|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 22, 2013 12:54:13 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 23, 2013 23:42:07 GMT 9.5
Correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't $3000/kW similar in price (atleast in order of magnitude) to a whole nuclear power plant?
Surely that would mean it would be cheaper to simply overbuild reactors.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 24, 2013 7:21:23 GMT 9.5
Other than in China it takes US$4--5/W or even more. In any case, Gen III NPPs can only ramp at 5%/min while a proper battery does very much better. Furthermore, batteries are available in 1--2 MW sizes and NPPs are much larger.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 24, 2013 11:36:42 GMT 9.5
Other than in China it takes US$4--5/W or even more. In any case, Gen III NPPs can only ramp at 5%/min while a proper battery does very much better. Furthermore, batteries are available in 1--2 MW sizes and NPPs are much larger. The capital costs of the reactor make up the bulk of the operating costs though, leaving you with a reactor operating cost of ~1.5-2c/kWh including staffing and fuel. Which means its relatively cheap to run the reactor continuously and use the electricity for some industrial task.... like solid state ammonia synthesis (the electricity is the bulk of the projected cost of that process, which is going to very low in this model) Then when your power demand increases to the point where you would ordinarily need to run the battery you just shut down the plant. Therefore the reactor's effective throttling speed is the speed at which whatever your standby load can throttle, not what the reactor's actual throttling speed is (as the reactor runs flat out at all times). And the large cost of reactor construction is primarily an artefact of the insane amounts of legal wrangling that relates to fighting endless anti nuclear attempts to stop it, as well as the newly "free market" utilities in the west failing to use efficiencies of scale as EDF did in the 70s. As to the grid sizes... in the vast majority of the world having such small batteries is pointless. HVDC Light and similar will make such small installations pointless as almost everywhere can be practically connected to larger grids.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 24, 2013 12:14:11 GMT 9.5
As my links in the first post make clear, utility scale batteries are vended and installed. Large Gen II NPPs have enough for 1/2 to 1 hour of cooling after a full stop. There is at least one wind farm which has installed some battery storage; I suppose this is to smooth out the wind farm's contribution. There is quite a sizable battery just outside of Brownsville, Texas. Brownsville is an important truck border crossing and is a long way down one distribution line from the nearest generators. So for reliability the big battery was fairly recently added.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Mar 24, 2013 20:24:18 GMT 9.5
In recent years the demand for lead has been increasing, presumably due to consumption in lead-acid batteries. Recycling of old lead acid batteries, with their burden of toxic soluble lead, is efficient while the demand for lead is high. When there is an eventual breakthrough in battery technology, the environment is going to be poisoned with a flood of soluble lead due to the abandonment of lead acid batteries everywhere.
However the literature enthuses about replacing lead with lithium, vanadium, and titanium, which each offer their own special threats to the environment. The one new battery technology that does offer little threat to the environment is the sodium-sulphur battery. The environment would not suffer if these leaked, burnt or blew up. And with unlimited supply of the raw materials, the price would never go up through the roof.
So what if a sodium-sulphur battery corrodes its container? Unlike the capital-intensive generators nearby, they do not have to last for decades
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 24, 2013 20:47:36 GMT 9.5
Sodium-Sulphur batteries are hardly new.
But having batteries full of tonnes of molten sodium is probably asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 25, 2013 12:13:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 25, 2013 12:19:27 GMT 9.5
If carbon nanotube/graphene supercapacitors actually arrive then we end up with another problem.
Handling the enormous peak loads from people ultra rapidly charging cars (by which I mean at megawatts of power transfer). (As you will be able to make power storage modules that have the volumetric and mass efficiency of lithium-ion batteries, but can recharge orders of magnitude faster)
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Mar 25, 2013 13:16:41 GMT 9.5
Capacitors? There has just got to be breakthroughs ahead.
