Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3482 > unrolled thread

Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-02 10:44 +0000
    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-02 23:47 +1000
      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-06-03 15:20 +0100
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-05 22:14 +1000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-06-05 20:58 +0100
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-06 11:57 +1000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-06-06 21:14 +0100
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-07 13:24 +1000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-06-06 22:49 -0600
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-07 08:33 +0200
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-07 16:44 +1000
    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2014-06-07 22:02 +0100
    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 19:42 +0000
      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-09 22:37 +0100
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 15:19 -0700
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-09 23:26 +0100
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 15:36 -0700
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-09 23:40 +0100
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-09 16:12 -0700
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-10 07:44 +0300
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-10 18:47 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-10 23:43 +0300
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:12 +0000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 21:58 +0300
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-18 12:44 -0700
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:20 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 22:05 +0300
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 20:52 +0000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 00:14 +0300
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 15:12 -0700
                      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 09:18 +0300
                      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-12 09:31 +0100
                        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 12:34 +0300
                          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-12 12:37 +0200
                          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 10:39 +0000
                            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 13:56 +0300
                              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 12:10 +0000
                                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-12 15:32 +0300
                                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-13 12:37 +0000
                                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-13 14:13 +0100
                      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 10:30 +0000
                        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-06-12 10:59 +0000
                          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 12:12 +0000
      Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-10 20:42 +1000
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-10 15:55 +0100
        Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-10 18:47 +0000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-10 23:50 +0300
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:13 +0000
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-11 17:23 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 22:13 +0300
                Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-11 19:22 +0000
                  Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-11 22:39 +0300
                    Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-11 19:54 +0000
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-11 22:26 +0100
              Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-12 00:47 +0000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-06-11 11:57 +1000
            Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-11 17:12 +0000
          Re: Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-06-11 19:21 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#3482 — Iron-Chromium Flow Battery Aims to Replace Gas Plants

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." ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3486

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3501

On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> 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.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3522

On 4/06/2014 12:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3525

On 2014-06-05, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 4/06/2014 12:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> 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.

Economics, with more or less interference from governments, will of
course determine the pace at which changes happen.  

Any power being generated that is surplus to immediate requirements can
be used to re-charge storage; the stored power can then be delivered
when demand increases.  That 'surplus to immediate requirements' power
can come from whatever is operating at the time - solar, wind, tide,
hydro, fusion, fission, biomass, gas, oil, coal, ....

At present, we have only 'Pumped-storage hydroelectricity' as an
effective means of storing surplus power during off-peak periods and
then delivering it in Megawatt quantities at short notice.  This is
expensive and involves a great deal of heavy civil engineering and
environmental impact.  That's why intermittent generating plant such as
wind sun and tide have to be 'backed up' by at least as much
(inefficient quick-start) gas and diesel plant for when the wind isn't
blowing or the sun isn't shining.  That is why most 'green' electricity
generating capacity is mostly useless, for the time being; when we want
it it isn't working, and when it's working no-one wants it.

Massive re-chargeable batteries such as these have the potential to
replace the gas and diesel plant currently needed to back up the
windmills - once the batteries are big enough and reliable enough.  This
installation is a 'proof of concept' test-bed; if successful it will
show that 'green' power might one day be really useful on a large scale.


-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3526

On 6/06/2014 5:58 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2014-06-05, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 4/06/2014 12:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> 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.
>
> Economics, with more or less interference from governments, will of
> course determine the pace at which changes happen.
>
> Any power being generated that is surplus to immediate requirements can
> be used to re-charge storage; the stored power can then be delivered
> when demand increases.  That 'surplus to immediate requirements' power
> can come from whatever is operating at the time - solar, wind, tide,
> hydro, fusion, fission, biomass, gas, oil, coal, ....
>
> At present, we have only 'Pumped-storage hydroelectricity' as an
> effective means of storing surplus power during off-peak periods and
> then delivering it in Megawatt quantities at short notice.  This is
> expensive and involves a great deal of heavy civil engineering and
> environmental impact.  That's why intermittent generating plant such as
> wind sun and tide have to be 'backed up' by at least as much
> (inefficient quick-start) gas and diesel plant for when the wind isn't
> blowing or the sun isn't shining.  That is why most 'green' electricity
> generating capacity is mostly useless, for the time being; when we want
> it it isn't working, and when it's working no-one wants it.
>
> Massive re-chargeable batteries such as these have the potential to
> replace the gas and diesel plant currently needed to back up the
> windmills - once the batteries are big enough and reliable enough.  This
> installation is a 'proof of concept' test-bed; if successful it will
> show that 'green' power might one day be really useful on a large scale.
>

