Energy storage is expanding across grids, factories and long-duration applications, but its statistics describe different things: power capacity, energy generation, manufacturing capability, investment and modeled cost. The figures below distinguish observed results from estimates, forecasts and technology-case assumptions.
Key Energy Storage Technology Statistics
The most quotable figures span global scenarios, U.S. deployment, supply chains and performance:
- In the IEA net-zero emissions scenario, global energy storage capacity must reach 1,500 GW by 2030 to support tripling renewables.
- In that global IEA scenario, batteries provide 90% of storage-capacity growth through 2030.
- The IEA scenario projects battery storage capacity at 1,200 GW by 2030, a 14-fold increase.
- U.S. cumulative utility-scale battery capacity exceeded 26 GW in 2024.
- U.S. operators added 10.4 GW of utility-scale battery capacity in 2024.
- U.S. utility-scale battery capacity grew 66% during 2024.
- Battery storage represented 2% of the 1,230 GW of U.S. utility-scale generating capacity in 2024.
- Global battery-storage investment was expected to exceed $50 billion in 2024.
- Global battery-cell manufacturing capacity grew almost 30% to more than 3 TWh per year in 2024.
- China held about 85% of global battery manufacturing capacity in 2024.
- In 2024, global battery-cell capacity was about three times combined electric-vehicle and battery-storage demand.
- A DOE modeled 1 MW LFP system had approximately $0.30/kWh LCOS at 24 hours in its 2021 case.
- In the DOE 2021 comparison, a 1,000 MW, 10-hour CAES system reached $0.10/kWh minimum LCOS.
- Pumped-storage hydropower had $0.11/kWh LCOS for a 1,000 MW, 10-hour system in the DOE 2021 comparison.
- DOE assumed 80% round-trip efficiency for pumped-storage hydropower in both its 2021 and 2030 cases.
- DOE’s comparison placed battery calendar life generally at 10–15 years.
- DOE’s comparison placed non-electrochemical storage calendar life generally at 30–60 years.
- The DOE Long-Duration Storage Shot targets a 90% cost reduction for systems delivering more than 10 hours within one decade of its 2021 launch.
Contents
- Global energy storage scale and 2030 targets
- Grid battery capacity and generation trends
- Investment and battery manufacturing data
- Energy storage costs, duration and LCOS
- Efficiency, cycle life and calendar life
- Long-duration, pumped-hydro and alternative storage outlook
Global Energy Storage Scale and 2030 Targets
The IEA’s 2030 figures are scenario requirements, not observed global totals. In its net-zero emissions scenario, storage capacity must increase sixfold to 1,500 GW by 2030, while battery storage rises 14-fold to 1,200 GW.
The same scenario assigns batteries 90% of the increase in storage capacity through 2030, including utility-scale and behind-the-meter batteries. These figures describe a modeled pathway supporting the tripling of renewables, not a guaranteed deployment outcome. IEA, Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions: Outlook for battery demand and supply
DOE’s 2021 assessment used several storage-duration cases, allowing cost and performance comparisons across short- and long-duration designs:
- The modeled durations were 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 24 and 100 hours.
- Representative battery cases used 1 MW and 10 MW system power.
- Representative non-battery cases used 100 MW and 1,000 MW system power.
- The U.S. Long-Duration Storage Shot, launched in 2021, targets a 90% cost reduction for systems delivering more than 10 hours within one decade.
These are modeled systems rather than an inventory of installed projects. The size and duration choices explain why technology comparisons should not be read as a single market-wide average. DOE, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2022
Grid Battery Capacity and Generation Trends
U.S. Energy Information Administration inventory data show rapid growth in utility-scale batteries, while the inventory generally covers facilities at or above 1 MW and excludes smaller behind-the-meter systems.
| U.S. utility-scale battery measure | Period | Reported figure |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulative nameplate power capacity | 2024 | More than 26 GW |
| Capacity added | Calendar year 2024 | 10.4 GW |
| Year-over-year capacity growth | 2024 | 66% |
| Share of 1,230 GW utility-scale generating capacity | 2024 | 2% |
| Planned additions | 2025 inventory | 19.6 GW |
| Available capacity snapshot | July 2024 | More than 20.7 GW |
The 19.6 GW planned for 2025 was an inventory estimate, so projects could be delayed or cancelled. The July snapshot also differs from the year-end capacity measure and should not be treated as the same observation. EIA, U.S. battery capacity increased 66% in 2024
Historical EIA data show how U.S. battery storage activity developed before the recent capacity surge. Additions were 4 MW in 2010, while gross generation reached 24 thousand MWh in 2014 and then varied across the following years.
| Year | U.S. battery gross generation |
|---|---|
| 2014 | 24 thousand MWh |
| 2015 | 76 thousand MWh |
| 2016 | 142 thousand MWh |
| 2017 | 383 thousand MWh |
| 2018 | 358 thousand MWh |
| 2019 | 456 thousand MWh |
The generation table reports gross generation from storage facilities, not energy discharged only. Gross generation and nameplate power capacity are different measures and are not interchangeable. EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 3.27: Gross/Net Generation by Energy Storage Technology
Energy Storage Investment and Battery Manufacturing Data
The IEA expected global battery-storage investment to exceed $50 billion in 2024, projecting about $54 billion. For context, total global energy investment was expected to exceed $3 trillion, while clean-energy technologies and infrastructure were expected to receive about $2 trillion; the latter includes renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear, grids, storage and other technologies.
