems should play a central role. For example, the German Energy Storage Association BVES frequently advocates for this, so that precisely in a market-based approach, storage systems should be compensated for actually delivering redispatch physically.

And if that is implemented, so to speak, the storage systems would automatically also be placed where they're really important. And I think we need to make sure we create the right incentives for investors to go where it actually makes sense. Of course – the big bottleneck is the grid connection at that point, one has to say quite clearly. We have problems there. And we need to figure out: Where can the storage system even be installed? But what has been seen,

to

Example: So now lots of storage facilities are being built at old large power plant sites. And those are of course ideal locations. We have the connection conditions there, we have the grid available so to speak, and we're at network nodes. That means we can really bring stability into the system. Maybe just a quick follow-up on that because it's so interesting and maybe for understanding – as far as I know it's often not so clear that people understand it. So the points on the grid that

would really make sense – in your view those would be these points where... do you have to look at that on a network line level so to speak? Can you create rough rules of thumb where you say: OK, now in northern Germany where there's a lot of wind, it makes more sense to have storage than in southern Germany, or exactly the opposite for other reasons? Is it then a matter on the transmission grid level so to speak? The north-south corridors – should you be as close as possible to them, or should you already be looking at the distribution grid level, where there are

many more lines. How should one picture that? Yes, I think you have to differentiate a lot there. You probably can't break it down so generally, I would almost claim. Of course it depends on one hand on what size storage you're planning. So to speak also of course north-south: We still have bottlenecks there. That means there are certainly good locations to buffer energy when this axis so to speak is overloaded. Distribution grids – definitely there are of course also bottlenecks, especially when you integrate large

renewable energy installations. Then you can of course take action there. We're now very often seeing this case of co-location storage, which is becoming increasingly attractive because increasingly less photovoltaic power can be fed directly into the grid – directly at the renewable facility, at the grid connection point, so that you have exactly a storage buffer there. And exactly that: now we're frequently seeing projects that implement that and where it's also profitable. And I think those are above all

the points where you can place such storage. Makes sense. And this 100 gigawatt-hour storage requirement by 2030 – how can one imagine roughly how that comes about? As far as I know, Germany currently has roughly two terawatt-hours of consumption, with an upward trend. If you now look at renewables and you'd be at eighty percent in 2030, then you could actually assume that on certain days especially these 100 gigawatt-hours wouldn't even be sufficient. Or how can

Can you imagine that? How do we roughly arrive at this figure? Exactly, so I would of course also need to look into that study from Fraunhofer ISE, I believe – dive into that. Ultimately: there are these large energy system models at the national level, which we also develop at our place. We then have various nodes, which one models, so to speak, and transmission capacities between them. Then you map all the power plants there. And then the model calculates for you under certain conditions what the optimal storage requirement is. And that's roughly where these figures come from. So we actually also have a model with the Genesis model at our place, where we ran through that calculation, and we arrive at similar figures.

But that's only the short-term storage requirement. We also have a long-term storage requirement, which of course also increases. Unfortunately I don't have a figure for 2030 at hand right now. I only know that for 2050 we need to be somewhere around... well, it actually varies quite a lot, I have to say. For the electricity sector in Europe

I have a figure of roughly 200 TWh. That we need. And for Germany I also have some figure of 180 TWh in my head, which we need, however, to also store excess electricity or hydrogen for industry and so on. So if you get into sector coupling, of course there are other figures than just operating the electricity grid, so to speak. In any case, very large orders of magnitude that we're talking about here. Of course. Yes, for the short-term storage area I'm quite optimistic, I'd say,

when you look at the developments there. For the long-term storage area it's now of course becoming interesting in the coming years, because so far the demand hasn't really been there. And of course also for large-scale storage: they've now established themselves because all these issues with grid bottlenecks and high renewable energy shares have led to problems emerging or more stability in the grid being demanded. And that's why: it always depends on the market whether such systems come or

not. So I think large-scale storage and long-term storage will become selectively necessary towards 2030 and then really start coming intensively from 2030 onwards. Maybe a short series of rapid-fire questions – if you know that format, where you ask a short question, get a short answer. There's a lot of discussion right now about gas power plants, which are being debated in politics. Do you think we'd need that, or would batteries actually be enough? We definitely still need a replacement for batteries or an alternative.