The problem is that, unlike gas and diesel plant which can run 
indefinitely, batteries can only provide power until they are 
discharged. Since they can only be charged again when supply from other 
sources again exceeds the immediate demand, this means that the gas and 
diesel plant are still required to handle that situation.

So a system that includes wind and solar power and batteries will still 
need the same non-intermittent power supplies as would be required if 
the wind, solar and batteries didn't exist.

All the batteries do is change the economics of that non-intermittent 
supply.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3537

On 2014-06-06, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 6/06/2014 5:58 AM, Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2014-06-05, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>> On 4/06/2014 12:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
>>>> On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> 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

[...]

>> Massive re-chargeable batteries such as these have the potential to
>> replace the gas and diesel plant currently needed to back up the
>> windmills - once the batteries are big enough and reliable enough.  This
>> installation is a 'proof of concept' test-bed; if successful it will
>> show that 'green' power might one day be really useful on a large scale.
>>
>
> The problem is that, unlike gas and diesel plant which can run 
> indefinitely, batteries can only provide power until they are 
> discharged. Since they can only be charged again when supply from other 
> sources again exceeds the immediate demand, this means that the gas and 
> diesel plant are still required to handle that situation.

Not if you build enough storage capacity.  Bigger batteries and/or more
of them.

Gas and diesel power stations are also limited by their fuel storage
capacity; when the tanks are empty the power stops.  We've pretty much
worked out how to build big fuel tanks, or aggregate a lot of smaller
ones, and keep them filled, so when everything is working as it should
the power can be kept running.

One thing batteries can do which gas or diesel generators can't, is act
as 'load'.  So whenever your base load generators have a bit to spare,
you can use it to recharge some batteries.  This makes the base load
generators a lot more efficient.

> So a system that includes wind and solar power and batteries will still 
> need the same non-intermittent power supplies as would be required if 
> the wind, solar and batteries didn't exist.
>
> All the batteries do is change the economics of that non-intermittent 
> supply.
>
> Sylvia.

They will change the economics quite radically. 

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3540

On 7/06/2014 6:14 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2014-06-06, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 6/06/2014 5:58 AM, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2014-06-05, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>> On 4/06/2014 12:20 AM, Whiskers wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-06-02, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> 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
>
> [...]
>
>>> Massive re-chargeable batteries such as these have the potential to
>>> replace the gas and diesel plant currently needed to back up the
>>> windmills - once the batteries are big enough and reliable enough.  This
>>> installation is a 'proof of concept' test-bed; if successful it will
>>> show that 'green' power might one day be really useful on a large scale.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that, unlike gas and diesel plant which can run
>> indefinitely, batteries can only provide power until they are
>> discharged. Since they can only be charged again when supply from other
>> sources again exceeds the immediate demand, this means that the gas and
>> diesel plant are still required to handle that situation.
>
> Not if you build enough storage capacity.  Bigger batteries and/or more
> of them.

How much is enough, bearing in mind that it can remain overcast and 
windless for extended periods. The bigger the batteries are, the more 
they cost, and that cost is reflected in the price of energy supplied to 
the consumer.

>
> Gas and diesel power stations are also limited by their fuel storage
> capacity; when the tanks are empty the power stops.

We can deliver more fuel in time to prevent that from happening, and the 
fuel doesn't run out (at least it hasn't so far) because we can extract 
more from the ground.

>  We've pretty much
> worked out how to build big fuel tanks, or aggregate a lot of smaller
> ones, and keep them filled, so when everything is working as it should
> the power can be kept running.
>
> One thing batteries can do which gas or diesel generators can't, is act
> as 'load'.  So whenever your base load generators have a bit to spare,
> you can use it to recharge some batteries.  This makes the base load
> generators a lot more efficient.

Another way of saying that it makes them more efficient, is that it 
makes them more economically attractive, which is the point I made earlier.

