As I understand it, the electricity storage facility supplied by Merus is precisely intended for improving the reliability and stability of electricity supply in such situations. So, at least according to Ardian itself, it is, and they have probably calculated it to be profitable. Perhaps its location in Lappeenranta has nothing to do with the fact that a large part of renewable electricity is produced in Western Finland, and they could have built it elsewhere?
Benjamin Kennedy, Managing Director Infrastructure - Renewables at Ardian, states: "The completion of Mertaniemi is a significant milestone for us, as it is Ardian’s Clean Energy Fund’s first investment in electricity storage in Finland. As the country’s wind power capacity continues to grow, the need for storage solutions has increased even further, which is why electricity storage is a very important factor in maintaining grid stability and improving reliability.
And even if that electricity storage might only last 5 minutes in Turku or Helsinki, in Lappeenranta, according to the news, it lasts about 2 hours. Based on the article, it also appears to be ready for rapid responses when the grid frequency demands it.
The 38-megawatt output corresponds to the production capacity of a small power plant, and the nominal capacity of 43 megawatt-hours would be enough to cover the electricity consumption of over 35,000 households, or a city the size of Lappeenranta, for two hours. One of the most important features of the electricity storage is its ability to react to grid needs in fractions of a second. Precisely this kind of flexibility is crucial for maintaining stability in Finland’s electricity grid.
It is, of course, possible that I am completely missing your point. Additionally, that press release might be purely promotional, not necessarily stating the precise use/purpose of that specific electricity storage, but rather general things that can be done with electricity storage. You certainly know these things much better due to your work, but as an investor in Merus, I also want to try to understand if such large electricity storage facilities are sensible for grid stability and ensuring electricity supply, for example, in Eastern Finland. Based on that news, the Lappeenranta electricity storage facility seems to be exactly that.
And even if, based on grid frequency, it would be the same where the batteries are located from the grid’s perspective, their location is indeed significant for electricity availability in exceptional situations. An electricity storage facility located in Ostrobothnia does not help Lappeenranta if transmission connections to Lappeenranta are cut off.
To this, I will also include Elisa’s Home Battery (Kotiakku), where consumers can get Elisa’s battery for their homes, into which energy is then stored or taken by Elisa as needed by the grid, centrally managed according to the current needs of the grid. I don’t know about its profitability for consumers, but I understand the idea of distributed generation when there is, for example, an electricity shortage in some area of the grid. If there are tens of thousands of such households, it can have a significant overall impact.
@Glarin, how do you see this Ardian acquisition? Is it realistic to think that other cities or public entities could acquire similar electricity storage facilities, and if so, on what basis should such an acquisition be made?