The investment geography was highly concentrated. In 2023, for every dollar invested in battery storage in advanced economies and China, only one cent was invested in other emerging and developing economies.
This is a concentration comparison, not a measure of technology performance. IEA, World Energy Investment 2024: Overview and key findings
Manufacturing capacity measures annualized production capability, not actual cell output or deployed storage capacity. IEA 2024 figures show the scale and location of that capability:
| Manufacturing measure | 2024 figure | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Global battery-cell capacity growth | Almost 30% | Global |
| Global battery-cell capacity | More than 3 TWh per year | Global |
| Capacity versus combined EV and storage demand | About 3 times | Global |
| China share of global capacity | About 85% | Plant location |
| Chinese-producer ownership share | More than 75% | Global ownership |
| U.S. capacity growth | Almost 50% | United States |
| EU capacity growth | 10% | European Union |
Korean companies accounted for nearly 70% of U.S. battery-manufacturing-capacity growth in 2024. By producer nationality, Korean manufacturers had more than 400 GWh of overseas capacity, compared with 60 GWh for Japanese producers and 30 GWh for Chinese producers. IEA, Global EV Outlook 2025: Electric vehicle batteries
Energy Storage Costs, Duration and LCOS
Levelized cost of storage, or LCOS, is a modeled cost measure that includes assumptions such as charging, augmentation and replacement. It is not a consumer purchase price or a retail electricity tariff.
The DOE 2021 LFP cases show why longer duration can materially change modeled economics:
| System | 24-hour LCOS | 100-hour LCOS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 MW LFP | Approximately $0.30/kWh | Approximately $1.05/kWh |
| 10 MW LFP | Approximately $0.29/kWh | Approximately $1.00/kWh |
Across the DOE battery cases, LCOS rose 25% to 100% when duration increased from 10 to 24 hours, and 200% to 250% when it increased from 24 to 100 hours. At 10 hours, non-lead-acid battery technologies clustered around $0.20/kWh, within about $0.03/kWh of one another.
The 1,000 MW comparisons illustrate how technology, scale and duration interact:
- CAES reached a minimum LCOS of $0.10/kWh for a 10-hour system.
- Pumped-storage hydropower had $0.11/kWh LCOS for a 10-hour system.
- Gravitational, thermal, LFP, vanadium-flow and NMC systems fell within $0.13–$0.20/kWh in the comparison.
- Lead-acid was $0.33/kWh, while hydrogen was $0.35/kWh.
These are representative DOE modeled comparisons with technology-, size-, duration- and assumption-specific results. DOE, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2022
Energy Storage Efficiency, Cycle Life and Calendar Life
Round-trip efficiency measures how much energy is recovered after charging and discharging. The DOE figures below are assessment assumptions or modeled cases, not fleet-average measurements.
| Technology or case | Duration | Round-trip efficiency |
|---|---|---|
| CAES | 2021 and 2030 assumption | 52% |
| Pumped-storage hydropower | 2021 and 2030 assumption | 80% |
| Lead-acid, transformer case | 10 hours | 82% |
| Lead-acid, transformer case | 24 hours | 83% |
| Lead-acid, transformer case | 100 hours | 84% |
| Lead-acid, inverter case | 10 hours | 78% |
| Lead-acid, inverter case | 24 hours | 79% |
| Lead-acid, inverter case | 100 hours | 80% |
The lead-acid figures vary because the report used different inverter and transformer assumptions. That distinction matters when comparing efficiency values across technologies or system designs.
Calendar life is the time a system may remain serviceable under the relevant assumptions, separate from the number of charge-discharge cycles. DOE’s general comparison placed battery systems at 10–15 years and non-electrochemical systems at 30–60 years.
The modeled relationship for zinc batteries also changed with duration: cycle life increased nearly threefold as the modeled duration rose from 2 to 10 hours. This is a model relationship across DOE duration cases, not a universal result for every zinc system. DOE, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2022
Long-Duration, Pumped-Hydro and Alternative Storage Outlook
Long-duration storage covers more than batteries. DOE’s technology description places CAES in markets needing roughly 12–24 hours of storage duration, while its modeled cost cases extend to 100 hours.
The technology outlook includes both mature infrastructure and demonstrations:
- The Huntorf CAES plant in Germany had reached 50 years of calendar life when described in the DOE report; it is a single-facility example, not a fleet average.
- DOE’s discussion assumes 100 years of calendar life for large pumped-hydro civil-engineering structures as a design-life reference, not a guarantee for every plant.
- A gravity-storage demonstration in Switzerland was described as operating for one year with 500 kg concrete blocks; this does not establish commercial fleet scale.
For 2030, DOE projected battery total installed costs of approximately $230–$690/kWh, across battery technologies, sizes and durations. In its 100 MW, 10-hour comparison, LFP was projected to be roughly equivalent to or cheaper than pumped hydro and thermal storage.
Hydrogen LCOS was projected to decline by approximately $0.17/kWh across the included 100 MW and 1,000 MW durations from 2021 to 2030, mainly through modeled reductions in fuel-cell and electrolyzer stack costs. These are forecasts and modeled comparisons rather than observed market quotes. DOE, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2022