A capacitor stores energy by separating charges in a dielectric material. If we could separate the outermost electron just an extra 1% of its distance (say 100 pm) from its nucleus, we would store ~14 kJ/mole of atoms, according to my scribbling with Couloumb's Law. If it's hydrogen, that's about 14 MJ/kg, barely in the same ballpark as diesel fuel at ~40 MJ/kg, and more practical materials would be less. But there is still plenty of room for improvement compared to modern capacitors at ~2 kJ/kg. I guess the current limitation is the breakdown voltage, when a conductive path opens and a current discharges the material.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 26, 2013 0:31:04 GMT 9.5
Capacitors? There has just got to be breakthroughs ahead. A capacitor stores energy by separating charges in a dielectric material. If we could separate the outermost electron just an extra 1% of its distance (say 100 pm) from its nucleus, we would store ~14 kJ/mole of atoms, according to my scribbling with Couloumb's Law. If it's hydrogen, that's about 14 MJ/kg, barely in the same ballpark as diesel fuel at ~40 MJ/kg, and more practical materials would be less. But there is still plenty of room for improvement compared to modern capacitors at ~2 kJ/kg. I guess the current limitation is the breakdown voltage, when a conductive path opens and a current discharges the material. Supercapacitors are not simple faradaic devices. Graphene Supercapacitors are supposedly capable of energy densities comparable to Lithium Ion batteries. They have apparently been demonstrated at ~306kJ/kg (~85Wh/kg). That is comparable to the performance of the battery pack of the Nissan Leaf.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:59 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by trag on Mar 26, 2013 3:28:25 GMT 9.5
Other than in China it takes US$4--5/W or even more. In any case, Gen III NPPs can only ramp at 5%/min while a proper battery does very much better. Furthermore, batteries are available in 1--2 MW sizes and NPPs are much larger. But what is the lifetime on those batteries? Are we looking at $3000/KW every seven years? A nuclear reactor at $4000 - $5000/KW should be good for at least 60 years, albeit, with some possibly expensive maintenance along the way. I would expect the lifetime cost of the NPP to be two or three times lower than the batteries, at least.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Mar 26, 2013 15:22:43 GMT 9.5
Cost of the Indian PHWR in 2012 is $1700/kW. The Chinese costs are marginally higher. The EPR costs in Europe are $6800/kW. $500 may be an acceptable additional storage cost to wind or solar in N. America and West Europe.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 26, 2013 18:10:41 GMT 9.5
EPR is a disaster.
It should not be used as an example for anything apart from what happens when everything falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Mar 26, 2013 18:58:34 GMT 9.5
Sooner or later, any system of batteries will run out of power just when you need it most. There is a time-honoured alternative to battery-supplied electricity that one might call "going-without". It is a relationship with the utilities that never runs out of power because it isn't delivering any. It is a way of life that does without power when it isn't there for the having.
When I was a kid, supply was erratic. When the power went off of a daytime there was no problem at all, because nothing really needed power. At least, nothing that we had come to expect. At nighttime however, it created the excuse for a social event.
In summer, the family (and any passers-by) would gather in the garden, light up a smouldering fire to keep off the mosquitoes and provide a glimmer of light. Then, would you believe, we actually began to listen to each other. I know that is a bit of a weird concept these days, but yes, we related person-to-person. As children we would hear tales from the past, polished by repeated telling. As teenagers, we would explore ideas and exchange gleaned information. Adults would exchange more boring information, such as where to buy what, for how much and when.
In cold weather, it was all the more magic. We would gather around the kitchen stove, itself a source of light, rugged up in heavy clothes and blankets to explore the visions that only the spoken word can paint. A kero lamp would make the little world a little bigger.
Those of us who contemplate a future supplied only from wind and solar, in an increasingly angry climate, are choosing this simpler, perhaps virtuous life. In such a community, it would be common knowledge approximately when the power would fail because everyone would have been keeping an eye on how much wind or sun we had been getting. In some thrifty communities, "going-without" might be a daily event. In others that can afford more batteries, "going-without" might only happen when a period of unfavourable weather persisted a certain amount from the average.