for long-term storage that is seasonal. So batteries are simply not the right format for that. And hydrogen storage with gas turbine reconversion can then actually be the proposed solution. And nuclear, yes or no? Well, there are of course very different opinions. However, in our case, I'd say in the scientific sphere, it's quite clear: no, because we simply see that flexibility and nuclear power plants don't work well together. Of course you hear the yes argument over and over again. We ran that through in our models. We

see that nuclear power doesn't really play a role there if you really focus on flexibility. That means, more of a no there. Okay. And how many days does such a battery storage system ultimately need to be designed for at the system level? Are we talking about one day or already three, four days that we ultimately need? I don't know if you know that or if you simulated that. So for battery storage in general you might look a little bit

into the application areas again. We're seeing with large-scale storage right now, for example, that these are mainly front-of-the-meter storage, so storage that works towards the grid or provides grid services and trades on electricity markets. And the optimal ratio you see there right now, if you want to find the optimum via the markets: then we're talking roughly about two to three hours of storage, so they can then discharge for two to three hours. And exactly that. If you now break down the markets individually,

you can also say: for trading, for example, we also see that roughly two cycles per day are ideal, two to three cycles. And if you think about that, of course you have to make sure you can manage these two to three cycles over the day. Then two to three hours are quite well suited for that. And for the control power markets: for the primary frequency response market you'd actually only need about one to two hours of storage, because that's sufficient to meet the

regulations in that market. You need to be able to completely discharge or charge at maximum power for a maximum of 15 minutes. And for the secondary frequency response market, so aFRR, you actually need longer storage duration because the market conditions require that you can provide for four hours. However, through storage management, through intelligent recharging, you can roughly reduce that to 1.5 hours that you need to maintain. That means there again around two hours of storage is better suited. I think about the physics too,

so if you imagine a world with 100 percent renewable energy, where there's essentially only wind and sun. In Germany it's of course different than in other regions of the world, the weather will be different there. But if you briefly limit it to Germany, then you'd actually have quite a different situation in summer than now in spring and autumn, which are roughly similar, and then in winter. And if you leave out the prolonged dark calms in winter for a moment

If one lets this happen, you would almost always have electricity available in summer. I would say that with the sun alone, perhaps on certain days when there's little wind, and in spring and autumn there are also certain days in a row where there could be small dark periods. And otherwise there's always a bit of wind or always a bit of sun. That means storage is actually used primarily for spring, less for summer, and more for spring,

autumn, and then winter you actually maybe have the wind that you can always bridge, and sun almost not at all. Would you see it that way too, roughly? Yes, well in principle clearly. There are of course seasonal differences that occur and that we can already see quite well on the markets today. So for example, we see now for storage that trades on markets, classic arbitrage really: I buy when the price is cheap, I sell when it's expensive

is. This storage has worked well now, especially in summer, the system, because there prices fluctuate more strongly, simply because with photovoltaics we have higher volatility in there. And that means for storage: of course you have to make sure you can forecast very well when these price spreads occur, because ultimately the market controls that. And we will see at the electricity exchange when storage is needed and when it isn't.

You'll be able to see that exactly at the exchange. And accordingly, storage has to react. Of course it will become increasingly important that storage really works forecast-based and intelligent trading algorithms know exactly: when can I make money with the storage, and when do I have to charge and discharge? And all this trading at the exchanges, that's been a difficult component for us in science anyway, you have to say, because simply there are extremely

many data points. You have the order books, if you look into them – millions of data points. The positions change, for example on the spot markets. So there's day-ahead, but especially intraday. You can trade five minutes before delivery. And in the last 30 minutes we see that extreme fluctuations simply occur, positions then suddenly show very different prices. And that's what's being exploited right now. You go and buy, for example, a position that's cheap, somehow

