Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Sylvia Else Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:14:40 +1000 Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net bb1gZ3YX2HIjp0zn5CEl+QjEfB15NjjCiKPQVaNapHMvhzt7sS Cancel-Lock: sha1:J6sYCIrwS811ynGk4n534Ao6Ljs= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.misc:3522 On 4/06/2014 12:20 AM, Whiskers wrote: > On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/06/2014 8:44 PM, Rich wrote: >>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/new-flow-battery-aims-to-replace-gas-plants >>> >>> "Startup EnerVault will unveil tomorrow what it says is the largest >>> iron-chromium flow battery ever made. Installed in Turlock, Calif., >>> the four-hour, 250-kilowatt battery will be charged by a solar array >>> and power an irrigation system. The project was funded by about US $5 >>> million from Department of Energy through the stimulus program and >>> the California Energy Commission." ... >>> >>> >> >> "A multi-hour battery could replace a fossil fuel plant that only >> operates during peak-demand hours." >> >> Yes, it could replace the fossil fuel (gas) plant that only operates >> during peak-demand hours by a different fossil fuel (coal) plant that >> operates at lower power 24/7. >> >> Any sufficiently cheap load equalising technology will tend to have >> that as a result because energy from coal costs less than energy from >> gas. >> >> Sylvia. > > This is the sort of technology required for wind tide and solar > generating plant to be genuinely 'green'. It won't replace 'base load' > power stations - nuclear or perhaps 'fusion' plant can handle that - but > the fluctuating part of real usage requires something that can be > switched on and off rapidly. Re-chargeable batteries can do that, but > only after we've invented some that can handle megawatts. > Fine for providing power overnight using energy extracted from the sun during the day. Provided it wasn't cloudy. So backup generators are still required. That aside, the effect will still be as I described. It's a matter of economics. Sylvia.