Contents
- Energy storage costs statistics: global installed battery project costs
- Energy storage costs statistics: turnkey system prices by duration
- Energy storage costs statistics: regional battery price gaps
- Energy storage costs statistics: battery cost estimates by technology
- Energy storage costs statistics: non-battery storage project costs
- Sources
Energy storage costs statistics: global installed battery project costs
Global installed project cost and turnkey equipment price describe different parts of a storage project. IRENA’s installed-cost series covers utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) on a usable-kWh basis and is expressed in 2024 US dollars. In that series, the global total installed project cost was USD 2,571/kWh in 2010 and USD 192/kWh in 2024. IRENA reports the change between those endpoints as a 93% decline. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
| Global utility-scale BESS indicator | Period | Reported value |
|---|---|---|
| Total installed project cost | 2010 | USD 2,571/kWh usable, in 2024 USD |
| Total installed project cost | 2024 | USD 192/kWh usable, in 2024 USD |
| Annual gross deployment additions | 2010 | 0.1 GWh |
| Annual gross deployment additions | 2024 | 169 GWh |
| Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) | 2024 | USD 104/MWh |
Deployment is shown as annual gross additions, not cumulative capacity. The series rose from 0.1 GWh in 2010 to 169 GWh in 2024. A separate metric, the global BESS levelized cost of energy, averaged USD 104/MWh in 2024. That energy-cost measure is not interchangeable with installed capital cost per usable kWh: the denominators differ, and LCOE is an average cost per unit of energy. The figures together describe a much larger deployment flow by 2024 alongside lower reported installed cost, without establishing why either changed. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
The 2010 and 2024 installed-cost observations are historical endpoints. They should not be read as a price quote for a particular project or as an estimate for a later year. IRENA’s global series is a useful broad benchmark, but project costs can also be presented with different boundaries, such as equipment-only turnkey costs or complete project costs. Keeping those definitions visible is essential when comparing the remaining figures.
Energy storage costs statistics: turnkey system prices by duration
IRENA reports global weighted-average turnkey storage costs by system duration. In 2024, the reported price was USD 165/kWh for a 2-hour system and USD 148/kWh for a 4-hour system, both on a usable-capacity basis and in 2024 US dollars. The report says the 4-hour system cost was 11% lower than the 2-hour system cost. It also states that turnkey system costs reached USD 165/kWh in 2024, 40% lower than in 2023. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
| Global turnkey battery storage measure | Period | Reported figure |
|---|---|---|
| 2-hour system price | 2024 | USD 165/kWh usable |
| 4-hour system price | 2024 | USD 148/kWh usable |
| 2-hour system cost decrease | 2023–2024 | 38% |
| 4-hour system cost decrease | 2023–2024 | 32% |
| Turnkey cost decrease | 2023–2024 | 40% |
The duration-specific year-over-year declines were 38% for 2-hour systems and 32% for 4-hour systems. These are reported comparisons, while the 40% statement applies to the turnkey cost value that reached USD 165/kWh. The values are related but should not be collapsed into one percentage: the report supplies duration-specific rates and a separate turnkey comparison. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
IRENA defines turnkey battery storage system costs around project equipment and usable capacity; its note excludes engineering, procurement and construction (EPC), grid connection, and development costs. That boundary explains why these figures should not be set alongside total installed project costs as if they were identical measures. A turnkey price can help compare equipment scope and duration, whereas installed-project cost includes a broader project boundary. The report’s duration comparison states that cost decreases as duration rises from 2 to 4 hours; it does not make every equipment or project configuration directly comparable. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
NREL offers a separate forward-looking series for complete 4-hour utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems. Its overnight capital cost projections are in 2022 dollars per kWh, with low, mid, and high cases. In 2030, these were USD 245/kWh, USD 326/kWh, and USD 403/kWh, respectively. For 2050, NREL projected USD 159/kWh in the low case, USD 226/kWh in the mid case, and USD 348/kWh in the high case. These are modeled projections, not observed market prices. NREL, Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2023 Update
| NREL complete 4-hour battery system projection | Low | Mid | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2030 overnight capital cost (2022 USD/kWh) | 245 | 326 | 403 |
| 2050 overnight capital cost (2022 USD/kWh) | 159 | 226 | 348 |
NREL’s cases are not a continuation of IRENA’s turnkey price series: the system boundary, dollar year, and status of the numbers differ. The low, mid, and high labels identify NREL projection cases. They are not historical market ranges or confidence intervals. Keeping those distinctions intact prevents a forecast from being mistaken for a measured cost and avoids implying a direct comparison across unlike scopes. NREL, Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2023 Update
Energy storage costs statistics: regional battery price gaps
IRENA’s 2024 comparison identifies China as the most competitive market and says its battery storage prices were around 40% below the global average. The same report describes year-over-year cost decreases in China of 48% for a 4-hour system and 47% for a 2-hour system. These are 2023-to-2024 changes, distinct from the comparison with the global average. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
Europe’s storage system costs also decreased between 2023 and 2024, though the reported changes were smaller: 16% for a 2-hour system and 20% for a 4-hour system. IRENA characterizes Europe as having the highest cost ratio compared with global prices. The supplied observations do not give a numeric Europe ratio, so the relative-cost characterization is best kept in the report’s qualitative terms rather than converted into an unreported price. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