20 minutes before, and then realize somehow 10 minutes before: okay, I can sell it again, maybe at a different point. And then you've even done trading without actually doing anything physically. This is also called financial virtual trading, where we see that for storage alone, for example, it amounts to a factor of 5 of the physical trades, in terms of revenue later, or even more actually. That means this is the big, right now the big factor for why storage is also

so attractive and why many investors say: yes, I'm going into that. The system pays for itself after a few years. And of course the question is how that will develop on the markets. Forecasts about that are naturally made. For us it's rather not such a topic – those are more economically-oriented research institutions, I'd say. But storage will have to adapt to that, so that they can really exploit these fluctuations correctly in the future. And then

it becomes clear: there will be seasonal differences. But storage will be able to deliver the right use at the right times. And if you break down the value chain on the energy side – sorry – and what potentials there are: you've already mentioned some. I would summarize and add to it – and then you can see what you think about how the trend will be in the future. So there are, as I said, these balancing services. For the listeners: that's the

thing that transmission system operators guarantee grid stability – they need, so to speak, consumers and producers who can ramp their output up and down. And then there are the electricity markets that reflect the availability of energy and demand. And a price is reached there over time. And beyond that we have the distribution grid topics, where it's about: how many congestion points are there in the distribution grids at any given time? And nowadays in Germany – I think since April first this year – there are also these dynamic grid tariffs. In certain markets

it's even more dynamic, see UK and the Netherlands. And that would also be a quite exciting market that will become more dynamic from a future perspective – really with real-time congestion at line level, at distribution grid level – and will then reflect itself in the market again, where storage can also participate. That means I think roughly – perhaps you can still add self-consumption optimization, where you say: okay, we have our own solar installation, we try to maximize our own electricity and don't have network charges and taxes for that.

Where do you see the most potential, and are there specific markets – balancing service provision is, as far as I know, also a small market – that won't offer as much potential in the future? Yes, exactly, you're saying it already. A big aspect is that the balancing service markets are limited in volume. We have something like 580 MW in primary balancing in Germany. Exactly. And there we can clearly see that we now have so many batteries already prequalified. Prequalification is basically the process you have to go through

must be conducted in order to be allowed to offer control reserve services. It must be carried out for each system. And exactly – the battery storage systems are already so heavily pre-qualified there that it is sufficient to cover the market. And of course, this will mean that the market becomes significantly less attractive in the coming years, and probably it should at least be the case that a bigger price competition then sets in, so that more efficient systems also gain bigger advantages at some point. Because of course the

cheapest system ultimately wins in the market. And we are of course seeing the shift towards secondary control reserve. We have to say, the market is limited there too, but we still have room. Still, if we – if we talk about 100 gigawatt hours, then of course the market – it's around 2 GW, I believe. Exactly, it's approximately 2 GW. Then the market is also quickly gone, we have to be clear about that. Yes, I think then one will

certainly mainly focus on the larger systems – just a quick interjection: isn't it the case that these markets could also expand over time because the volatility of renewables is increasing significantly? Yes, that can certainly happen. I'm not someone who has made forecasts there. I've seen forecasts at conferences – they vary. It's very difficult to predict what will happen. But they won't increase to such an extent that compared to the 100 gigawatt hours it becomes relevant in the sense that

that we can say, we can still just throw all battery storage at it. I would definitely not assume that. And that's why we definitely need other markets where the storage systems work. And exactly there, via the spot markets, there is definitely potential. That's what all the traders are saying, so the large companies that develop these intelligent algorithms to generate revenues in these markets. They also say this is the market to go. There will be more volume and more volatility there in the future.

which of course speaks a little against it: actually the volatility should at some point settle to the marginal cost of the storage or the large storage, because of course the spread is only as large as long as you can't somehow resolve it. But if the storage can resolve this spread, so to speak, prices should also actually go down in the future as far as these spreads are concerned. So there too, of course, at some point, when the market grows larger or the battery storage market grows, there will also be an effect on

the market. The exciting question in this context for me is always: a market is supply and demand. And in this case, both are rising. So you'd have ever more renewables, and demand can only be increased to a limited extent – so see flexible systems in industry or e-mobility or heat pumps. And then the question is: what is the difference of the battery storage to these power peaks that then exist in production, minus the demand side? That's not even

that trivial. It's definitely not trivial. Exactly, you can't logically grasp so quickly that markets will then at some point work and regulate things so that demand and supply so to speak meet. We assume that. That means it will certainly become more difficult for storage at some point to participate in the market because there's more competition then. Simply – you can certainly assume that. Exactly, maybe to the other use cases you

mentioned. We then also have the behind-the-meter applications – increasing self-consumption is one of the major aspects and actually also the aspect that drove the first storage markets. So a storage market clearly focused on self-consumption, as well as the commercial storage market actually. A large share of systems actually for that: there it's mainly photovoltaic to temporarily store and increase the share that you use yourself. And exactly with these applications, there is of course a high variance in applications and in various aspects that you then have to consider individually.

