19th SET Plan Conference, 4-5 November 2025, Odense, Denmark

Main screen

Greetings from Odense, again! 😊

Last week, right by the harbor (and conveniently close to one of my favorite coffee spots 😊), I attended a really productive event: the 19th SET Plan Conference. It was all about strategic energy technologies for a competitive and secure Europe. Since it was likely organized by the Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy, it easily had the best appetizers, meals, and drinks of any conference I have attended in Denmark, but beyond the catering, the content was genuinely impressive!

Both the keynotes and the parallel tracks were spot on, but for me, the standout was definitely the “Future of Energy Storage” session. The panel featured Professor Henrik Lund from Aalborg University, Mihai Tomescu from the EEA, Fabrice Stassin from BEPA, and Nadine May from DLR.

Future of Energy Storage

Personally, I have often felt that once energy storage became the "next big thing," a lot of impractical applications were pushed forward with pure optimism, ignoring the hard realities. This session gave me the chance to stress-test my own skepticism, both during the Q&A and in private chats with the panelists afterward. Here’s the list of what we covered:

• Hydrogen is... well, hydrogen. It’s been hyped since 2010, but the future doesn't look that bright. It’s still unclear what exactly fueled those massive expectations; one thing’s for sure, it wasn't the laws of thermodynamics. Never been.

• Batteries are king. They already dominate short-to-medium duration storage, and they’re only getting more efficient. What was more interesting was the consensus among the panelists that batteries will soon take over "long duration" storage (12 hours to 3 days - my note) as well.

  • Side note: This basically means we're watching batteries kill off thermomechanical storage: a tech that was "decent" but is now losing its footing (be polite and understanding those who cannot accept this reality). It used to be a contender for medium duration; now it’s being pushed out of its last stronghold (long duration) by practical battery applications. Even with its current popularity, thermomechanical storage is heading toward a losing battle. Batteries are truly revolutionizing every corner of this field.

• Thermochemical storage: I had a detailed chat with Henrik Lund and Mihai Tomescu about this. The verdict? It’s a "promising" technology and -to be honest- it’ll probably always stay that way. 😊 Unless we're talking about high-temp long-term storage, it doesn't even crack the top three for price-to-performance. And even then, why store a high-exergy medium for that long?

  • Think of it like being a shopkeeper with a high-demand item. You can sell it now or 10 months from now for the same value, and you can restock easily. Would you sit on it? Probably not. Even if you wanted to store heat for 7 months with "zero loss" (theoretically), would you pay 10 units for that, or pay 6 units for a system with 10-15% loss? If you choose the first, you’re a great engineer but a terrible businessman. By 2050, based on my calculations that were shown to some panelist during and after the panel, thermochemical will likely still be the expensive outlier compared to simpler alternatives like sand, rock, or molten salt/battery combos.

Henrik Lund’s closing thoughts really summed it up for me: We’re researching a million different storage techs, but our future choices will probably be just as simple and needs-based as they’ve always been. Batteries for electricity, and hot water tanks for heat.

Agreeing with Henrik Lund is a bit of a relief! 😊 But it leaves us with a big question: Should we keep sinking research investment into technologies that won’t be viable or affordable even by 2050? In my opinion, the answer is no. Even though the photos are open to everyone on the SET Plan website, I am still concerning about possible copyright, thus I am sharing only the ones I appeared somehow (nice pictures, thanks to photographer 😊 )