UCL Research Proposal Example: Chemistry student to energy storage policy (Score 93)

UK net-zero targets require rapid deployment of grid-scale battery storage, yet capacity market rules and Contracts for Difference structures were designed primarily around generation assets. This proposal asks: to what extent do current UK electricity storage policy instruments account for the electrochemical performance boundaries — cycle degradation, depth-of-discharge limits, and round-trip efficiency — that determine real-world storage viability? A secondary question follows: where misalignment exists, which regulatory adjustments would be technically coherent and politically feasible? Energy storage engineering literature documents performance envelopes for lithium iron phosphate and NMC chemistries under grid-cycling conditions. Energy policy scholarship addresses incentive structures and storage-specific regulatory barriers but rarely incorporates chemistry-level constraints as modelling inputs. The gap is methodological: policy analyses treat storage as a dispatchable unit with fixed parameters, while electrochemical studies rarely translate degradation curves into regulatory design recommendations. This proposal sits at that junction. Phase one: systematic document analysis of Ofgem and BEIS storage policy instruments (2017–2024), coding provisions against a performance-parameter framework derived from published battery degradation studies. Phase two: structured interviews (target n=12–15) with storage developers, network operators, and policy analysts, using coded misalignments as the interview protocol. Phase three: scenario modelling using publicly available Elexon and National Grid ESO half-hourly dispatch data to estimate revenue impact of two candidate regulatory adjustments under different chemistry assumptions. This sequenced design allows document analysis to discipline interview questions and interview findings to bound modelling scenarios. Document sources and ESO/Elexon data are publicly available under open licence. Interview recruitment is the main risk; a contingency of written practitioner surveys is planned if response rates are low. Interviews require UCL ethics approval; no sensitive personal data are involved and standard anonymisation protocols apply. Timeline: months 1–3 document analysis and literature review; months 4–7 interviews and transcription; months 8–11 scenario modelling; month 12 write-up. Scope is bounded to the GB mainland market to remain feasible within one year. UCL's STEaPP and the Energy Institute host researchers working on storage regulation and low-carbon transition governance.