Important to know is that the storage systems there are more – let's say – longer hour storage. We're talking about 3–4 hours of storage plus, because we simply load renewables in comparatively slowly and then discharge them again at some point when we don't have as much generation. That means it's important to note that. Another use case: peak shaving, which is very prominent – so peak load shaving. There you try of course – we pay for

the highest power peak in 15 minutes in the year at the power price. And if you can influence this moment so to speak and with the storage reduce this load peak, then that is of course of great advantage. And we see that storage in this application can sometimes amortise itself in 2–3 years if the characteristics are given. Important especially for the use case: we actually need narrow peaks that contain relatively little energy. That could be something like

electric mobility, for instance if you still have a fast charger or something. And what's also important to make it even more profitable: you're best off also over 2,500 operating hours per year, because then you slip into the tariff where the power price is significantly higher and where you accordingly have to pay higher charges. So in principle: constant consumption and small peaks are actually ideal for this use case. And that is

of course more of a power-based application. That means we're looking at storage systems that don't necessarily need to have so much energy capacity, but above all of course need to be able to provide the power. Exactly. And just to briefly touch on the point about distribution networks: How do you see the potential in distribution networks? It's definitely a solution in distribution networks when you have local congestion, to also work with storage there. How exactly the markets will shape up, I unfortunately don't have any

insights on that, but storage can definitely deliver there. What I actually keep hearing, also from research – we're also closely involved with power electronics – is that you can actually improve power in distribution networks quite well if you integrate DC, so to speak. That means there can be simple DC-to-DC points, so from distribution network station to distribution network station, in order to be able to use the capacity of both stations more flexibly. It doesn't always have to be a storage system.

there are other solutions too. You can also achieve a lot with load management and so on. I think flexibility also plays a major role. We don't necessarily need to have storage everywhere right now, perhaps to support an operating mode that doesn't make sense anyway. Of course, one should set incentives so that consumers use energy in such a way that we can also minimize storage deployment. Because ultimately: sure, we can always build more storage, but the overall economic costs also need to be kept in view

of course. And when it comes to fleets – the podcast is called Smart Charge, after all – and the users, exactly, when you have to decide: You have charging infrastructure at your own site. And how much storage should you use then? There's a certain grid connection capacity, and you want to make the best use of these potentials in terms of energy costs. What would you recommend then? How should one approach the topic? Well, in principle again of course very individual, because depending on what power you have installed there

at charging stations. So if I'm thinking of the truck use case, for example, and suddenly you arrive with several or somehow with five to six megawatt charging stations, then of course that can be a challenge for the grid connection – if we now have, say, a smaller logistics operation or so – then they might have a megawatt or so of connection capacity. Of course you have to look closely then. And fleet patterns are of course very, very important there. So recognizing fleet patterns and also knowing when the vehicles charge – how, there we

also have very. Exactly, we also have very exciting research projects underway right now. We have a project called Flexfleet. There we look closely – so we have a lot of data from charging fleets and try to cluster them. And of course you can see that there are already typical groups there. And then of course you can start and first look or think as an operator in which group I might fall into. Am I rather an operator where during the day suddenly there's a peak, because

people all come to the operation, because things happen, production runs and so on. Or am I somehow in an operation where we have shifts, something is actually constantly happening. So there are various models, so to speak. And we're actually working on setting up different ones in research so that you can categorize them better. And then based on that you can also better think about how much storage you actually need. And certainly also an aspect that should be considered here again: a storage system can be a solution

there, but doesn't have to be a panacea, rather you can also look at whether you can use load management in other ways and perhaps also still have flexibility in the operation that you're not perhaps using at all, and then you can also save costs there. Yes, exactly. Are there any rough rules of thumb that you could establish? For example, many fleets face the decision: okay, if my grid connection capacity isn't sufficient and let's say load management to delay the charging processes isn't

sufficient – do I now upgrade the grid connection, which isn't cheap, or do I invest in storage or a combination of solar plus storage? What would you say? A blanket rule of thumb is always very hard for me because, as I said, it depends very individually on the operation. I think one aspect that might come into play is to think about: am I perhaps in an operation where I expect that I might have increasing energy demand in the future, or whether