>> So a system that includes wind and solar power and batteries will still
>> need the same non-intermittent power supplies as would be required if
>> the wind, solar and batteries didn't exist.
>>
>> All the batteries do is change the economics of that non-intermittent
>> supply.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> They will change the economics quite radically.
>

But not in the direction you seem to be anticipating. Given cheap 
batteries, an energy supplier will build new coal fired power stations, 
and use the batteries to displace the more environmentally friendly (in 
the CO2 sense) gas fired non-baseload generation.

They could build new nuclear power-plants, but given attitudes to 
nuclear, I don't see that happening much.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3541

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Not if you build enough storage capacity.  Bigger batteries and/or more
>> of them.
> 
> How much is enough, bearing in mind that it can remain overcast and
> windless for extended periods. The bigger the batteries are, the more
> they cost, and that cost is reflected in the price of energy supplied to
> the consumer.
>

This tends to minimize the requirements for excess power in the "normal" 
grid to re-charge these batteries once depleted.  The studies I've worked on 
and seen indicate that this increment of load to account for the time 
available between periods of storage demand will require that a significant 
increase in the standard grid supply capacity.  TANSTAAFL.
 
>>
>> Gas and diesel power stations are also limited by their fuel storage
>> capacity; when the tanks are empty the power stops.
> 
> We can deliver more fuel in time to prevent that from happening, and the
> fuel doesn't run out (at least it hasn't so far) because we can extract
> more from the ground.
> 

Again, you seem to dismiss the infrastructure demand imposed by the recharge 
operation.  As with wind power, available input tends to be isolated from 
point-of-use.

-- 
Will Honea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3542

On 2014-06-07, Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Not if you build enough storage capacity.  Bigger batteries and/or more
>>> of them.
>> 
>> How much is enough, bearing in mind that it can remain overcast and
>> windless for extended periods. The bigger the batteries are, the more
>> they cost, and that cost is reflected in the price of energy supplied to
>> the consumer.
>>
>
> This tends to minimize the requirements for excess power in the "normal" 
> grid to re-charge these batteries once depleted.  The studies I've worked on 
> and seen indicate that this increment of load to account for the time 
> available between periods of storage demand will require that a significant 
> increase in the standard grid supply capacity.  TANSTAAFL.
>  
>>>
>>> Gas and diesel power stations are also limited by their fuel storage
>>> capacity; when the tanks are empty the power stops.
>> 
>> We can deliver more fuel in time to prevent that from happening, and the
>> fuel doesn't run out (at least it hasn't so far) because we can extract
>> more from the ground.
>> 
>
> Again, you seem to dismiss the infrastructure demand imposed by the recharge 
> operation.  As with wind power, available input tends to be isolated from 
> point-of-use.

Are you aware of the Dinorwig facility in Wales?  This uses off peak
electricity to pump water up a mountain, and power can be generated on
demand by released it back downhill.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station>

I didn't realise this aspect of nuclear power before reading the article:

"The original purpose of the scheme was to deal with the difficulty that
the National Grid would have had if the large numbers of nuclear power
stations then planned had been built.[citation needed] Nuclear power
stations must be run at close to full output all of the time so storage
capacity was needed for excess power generated at times of low demand." 

-- 
"I have something like 1,000 bullocks and having listened to your
presentation I can say that you’ve got a lot more bullshit than I have."
            -- Sir Ken Morrison, former Chairman of the Morrisons Supermarket
               chain speaking at their 2014 AGM 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3543

On 7/06/2014 2:49 PM, Will Honea wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Not if you build enough storage capacity.  Bigger batteries and/or more
>>> of them.
>>
>> How much is enough, bearing in mind that it can remain overcast and
>> windless for extended periods. The bigger the batteries are, the more
>> they cost, and that cost is reflected in the price of energy supplied to
>> the consumer.
>>
>
> This tends to minimize the requirements for excess power in the "normal"
> grid to re-charge these batteries once depleted.  The studies I've worked on
> and seen indicate that this increment of load to account for the time
> available between periods of storage demand will require that a significant
> increase in the standard grid supply capacity.  TANSTAAFL.