| Market and duration | 2024 comparison or change reported |
|---|---|
| China, 2-hour system | 47% decrease from 2023 |
| China, 4-hour system | 48% decrease from 2023 |
| Europe, 2-hour system | 16% decrease from 2023 |
| Europe, 4-hour system | 20% decrease from 2023 |
| United States, 2-hour system | Cost ratio of 1.50 relative to global prices |
| United States, 4-hour system | Cost ratio of 1.58 relative to global prices |
For the United States, IRENA reports cost ratios relative to global prices of 1.50 for 2-hour battery systems and 1.58 for 4-hour systems in 2024. It separately reports U.S. price decreases from 2023 of 34% for 2-hour systems and 27% for 4-hour systems. The ratios describe relative price levels, while the percentages describe annual changes; they answer different questions and should remain separate. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
These regional figures describe reported price relationships and changes for specified markets and durations. They do not supply the full local project-cost components, nor do they establish causes for the gaps. The comparisons are useful for showing that a global weighted average does not describe every market equally, but they do not replace a project-specific cost assessment. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024
Energy storage costs statistics: battery cost estimates by technology
The U.S. Department of Energy report’s Table ES.1 compiles battery energy-capacity capital costs and total project costs for 2018, then provides bracketed 2025 predictions. The two rows measure different scopes: energy-capacity capital cost is stated per kWh of capacity, and total project cost is also stated per kWh. DOE notes that its battery total-cost estimates assume a 4-hour energy-to-power (E/P) ratio. Values below are point estimates, not observed current prices; 2025 figures are forecasts printed in brackets in the report. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report
| Battery technology | Energy-capacity capital cost, 2018 estimate ($/kWh) | Energy-capacity capital cost, 2025 prediction ($/kWh) | Total project cost, 2018 estimate ($/kWh) | Total project cost, 2025 prediction ($/kWh) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li-ion | 271 | 189 | 469 | 362 |
| Sodium-sulfur | 661 | 465 | 907 | 669 |
| Lead-acid | 260 | 220 | 549 | 464 |
| Sodium metal halide | 700 | 482 | 928 | 669 |
| Zinc-hybrid cathode | 265 | 192 | 551 | 433 |
| Redox-flow | 555 | 393 | 858 | — |
The table retains DOE’s point estimates while distinguishing compiled 2018 estimates from projected 2025 values. The dash for redox-flow total project cost in the 2025 column indicates that this selected comparison does not include a value there; it is not a zero-cost estimate. For the other listed technologies, the table shows both measures in both years. Across the table, capital-cost and total-project-cost figures should not be mixed: they are separate DOE rows, and the latter uses the stated 4-hour E/P assumption. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report
The report also supplies ranges around its point estimates. For example, the Li-ion energy-capacity capital cost is listed as USD 223–323/kWh for 2018 and USD 156–203/kWh for the 2025 prediction; its total project cost range is USD 393–581/kWh for 2018 and USD 308–419/kWh for the 2025 prediction. The sodium-sulfur energy-capacity ranges are USD 400–1,000/kWh for 2018 and USD 300–675/kWh for 2025, while its total project cost ranges are USD 599–1,293/kWh and USD 480–924/kWh, respectively. The predicted ranges are forecasts, just like the point values. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report
The remaining 2018 energy-capacity capital cost ranges are USD 120–291/kWh for lead-acid, USD 520–1,000/kWh for sodium metal halide, USD 265–265/kWh for zinc-hybrid cathode, and USD 435–952/kWh for redox-flow. Their respective 2025 predicted ranges are USD 102–247/kWh, USD 364–630/kWh, USD 179–199/kWh, and USD 326–643/kWh. In the total-project-cost row, 2018 ranges are USD 358–631/kWh for lead-acid, USD 703–1,274/kWh for sodium metal halide, USD 500–601/kWh for zinc-hybrid cathode, and USD 686–1,307/kWh for redox-flow. DOE reports a 2025 total-project-cost range of USD 529–860/kWh for sodium metal halide and USD 393–489/kWh for zinc-hybrid cathode; the redox-flow value is not included in this set of selected comparisons. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report
Energy storage costs statistics: non-battery storage project costs
DOE’s non-battery comparison uses technology-specific energy-to-power ratios. The 2018 estimates below show total project cost on both a stored-energy basis ($/kWh) and a power basis ($/kW). Because storage duration assumptions differ substantially, the per-kWh values should be interpreted with the associated E/P ratio rather than treated as like-for-like prices for identical service. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report
| Non-battery technology | E/P ratio | Total project cost (2018 estimate, $/kWh) | Total project cost (2018 estimate, $/kW) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pumped-storage hydropower | 16 h | 165 | 2,638 |
| Compressed-air energy storage (CAES) | 16 h | 105 | 1,669 |
| Flywheel | 0.25 h | 11,520 | — |
| Ultracapacitor | 0.0125 h | 74,480 | — |
For pumped-storage hydropower, DOE gives a total project cost range of USD 106–200/kWh and USD 1,700–3,200/kW. CAES is listed at USD 94–229/kWh and USD 1,050–2,544/kW. Both technologies use a 16-hour E/P ratio in the report. Flywheel’s reported total project cost range is USD 4,320–11,520/kWh at a 0.25-hour E/P ratio; the point estimate is USD 11,520/kWh. Ultracapacitor’s point estimate is USD 74,480/kWh at a 0.0125-hour E/P ratio. These short-duration entries have substantially different E/P assumptions from the 16-hour technologies, so a per-kWh ranking alone would obscure the basis of comparison. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report
The DOE figures are compiled 2018 estimates, not present-day quotations. Their value here is the consistent presentation of project-cost metrics alongside each technology’s stated duration assumption. Power-based costs are available in the checked data for pumped-storage hydropower and CAES; the flywheel and ultracapacitor power-cost cells are not reported here and should not be inferred from their energy-based values. DOE, Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report