I might be in an operation where I say, maybe I even have decreasing energy demand, because I want to become more efficient somehow or so, and through that maybe also save potentials at my grid connection in the future that I can then use in other ways. An example I have in mind: we did a project once with telecommunication sites. And it's very interesting there that the power requirements have actually been continuously declining over the past decades, because the technology has simply become more efficient and better. So

The old broadcasting technology was much, much less efficient. And as a result, suddenly large capacities opened up at some locations. That means there are sites where megawatt connections really exist and where little or nothing is being done. And of course it's optimal then to say: well, I now have more capacity there, so I could perhaps put a battery storage system there and even provide control power or trading and so on. Exactly, yes. And in the fleet sector, as I said,

it's very difficult. You have to distinguish: trucks – there's of course a completely different energy requirement that you have to buffer there. If you say for a truck: well, they really need to be fully charged because they sit there, get unloaded, maybe get charged, and then drive a long distance again – then they naturally don't want to have to recharge in between. That means you really have to say: well, we really need the entire amount of energy, we have to provide that, and

If we're talking about private mobility, or if people charge their own private cars at the company – well, then you have to think about whether you might also set incentives and say: well, today maybe it doesn't look so good. If you still want to fully charge anyway, you pay more or something. And accordingly, that dynamically reduces demand depending on how the situation is. And how do you see this topic? There are sometimes conflicting optimizations, for example when you operate this peak shaving that

you also mentioned, then it means you have to try to have a constant profile in electricity consumption. And there's also a big debate in the industry right now: this 7,500-hour rule, I believe, where you had significantly reduced network fees if you basically generated a base load. And actually we need more flexible electricity consumption that orientates itself more to the availability of renewables and real-time bottlenecks in that regard. That means peak shaving is still a real cost-saving factor nowadays. At the same time you can

benefit from price spreads on electricity exchanges with dynamic electricity tariffs. But sometimes when you charge a lot at certain times because electricity is cheap, you create a peak load. So how do you see these conflicting optimizations? That's certainly interesting because we've seen that repeatedly in our simulations too. Let me give you an example. So in my dissertation, which I'm currently working on, I dealt with a

use case from a glassworks. There it was of course primarily about: how can we decarbonize now? Then hydrogen comes into play somehow. We have to produce hydrogen via electrolysis – or that was the use case I was looking at. And then I initially calculated the whole thing without peak shaving – I'll call it peak-shaving-aware operation – without it and looked at what happens. And then of course the battery storage systems were built considerably larger. The battery storage systems in that case

act essentially as a buffer for renewable generation. In this case not at the site itself, but it's about PPAs – Power Purchase Agreements – so contracts with renewable installations that are somewhere in Germany. But basically the principle is the same as with increasing self-consumption. Of course you try to buffer the flexibility – better said the dynamics – in generation with the storage. And as I said, without this peak-shaving-aware operation I saw that the storage, I think, 20, 30, 40 percent

was built larger, actually, and accordingly also drew huge power peaks. And when I then looked at a different scenario: well, now we do peak-shaving-aware – what impact does that have on the storage? Then the optimizer suddenly reduced the inverter power significantly. It kept the storage roughly the same size, but reduced the inverter power in order to avoid these high load peaks. So there is an optimum and you have to

clearly see that you can't simply use the largest storage and the largest power there, because at some point you get a contrary effect again. That means, in other words: as a fleet you should consider both aspects. That definitely. And there are also sophisticated optimization software tools that consider these things – we're also developing such a tool at the institute that does exactly these things. Exactly. And we talk a lot about storage, stationary storage now.

But how do you see bidirectional storage, the potential of e-mobility, and also practical use cases that can already be realized now – or how quickly will that come? Well, certainly an extremely exciting question, because when we look at the potential we theoretically have in this area – we now have about 125 GWh already installed in all vehicles in terms of battery capacity in Germany. That includes hybrids too. And if you

compare that with the 100 GWh from before that we need by 2030, you see: that's a relevant number. And we have to of course make sure we also tap flexibility there as much as possible. And looking ahead: if you were to electrify all cars – I think it's 70 million in Germany – let's say roughly 60 kWh battery on average, we come to about 4.2 TWh, I calculated once. Those are huge numbers. We could theoretically cover the short-term storage requirement completely

cover that well. And of course we have to see: we're not assuming that this complete potential can be utilized, but only a partial potential. And the question is: how large is this partial potential? I can't give you a number right now, but that will become clear over the next few years. We're currently seeing that we're still working on pilot projects. That means individual applications where we're looking at the whole topic, and this commercialization probably – yes, I am