That appears to have become garbled in editing. I don't know what you 
intend there.
>
>>>
>>> Gas and diesel power stations are also limited by their fuel storage
>>> capacity; when the tanks are empty the power stops.
>>
>> We can deliver more fuel in time to prevent that from happening, and the
>> fuel doesn't run out (at least it hasn't so far) because we can extract
>> more from the ground.
>>
>
> Again, you seem to dismiss the infrastructure demand imposed by the recharge
> operation.  As with wind power, available input tends to be isolated from
> point-of-use.
>

The cost of the infrastructure required to deliver fuel for power 
generation is included in the cost of the generated power.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3547

On 02/06/2014 11:44, Rich wrote:
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/new-flow-battery-aims-to-replace-gas-plants

 From the linked article:
> The company projects it can deliver energy for utilities and other users
 > at a cost of less than $250 per kilowatt hour.

For $250 per *kilowatt* hour it would be almost be cheaper to employ 
Tour de France cyclists to pedal dynamos. ;-)

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3591

Rich <rich@example.invalid> 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." ...

Sadly the IEEE seems to have a moron on "journalism" duty.  Batteries are
not measured in "hours" and "kilowatts" they are properly measured in
amp-hours.  I accept this kind of scientifically illiterate lazy hack
journalism from publications such as USA Today and Newsweek, but it is sad
to see a professional engineering society make such errors.  This is the
state of the art in science journalism these days though - even Nature is
now a fairly poor source of good and *ACCURATE* information.

As for the battery itself, it's probably OK but we'll only be able to tell
in the long run if they can produce a viable business that doesn't run on
politically motivated corporate welfare.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3594

In article
<2128276478424035345.778819bob_davis_retired-yahoo.com@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> 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." ...
> 
> Sadly the IEEE seems to have a moron on "journalism" duty.  Batteries are
> not measured in "hours" and "kilowatts" they are properly measured in
> amp-hours.

Except that to understand how much energy is stored by these things,
and thereby compute how for long they can provide backup, I need to
know the voltage they supply.

Car batteries might be measured in amp-hours, I agree.

-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3595

On 2014-06-09 21:37:34 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> In article
> <2128276478424035345.778819bob_davis_retired-yahoo.com@news.eternal-sept
> ember.org>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> 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." ...
>> 
>> Sadly the IEEE seems to have a moron on "journalism" duty.  Batteries are
>> not measured in "hours" and "kilowatts" they are properly measured in
>> amp-hours.
> 
> Except that to understand how much energy is stored by these things,
> and thereby compute how for long they can provide backup, I need to
> know the voltage they supply.
> 
> Car batteries might be measured in amp-hours, I agree.

All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are 
measured at their nominal voltage and a proper data sheet will describe 
discharge curves at different fractions of C.  For specialty markets 
where people are not expected to know ohm's law, such as (ironically) 
the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like laptops and UPS's 
will describe draw and capacity in strange units like volt-amps and 
kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard way to talk about 
batteries.  If you don't believe me ask an EE or an amateur radio 
operator or somebody else who can be expected to know about electronics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3596

In article <ln5btt$qa5$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2014-06-09 21:37:34 +0000, Tim Streater said:
> 
> > In article
> > <2128276478424035345.778819bob_davis_retired-yahoo.com@news.eternal-sept
> > ember.org>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/new-flow-batte
> >>> ry-
> >>> 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." ...
> >> 
> >> Sadly the IEEE seems to have a moron on "journalism" duty.  Batteries are
> >> not measured in "hours" and "kilowatts" they are properly measured in
> >> amp-hours.
> > 
> > Except that to understand how much energy is stored by these things,
> > and thereby compute how for long they can provide backup, I need to
> > know the voltage they supply.
> > 
> > Car batteries might be measured in amp-hours, I agree.
> 
> All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are 
> measured at their nominal voltage

Which is what?

> and a proper data sheet will describe 
> discharge curves at different fractions of C.

Yes yes yes no doubt but I'm just after a ball park figure.

> For specialty markets 
> where people are not expected to know ohm's law, such as (ironically) 
> the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like laptops and UPS's 
> will describe draw and capacity in strange units like volt-amps and 
> kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard way to talk about 
> batteries.

Fuck to all of those; we're talking about something rather bigger.
Geddit?

