9 ms·
CO2 battery could make wind and solar dispatchable at a lower price
- mabbo 5y agoInteresting: CO2 gets pressurized, cooled to liquid temperatures via refrigeration, then uncompressed to spin a turbine when energy is needed. Concerning: > The engineer explains that Energy Dome does not want to build projects itself. > “We don’t have the capability to grow as fast as the market requires,” he says. “So our model is to license the technology to EPC companies or IPPs, utilities, the final user, because that is the best way for us to expand geographically and by sector. They are so confident in the economics of this tech that they'd rather someone else invest in it. How generous and not at all suspicious.
- chki 5y agoThe whole article is leaning a little bit too much on the "what if"-part of things. First it will be important to see whether their first at-scale Prototype actually works next year.
- ElKrist 5y agoHonestly I don't see why it wouldn't work. All the steps of the process seem like old and proven technology to me. Perhaps the only innovation is this "elastic" CO2 storage for ambient temperature/pressure ? However, the key information will be performance numbers actually coming out of it
- mbruce 5y agoSuch confidence. Will make…. Unprecedented…. 5bere would be so many ideas that have not scaled, run into technical problems, ……. Would be nice if they had data from a pilot plant that was representative
- jannes 5y ago> cooled to liquid temperatures via refrigeration Do you actually need to refrigerate it to keep it liquid? My SodaStream machine works with room temperature.
- lbotos 5y ago"It can only exist at a pressure above 5.1 atm (5.2 bar; 75 psi), under 31.1 °C (88.0 °F)" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_carbon_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_carbon_dioxide So depending where you are you'd need refrigeration
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoIt doesnt need refrigeration for storage, CO2 is stored at higher pressure The refrigeration is needed because the process of compression produced huge amount of heat. And because of that, this method of storing energy is twice less efficient than batteries are
- magicalhippo 5y agoThough they could store some of this heat for later when they want to extract the CO2 gas again, I suppose.
- surbas 5y agoWhich according to the article is what’s happening. They store heat in steal piles, and release it back on expansion.
- cedilla 5y agoCharging batteries also produces a huge amount of heat. In general, storing energy is never free. It's the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics.
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoYes, the critical point for condensation of CO2 is 31 C: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/13-5-phase-changes/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/13-5-phase... However, I imagine you could wait for your too-hot-to-condense gas to cool and condense. That would probably be vastly more efficient than adding refrigeration. It would depend on the materials used for the pressure tank, whether you can add more surface area and the external temperature. You could even put the CO2 Tank under water in a deep lake/ocean. Then you don't have to have such thick materials to contain the pressure. The CO2 could be dissipating its heat and pressurizing as you pump it down (use a flexible tube so the water is compressing the CO2). For the return journey, use a rigid pipe so it doesn't lose energy pushing outward on a flexible pipe.
- legutierr 5y ago> They are so confident in the economics of this tech that they'd rather someone else invest in it. How generous and not at all suspicious. This is not an entirely uncommon business model, and there are numerous examples of the developers of a technology licensing it for production and distribution. ARM is itself one example of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Ltd.#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Ltd.#Business_model It is entirely valid for a technology inventor to commercialize their invention by partnering with a manufacturer that already has the necessary production capacity, rather than by raising outside money to scale up their company and build new production capacity. The former can often be a lower-risk, higher-reward approach compared to the latter. The real question is whether the technology actually works. If they can prove it works, the fact that they would license this technology to third parties for manufacturing and distribution is not itself suspicious at all.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- schainks 5y agoThis is common in the electric utility industry where scaled up tech costs 7-9 figures per unit or more.
- rsynnott 5y ago> They are so confident in the economics of this tech that they'd rather someone else invest in it. How generous and not at all suspicious. I mean, I think this is pretty standard in highly capital intensive industries?
- amelius 5y ago> Interesting: CO2 gets pressurized, cooled to liquid temperatures via refrigeration, then uncompressed to spin a turbine when energy is needed. Can someone explain the maximum theoretical efficiency of this process from basic thermodynamic principles?
- pjc50 5y agoCarnot cycle, isn't it? Not great for efficiency, probably less than 50% round trip.
- ghkbrew 5y agoCarnot is for heat engines. So the maximum efficiency of converting a heat differential into kinetic energy. This is converting electricity into kinetic energy and vice versa. So it'd be the product of those two maximum efficiencies, whatever they are.
- ben_w 5y ago> This is converting electricity into kinetic energy and vice versa. Where do you get that from? The article definitely seems to me to be describing a heat engine.
- contravariant 5y agoBasic thermodynamics doesn't prevent you from cooling something reversibly. That said plenty of the steps involved here are likely not 100% efficient, and I'm somewhat unsure where they're recovering the energy involved in the gas-liquid phase-transition, if at all.
- gflarity 5y agoIs it defensible (patents etc)? If it's easy to copy then it would be best to partner with those who need to invest the least to get this to market.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoThere's nothing usual about that. Lots of technologies get licensed.
- vmception 5y agoimagine a world where your inexperienced take gets amplified unceremoniously and here we are
- StreamBright 5y agoI think we need an energy revolution. We still try to do this a way where there is a turbine in the process. Motionless energy storage is much more promising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
- AndrewDucker 5y agoThat article says that fuel cells are 40-60% efficient. This process is claimed to be 80% efficient.