For even the most heavily invested communities, extreme out-of-average events such as storms, heatwaves, fogs and blizzards, would have to be faced without any power for several days. When the inevitable climatic disasters begin to hit home, these toughened people will be facing the wrath of an angry climate with no power at all. What a price for virtue!
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 26, 2013 19:32:45 GMT 9.5
Biomass stoves and the like are unsustainable with our current global population. So we will need electric cooking and LED lighting in any case.
And probably refrigeration/freezer power if we want to maintain any semblance of a first world standard of living, TVs/Computers power consumption can be made negligible however.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 23, 2014 10:54:15 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 23, 2014 18:49:38 GMT 9.5
phys.org/news/2014-05-power-japan-dual-carbon-battery.htmlMore research and improved batteries are announced from time to time. Some of them could actually work. Costs of solar panels are falling every year. We may soon get a panel-battery combination which could compete with coal or gas power for distributed generation. It may or may not be useful on grid.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 8, 2014 12:56:32 GMT 9.5
Sooner or later, any system of batteries will run out of power just when you need it most. There is a time-honoured alternative to battery-supplied electricity that one might call "going-without". It is a relationship with the utilities that never runs out of power because it isn't delivering any. It is a way of life that does without power when it isn't there for the having. When I was a kid, supply was erratic. When the power went off of a daytime there was no problem at all, because nothing really needed power. At least, nothing that we had come to expect. At nighttime however, it created the excuse for a social event. In summer, the family (and any passers-by) would gather in the garden, light up a smouldering fire to keep off the mosquitoes and provide a glimmer of light. Then, would you believe, we actually began to listen to each other. I know that is a bit of a weird concept these days, but yes, we related person-to-person. As children we would hear tales from the past, polished by repeated telling. As teenagers, we would explore ideas and exchange gleaned information. Adults would exchange more boring information, such as where to buy what, for how much and when. In cold weather, it was all the more magic. We would gather around the kitchen stove, itself a source of light, rugged up in heavy clothes and blankets to explore the visions that only the spoken word can paint. A kero lamp would make the little world a little bigger. Those of us who contemplate a future supplied only from wind and solar, in an increasingly angry climate, are choosing this simpler, perhaps virtuous life. In such a community, it would be common knowledge approximately when the power would fail because everyone would have been keeping an eye on how much wind or sun we had been getting. In some thrifty communities, "going-without" might be a daily event. In others that can afford more batteries, "going-without" might only happen when a period of unfavourable weather persisted a certain amount from the average. For even the most heavily invested communities, extreme out-of-average events such as storms, heatwaves, fogs and blizzards, would have to be faced without any power for several days. When the inevitable climatic disasters begin to hit home, these toughened people will be facing the wrath of an angry climate with no power at all. What a price for virtue! Nice writing and an interesting vision of a permaculture village trying to endure future climate chaos. Well put!
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 8, 2014 13:30:32 GMT 9.5
phys.org/news/2014-05-power-japan-dual-carbon-battery.htmlMore research and improved batteries are announced from time to time. Some of them could actually work. Costs of solar panels are falling every year. We may soon get a panel-battery combination which could compete with coal or gas power for distributed generation. It may or may not be useful on grid. So, from the vast number of BZE critiques on this site, what kind of 'litmus test' of storage capacity would be required to get us through winter? Is there a test case formula for X amount of renewable overbuild to Y amount of storage for Z delivery?