not an expert in that area and couldn't say in two years six months it will be done. But I think it will take a few more years before we really get into the mass commercialization phase, like we've seen with large-scale storage systems. Still, yes. So I think the problems are certainly often known. We have technical decisions to make, of course: AC versus DC charging, so to speak, where AC might be technically simpler. But we have relatively few vehicles that can do that so far with

the onboard charger. DC has high infrastructure investment costs, so the use case might become uneconomical again. And ultimately, of course, regulation – always a big topic in Germany. I'd say double taxation and so on, which was actually planned to be abolished, but I think is still a bit stuck. And multi-use in the sense of the exclusivity principle could also be mentioned, meaning that green and grey power mix in a storage system – EEG-funded green power and

you no longer know, so to speak, which power is which. That's the big problem that was actually resolved in the law, where the Bundesnetzagentur is now responsible for creating framework conditions for what a metering concept could look like so that you can distinguish these different energy flows. Ultimately, as I said, we're seeing various use cases that are already simple to implement: behind-the-meter, so when it comes to peak shaving or things like that or increasing self-consumption. Of course, we have enormous potential there. And we see

that things are being implemented there and where we've also worked on examples in research. Exactly, with the other things, as I said, I think that will definitely come. But we might need to have a little more patience until the regulations and framework conditions improve. And then a few follow-up questions: how much, since you've already sketched such a huge potential, whether it will be 60 kWh or more

or less – I think there are about 48 million cars in Germany now, but then with trucks et cetera it's even more. How much of that potential will battery storage systems take away? Can you take a rough guess, or just make an educated guess? How much will bidirectional charging account for, so to speak? And how much will battery storage systems account for of the storage capacities

that will exist in Germany? Yes, that's certainly the holy grail, so to speak. If we knew that, we'd certainly have a number ready and probably already published it. So I think it's really hard to make an assessment because, as I said, the markets are still changing dynamically. That means we'd also have to know what the markets will look like afterwards. In 10, 20 years we can make guesses. But as I said, so many factors come into play. I think

I wouldn't see it as pitting bidirectional charging against large-scale storage or anything like that, but rather I'd see both as simply great opportunities to create this flexibility. And I think both areas need to work hard so that we can reach 100 GWh in 2030, for example. So I think every bidirectional project, every large-scale storage system is valuable in that regard. And when we eventually get to a point where we can say: okay, now we have so much flexibility – we'll have to see what

we actually do with it. I think it will take a few more years before we get into that area. By then the first large-scale storage systems have probably already gone through their cycle once. That means new investment decisions are made. But I think for the current phase there's no contradiction at all. Keyword investment decisions for fleet operators: if you had vehicles that had an AC-side bidirectional inverter in the vehicle, you could use the current AC charging infrastructure. Do you have to

do anything retroactively then? Do you have concrete recommendations on how to position yourself best to be prepared for this? Well, I can't really go into that much detail, to be honest, because that's not my main research focus. I can only say that there are currently relatively few models that offer this at all. And I think there's a big discussion that still needs to happen about whether OEMs shouldn't also focus more strongly in this area

to make that possible. And yes, that's what I can say about that. All good. And we've talked a lot about Germany. Maybe you have one more outlook or thoughts on how all the topics we discussed – whether you see differences internationally, in certain important regions for example, or also other regions where you think: oh, that will be completely different – or whether the world is kind of following the German model

will also adapt accordingly. Well, in principle I believe that many things can be transferred and ultimately there are also other interesting markets where all of this works well. We Germans can also learn a lot from other regions. I mean, especially from the Nordics and Great Britain we can see that things like reserve markets – or fast frequency response markets – already exist there. That is, for example, one of the things that is currently being discussed

here. For the introduction, now a practical example where you can actually also look to other countries and perhaps take best practices from there, so to speak when it comes to market design and so on. Yes, and of course there are also differences. Well, let me say large-scale storage in the USA. They are actually operated differently than now in Europe. We have more storage that is much larger hour storage, so to speak, that is used more to buffer renewables.