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3597

On 2014-06-09 22:26:39 +0000, Tim Streater said:

>> All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are 
>> measured at their nominal voltage
> 
> Which is what?

Each cell chemistry has a nominal voltage, so it depends on the battery 
chemistry you are using.

> 
>> and a proper data sheet will describe discharge curves at different 
>> fractions of C.
> 
> Yes yes yes no doubt but I'm just after a ball park figure.

Sure, good enough is good enough and math is hard.

> 
>> For specialty markets where people are not expected to know ohm's law, 
>> such as (ironically) the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like 
>> laptops and UPS's will describe draw and capacity in strange units like 
>> volt-amps and kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard way 
>> to talk about batteries.
> 
> Fuck to all of those; we're talking about something rather bigger.
> Geddit?

It might be big but as a battery gets larger and more expensive, I 
would expect more and better quality data.  The size of the battery is 
irrelevant.

A question: are you defending poor-quality pop-science "journalism" and 
marketing-speak?  It appears to me that you are indeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3598

In article <ln5csr$jm$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2014-06-09 22:26:39 +0000, Tim Streater said:
> 
> >> All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are 
> >> measured at their nominal voltage
> > 
> > Which is what?
> 
> Each cell chemistry has a nominal voltage, so it depends on the battery 
> chemistry you are using.

Which for the battery in question, is apparently iron-chromium. So what
is the nominal voltage?

> >> and a proper data sheet will describe discharge curves at different 
> >> fractions of C.
> > 
> > Yes yes yes no doubt but I'm just after a ball park figure.
> 
> Sure, good enough is good enough and math is hard.
> 
> > 
> >> For specialty markets where people are not expected to know ohm's law, 
> >> such as (ironically) the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like 
> >> laptops and UPS's will describe draw and capacity in strange units like 
> >> volt-amps and kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard way 
> >> to talk about batteries.
> > 
> > Fuck to all of those; we're talking about something rather bigger.
> > Geddit?
> 
> It might be big but as a battery gets larger and more expensive, I 
> would expect more and better quality data.  The size of the battery is 
> irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?

> A question: are you defending poor-quality pop-science "journalism" and 
> marketing-speak?  It appears to me that you are indeed.

That you are a technical marketing droid seems much more likely. Never
seen so much obfuscation and question-avoiding.

-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3599

On 2014-06-09 22:40:27 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> Which for the battery in question, is apparently iron-chromium. So what
> is the nominal voltage?

Beats me.  Look it up.  If I was doing a project with these batteries I 
would know, but I have never worked with them.

>> It might be big but as a battery gets larger and more expensive, I 
>> would expect more and better quality data.  The size of the battery is 
>> irrelevant.
> 
> Irrelevant to what?

People who expect usable product data.

> 
>> A question: are you defending poor-quality pop-science "journalism" and 
>> marketing-speak?  It appears to me that you are indeed.
> 
> That you are a technical marketing droid seems much more likely. Never
> seen so much obfuscation and question-avoiding.

It must be nice to deliberately mis-understand somebody and be able to 
live in a delusion where your feigned misunderstanding is accepted as 
genuine.  There's gotta be a pill to enhance that effect - which ones 
are you on?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3602

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> All batteries' capacities are measured in amp-hours, and they are
> measured at their nominal voltage and a proper data sheet will
> describe discharge curves at different fractions of C. For specialty
> markets where people are not expected to know ohm's law, such as
> (ironically) the IT industry, the manufacturers of devices like
> laptops and UPS's will describe draw and capacity in strange units
> like volt-amps and kilowatt hours but this is of course not a standard
> way to talk about batteries. If you don't believe me ask an EE or an
> amateur radio operator or somebody else who can be expected to know
> about electronics.

I hate it that I can't properly compare AA batteries' energy content at
the store. I don't want to buy bunnies but joules. Amp-hours, just like
kilowatt-hours and kilometers per hour, have their history, but I would
drop the hour and use joules and meters per second instead.

In the US, the standard nutritional information might state:

     Serving Size 100g
     Calories ........... 166

In Europe, that would be:

     Nutritional value per 100 g
     Energy ............. 691 kJ/166 kcal

Again, personally, I would use the specific energy <URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_energy>:

     Specific energy ........... 6.91 MJ/kg


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web