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jun 8, 2014 16:55:32 GMT 9.5
There is as yet no formula but one or more will develop in a few years. The formula for now is to have renewable plus storage for increasing main use but continue the connection to utility for charging up the batteries if they fall short or just topping up. This will reduce the dependence on utility and increase self reliance. Saves you a lot of diesel.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 21, 2014 23:31:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 13, 2014 18:15:53 GMT 9.5
Why is the cost of batteries measured in $/kW? What matters is $/kWh. The maximum discharge rate of existing batteries (C-rate) is good enough. In recent years the demand for lead has been increasing, presumably due to consumption in lead-acid batteries. Recycling of old lead acid batteries, with their burden of toxic soluble lead, is efficient while the demand for lead is high. When there is an eventual breakthrough in battery technology, the environment is going to be poisoned with a flood of soluble lead due to the abandonment of lead acid batteries everywhere. However the literature enthuses about replacing lead with lithium, vanadium, and titanium, which each offer their own special threats to the environment. The one new battery technology that does offer little threat to the environment is the sodium-sulphur battery. The environment would not suffer if these leaked, burnt or blew up. And with unlimited supply of the raw materials, the price would never go up through the roof. So what if a sodium-sulphur battery corrodes its container? Unlike the capital-intensive generators nearby, they do not have to last for decades Lithium batteries do not typically have a large environmental impact.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 13, 2014 18:24:24 GMT 9.5
Capacitors? There has just got to be breakthroughs ahead. A capacitor stores energy by separating charges in a dielectric material. If we could separate the outermost electron just an extra 1% of its distance (say 100 pm) from its nucleus, we would store ~14 kJ/mole of atoms, according to my scribbling with Couloumb's Law. If it's hydrogen, that's about 14 MJ/kg, barely in the same ballpark as diesel fuel at ~40 MJ/kg, and more practical materials would be less. But there is still plenty of room for improvement compared to modern capacitors at ~2 kJ/kg. I guess the current limitation is the breakdown voltage, when a conductive path opens and a current discharges the material. Supercapacitors are not simple faradaic devices. Graphene Supercapacitors are supposedly capable of energy densities comparable to Lithium Ion batteries. They have apparently been demonstrated at ~306kJ/kg (~85Wh/kg). That is comparable to the performance of the battery pack of the Nissan Leaf. I know this thread is old, but I couldn't resist... The problem is there are a whole range of energy storage technologies that have at first glance very impressive characteristics. What you need to look at is cost of the materials, cost of production, and how much these can be reduced. Also the energy density, power density, and the ageing characteristics are also important. The Chevy Volt was supposed to use a battery from Envia, it turned out to essentially be a hoax - the batteries would only operate at the advertised capacity for only a few cycles. Also the energy density of the Leaf is fairly low for an EV. An EV with decent range is likely going to require something significantly better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 13, 2014 18:40:36 GMT 9.5
The cost of transmission and distribution is huge in some places, like Australia. A system that removes the transmission & distribution cost can therefore be much more expensive than a utility scale power station and still end up competitive. For these reasons, utility scale PV and energy storage doesn't, at least with current technology, make much sense to me.
We also need a new way of charging for electricity to better reflect the infrastructure costs involved. For example, should users to charged based on kWh or a single connection fee, or both? For example, if PV users do not pay for electricity during the day, they are therefore paying less for transmission and distribution, yet on a cloudy day they may need just as much infrastructure as everyone else. Any ideas on how this could be handled?
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jul 13, 2014 21:18:22 GMT 9.5
No government subsidies for solar PV in the first place might be a good starting point: but then, that would require no subsidies to coal either!
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 15, 2014 12:09:22 GMT 9.5
Scott --- Rate structure is an interesting topic for another thread. Go ahead and start one. This thread is supposed to just be about Utility Scale Batteries. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 15, 2014 12:14:46 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jul 15, 2014 13:04:49 GMT 9.5
The process described in DBB's link pumps excess energy as hot compressed argon gas (why not air?) to bring a pebble bed up to some intermediate temperature. Having lost some of its heat, the compressed gas is allowed to expand and cool a second pebble bed.
The recovery journey for the heat would not be as efficient as the inventor claims. The maximum theoretical efficiency, that is, the maximum fraction of the heat that can be converted to work is the fraction of the absolute temperature through which it is moved. So if he maintains a temperature difference of 30 kelvin with an average of 300 K, the return journey can only yield 10% efficiency, max.
Calling a process with such entropy increase "Isentropic" is something of a joke, perhaps at the expense of good-hearted (and deep pocketed) people. However, as DBB implies, it could provide a store for energy that is expected to be cheap at the time of generation and many times more valuable at the time of usage.
|
|