Australia especially, yes, California especially or Australia – huge battery systems that are naturally running in that area and also have a stabilizing effect on the grid. So yes, there are still differences. And I myself found it quite interesting – a difference that I can perhaps show here. I did an internship at Sonnen in the USA. That was in 2018. So first term of Donald Trump, and there were already controversies in the USA. And yes, but apart from the social points

I of course also got technical insights into how Sonnen – a German company in the home storage sector – operates on the market and how it functions in the USA, or what the aspects are there. And back then they were fundamentally different things and are certainly still different approaches today. The focus there was of course mainly on – the grids are not that stable. Yes, you hear that all the time. We had back then – yes, we had back then the hurricane that devastated all of Puerto Rico, I think

and where there were power outages for weeks. That was exactly at the time when I was there. And we then processed a lot of orders in that direction, so that people there basically wanted the batteries as emergency power, so they basically wanted to build their own island network. What in Germany there are also systems that can do that, but it is the minority that works in that area. And then a completely different use case suddenly in the USA. And I think

you of course have to keep an eye on the markets a bit, especially when you are active internationally as a company, so that you identify the right markets for your product, so to speak. And I think there are differences all over the world. But also many commonalities, I believe, where German innovation can also be carried out into the world. Okay, to wrap up – perhaps you have thoughts you wanted to share with the listeners. And how can the listeners best stay in touch with you

or read further information as well. Yes, definitely happy to be contacted via LinkedIn. We are there, I am also very responsive and am happy to take on any ideas when it comes to research topics. We are very broadly positioned, I think, when it comes to research in Aachen. We can, as I said, conduct research from materials to cell and module level all the way to system level. We can conduct research in the market environment. That means, if there are ideas there, also from the smart charging area of course, where many are probably listening now

from that field – we have really implemented projects successfully with Mobility House, Hubject, Smart L. Well-known names from the field. That means you can reach us or reach me. And perhaps one or two contacts will come out of it. Great. Then thank you very much and have a nice trip back to the west. Yes, thank you very much. It was a lot of fun. Yes, that was exciting with Jonas. We were able to get insights into various topics – I found it very exciting – particularly his background and how it went from a master's thesis to founding. That is unusual and most theses end up in a drawer somewhere. So cool that it then led to a successful start-up that is leading in the topic of battery lifetime and analytics. RWTH is of course a very important university in Germany and to get a bit of insight into how spin-offs happen, and then also the insights into Sonnen and how the differences are between the USA and Germany and the various value chains we have in the energy sector. How much will there

be in control power, whether the market is big enough and how much battery storage we need, where, and what type of chemistry is relevant, and especially geopolitical aspects between Germany or Europe and China and Norway. How ultimately battery storage in vehicles, the topic of bidirectional charging and what potential is there – and especially for fleets the decision: How much battery storage do I need? So I think, a really successful outlook and a status quo assessment in various ways on this topic with an absolute expert who is passionate

about these topics. So I hope you enjoyed it. Please feel free to leave five stars and recommend it. And see you next time.

And until next time.

Episode notes

In dieser Folge tauchen wir gemeinsam mit Jonas in die faszinierende Welt der Batterietechnologie ein. Dabei erzählt er, wie aus seiner Master-Thesis ein erfolgreiches Startup wurde, das heute führend im Bereich Lebensdauer-Analysen von Batterien ist. Wir werfen zudem einen Blick auf die entscheidende Rolle der RWTH Aachen als Innovationsschmiede in Deutschland und erhalten spannende Einblicke in den Gründungsprozess sowie in seine Erfahrungen bei Sonnen. Jonas Van Ouwerkerk berichtet außerdem von den Unterschieden zwischen den Energiemärkten in den USA und Deutschland, der Bedeutung von Batteriespeichern für Regelleistung und die Herausforderungen rund um die Wahl der passenden Batterietypen. Ein besonderes Highlight sind die geopolitischen Aspekte, insbesondere zwischen Europa und China, und wie sich diese auf die Batterieproduktion und -technologie auswirken. Abschließend geht es um das bidirektionale Laden, die Potenziale für Flottenbetreibende und die Frage, wie viel Batteriespeicher wir in Zukunft tatsächlich brauchen. Hört unbedingt rein, wenn ihr mehr über die aktuellen Entwicklungen und Trends in der Energiespeicher-Branche erfahren wollt – Jonas’ Expertise und Begeisterung sind ansteckend! Lasst gern eine Fünf-Sterne-Bewertung da und empfiehlt uns weiter. Bis zur nächsten Folge!