The right energy policy does not choose technology first - It defines the problem first
Written by Eugenia Herodotou, CEO of EnergyIntel
The debate on energy storage in Cyprus is maturing. There is, however, a risk of turning it into a simplistic technology competition.
Batteries are essential: they offer fast response, high efficiency and energy shift throughout the day. However, they do not cover every need of an isolated system such as the Cyprus one.
The network does not have a need
Responding in seconds is one thing, transferring solar production from noon to evening is another. The need for an industry that asks for steam at a specific temperature is different.
When these needs are squeezed into an index (e.g. MWh or cost per kWh), the market is not neutral: it has already decided what it considers valuable. A lower price does not mean lower costs for the system over time; The assessment must take into account the storage lifespan, life cycle, and overall value of each solution.
The recent analysis by the Cyprus Institute is important because it shifts the discussion from technological preference to systemic value. Her conclusion is not "thermal storage instead of batteries", but that the two solutions meet different needs and can create more value together than separately.
The numbers substantiate this: in 2025, 22% of the available RES capacity was cut, while the minimum operation of conventional units - for sufficient inactivity - costs €51 million per year in 2030, half due to inactivity. Thermal storage reduces the cost of the system by €11.1 million in 2030, compared to €2.3 mil. for batteries, limiting cuts from 17% to 3%. By 2035, the two technologies will be equalized, yielding together a greater benefit than separately.
Cutting is not an energy strategy
Every clean energy unit that is cut reveals an infrastructure gap: we don't produce too much renewable energy, we just don't have ways to move it or channel it productively. When we invest in new RES without investing in the flexibility and storage capacity of the system, we create capacity that we do not always utilize. The point is not just more production, but usability – energy that is stored, moved and made available when needed.
Thermal storage adds one of these paths: it converts excess energy into stored heat and delivers it when production needs it. It does not duplicate the role of batteries; expands the storage mix.
Two things stand out here. First, the form of energy: industry asks for steam at a certain temperature, and thermal storage gives it directly, while with a battery it goes through additional conversion, with losses and costs. Second, durability: power and energy are independent, so each additional hour adds only a small cost, while in batteries it increases almost proportionally – which is why the thermal solution makes sense as long as the need for storage extends over many days. I'm not talking theoretically: today four Cypriot technology facilities operate abroad, while in Cyprus it has not yet been widely adopted – not because it does not work, but because it has not found its place in a framework that recognizes its systemic value.
This debate is not just about Cyprus. Across Europe, the challenge shifts from how much energy we produce to how efficiently we store it. Storage is a critical infrastructure for Europe's energy security and competitiveness.
Technology neutrality does not mean ignoring the differences between technologies.
Cyprus needs a clear category for thermal storage, a licensing route and mechanisms that assess the duration and total life-cycle cost. We are not asking for thermal storage to be pre-selected; We ask that it is not excluded before it is evaluated. Neutrality belongs to the rules. The choice in the results. Cyprus does not need a technology, but a framework that allows technologies to be evaluated on equal terms. The maturity of our policy will not be judged by which technology we choose, but whether we create the right rules to choose the most appropriate solution.
