4 ms·

An interesting alternative to battery storage opened in the UK this week - liquified air energy storage. I wonder if this may be helpful. https://www.theguardi

An interesting alternative to battery storage opened in the UK this week - liquified air energy storage. I wonder if this may be helpful. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/05/pioneering-liquid-air-project-can-help-store-excess-electricity https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/05/pioneering-...

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
There’s also places like Dinorwig: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_guide_electric_mountain/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_guide_electri...
- Angostura 8y ago
  Absolutely. The advantage of the liquified air approach is that you don't need a handy mountain. You could pop storage into city infrastructure quite easily.
- Arnt 8y ago
  You may have seen some of these balloons appear here and there, too: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=Biogasanlage https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=Biogasanlage Having now read the wikipedia article, I see that my answer to my youngest daughter was much too simple. "Daddy, what's that?" "That white balloon next to the barn? It's full of cow fart. The cows in the barn fart, the farmer keeps the fart in the balloon and then burns it to make electricity when people need lots of electricity". According to Wikpedia it's a little more complex. But I like the simple version better. Whatever the source, it's gas the farmer can burn whenever the spot price for electricity is high.
D_Alex 8y ago
>liquified air energy storage. I wonder if this may be helpful. Let me answer this: No, it would not be helpful, because on pretty much all metrics (capital and operating costs, efficiency, flexibility, size etc) this technology is way worse than battery storage. Unfortunately - today - a lot of money which could be sensibly used deploying cost effective technology such as solar and wind power (and to a lesser extent battery storage) is wasted pursuing fundamentally flawed concepts (such as compressed air energy storage, and now this liquified air), which have no chance of being competitive .
- dsign 8y ago
  Horse stables were in their day a cost-effective solution to transportation, and those steam engines had no chance of ever moving a couple of meters on the rails...
  - blkhawk 8y ago
    I think there a physics problem there. The efficiency is way worse than charging almost any type of battery. So unless material for any type of battery becomes completely unavailable (including say Iron and sulfur or lead), the power free and you manage to build your Air Liquifier with less resources than batteries it will always be a stupid way to spend resources.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      They are claiming efficiencies of 60-70% compared with batteries of nearly 90%
      - D_Alex 8y ago
        OK, I have thought about this a bit (I have worked on gas liquefaction plant design), and I do not believe this claim. 70% is about the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of any heat engine operating between -190 degrees and ambient. And the best efficiency you can expect in liquefaction, in a very complex and large plant, is circa 50% (1). Combined with storage losses, I think the overall cycle efficiency cannot be more than 25% or so. Happy to review and comment on any back-up to their claim. (1) see eg here: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=893357213721903;res=IELENG https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=8933572137...
        Angostura 8y ago
        Thank you for that thoughtful and informative reply.
- Angostura 8y ago

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago

There’s also places like Dinorwig: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_guide_electric_mountain/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_guide_electri...

Angostura 8y ago
Absolutely. The advantage of the liquified air approach is that you don't need a handy mountain. You could pop storage into city infrastructure quite easily.
Arnt 8y ago
You may have seen some of these balloons appear here and there, too: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=Biogasanlage https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=Biogasanlage Having now read the wikipedia article, I see that my answer to my youngest daughter was much too simple. "Daddy, what's that?" "That white balloon next to the barn? It's full of cow fart. The cows in the barn fart, the farmer keeps the fart in the balloon and then burns it to make electricity when people need lots of electricity". According to Wikpedia it's a little more complex. But I like the simple version better. Whatever the source, it's gas the farmer can burn whenever the spot price for electricity is high.

D_Alex 8y ago

>liquified air energy storage. I wonder if this may be helpful. Let me answer this: No, it would not be helpful, because on pretty much all metrics (capital and operating costs, efficiency, flexibility, size etc) this technology is way worse than battery storage. Unfortunately - today - a lot of money which could be sensibly used deploying cost effective technology such as solar and wind power (and to a lesser extent battery storage) is wasted pursuing fundamentally flawed concepts (such as compressed air energy storage, and now this liquified air), which have no chance of being competitive .

dsign 8y ago
Horse stables were in their day a cost-effective solution to transportation, and those steam engines had no chance of ever moving a couple of meters on the rails...
- blkhawk 8y ago
  I think there a physics problem there. The efficiency is way worse than charging almost any type of battery. So unless material for any type of battery becomes completely unavailable (including say Iron and sulfur or lead), the power free and you manage to build your Air Liquifier with less resources than batteries it will always be a stupid way to spend resources.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    They are claiming efficiencies of 60-70% compared with batteries of nearly 90%
    - D_Alex 8y ago
      OK, I have thought about this a bit (I have worked on gas liquefaction plant design), and I do not believe this claim. 70% is about the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of any heat engine operating between -190 degrees and ambient. And the best efficiency you can expect in liquefaction, in a very complex and large plant, is circa 50% (1). Combined with storage losses, I think the overall cycle efficiency cannot be more than 25% or so. Happy to review and comment on any back-up to their claim. (1) see eg here: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=893357213721903;res=IELENG https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=8933572137...
      - Angostura 8y ago
        Thank you for that thoughtful and informative reply.
Angostura 8y ago