- StreamBright 5y agoYeah the first part of that article says so. However when you continue reading: In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide and other emissions. The energy efficiency of a fuel cell is generally between 40 and 60%; however, if waste heat is captured in a cogeneration scheme, efficiencies of up to 85% can be obtained.[1] Based on the other details like energy density for example, I think this tech has a bright future. In electrical terms, the energy density of hydrogen is equal to 33.6 kWh of usable energy per kg, versus diesel which only holds about 12–14 kWh per kg. What this really means is that 1 kg of hydrogen, used in a fuel cell to power an electric motor, contains approximately the same energy as a gallon of diesel.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#cite_note-Types1-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#cite_note-Types1-5 2. https://rmi.org/run-on-less-with-hydrogen-fuel-cells/ https://rmi.org/run-on-less-with-hydrogen-fuel-cells/
- jhgb 5y agoSo it's around 50%. If you consider the losses in creating hydrogen, the roundtrip is around 40% or so.
- legulere 5y agoAlso for this system that’s the efficiency for the whole cycle electricity to electricity. For the fuel cell you have to multiply by the efficiency for creating your fuel.
- modmans2nd 5y agounless they are getting their CO2 from capturing it out of the atmopsphere, I see this as a way to dirty up wind and solor even more than they already are from their manufacturing.
- foota 5y agoI imagine it's a closed system, so the question of where the CO2 comes from is kind of irrelevant.
- ElKrist 5y agoIn the article: Spadacini adds: “The system is totally closed. We don’t consume any CO2, it’s just the working fluid that goes back and forth… for the life of the system, over 25 years. So we have no emissions in the atmosphere.” So yes, it's a closed system
- modmans2nd 5y agobut the CO2 has to come from somewhere.
- chess_buster 5y agoBuy enough dry ice from the gas station.
- SturgeonsLaw 5y ago> When electricity is required, the liquid CO2 is run through an evaporator to turn it back to a pressurised gas, which is then warmed up back to 290-300°C causing the stored heat. The gas is then introduced into an expansion turbine, where it rapidly expands at atmospheric pressure to drive a power-generating rotor, with the uncompressed CO2 then stored in a flexible dome — hence the company name — at ambient temperature and pressure for later re-use. It's a closed loop system, so it doesn't seem particularly dirty to me, presuming the energy to run it will come from the renewable source that it's storing. The materials used to make it (steel, quartzite, PVC) don't seem too troubling. Seems a bit cleaner than chemical batteries at first glance.
- Nabati 5y agoAnyone know why you would need to store CO2 and not just regular air in this case?
- ElKrist 5y agoIn the article: "Spadacini explains that Energy Dome uses CO2 because it can be converted into liquid under pressure at 30°C, compared to minus 150°C for air. Highview Power’s liquid-air battery therefore has to use cryogenic technology to liquefy air, but the Energy Dome system requires far less power, resulting in cheaper costs and a higher round-trip efficiency, the company says."
- heisenbit 5y agoHow efficient is the system? Liquifying is nowt without losses and neither is turning pressure into electricity. Edit: They claim 75-80%. Is that realistic? Edit: Does this include the assumption that the compression heat can be used? „The heat is then extracted and stored in “bricks” made of steel shot and quartzite for later use, cooling down the CO2 to an ambient temperature.“
- Turing_Machine 5y ago> Edit: They claim 75-80%. Is that realistic? Seems very doubtful, based on the reported temperature differential and the formula for the theoretical maximum efficiency of a Carnot cycle heat engine.
- namibj 5y agoCarnot cancels out if you follow up with it in reverse.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoNope. While Carnot-cycle engines are reversible, the losses don't cancel out. You just lose the energy to entropy on both ends.
- namibj 5y agoThe point was that the Carnot efficiency of using a thermal buffer to store mechanical energy cancels out between storing and releasing. Yes, you don't have a Carnot-cycle in practice, and the thermal buffer likely won't offer isotherm storage, either. But you still can't use Carnot-cycle efficiency to determine some sort of round-trip efficiency of this thermal-based storage device with mechanical input/output ports.
- jakewins 5y ago80% round trip efficiency is killer for what they are selling here though. That 20% loss is directly cutting into your trading margin. imagine you buy 1MWh at 100USD; you immediately lose 20% of it, so you now need prices at $125 just to break even. The ability of higher efficiency technologies to perform many more profitable trades in a given year has a significant impact on ROI.
- the-dude 5y agoDon't spot prices for energy fluctuate wildly especially now with renewables in the mix? What does it matter you lose 20% if the alternative is selling at a loss?
- ElKrist 5y agoYes they fluctuate enough that you can make a profit even with a "20% loss". Here [1] you can see today's prices on the electricity spot market for Europe (Changing the date does not work in my browser though) Another way to say this is that there is a real economical value for storage because of the increase in renewables [1] https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/les-donnees-de-marche https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/les-donnees-de-marche
- jakewins 5y agoI mean, I suppose the purpose of these batteries are about seasonal rather than hourly differences.. but assuming you want to use them for something like coupling to a PV array and doing hourly trading: The alternative isn't selling at a loss, it's using technology with higher round trip efficiency. Say you have two batteries, both 1MW/4H systems, one lithium at 95% efficiency, one this CO2 thing at 80% effiency. In the highly volatile SE4 spot region in the Scandinavian grid, if you traded in 2019 you'd have made $80K USD with the CO2 battery, $155K USD with the Lithium one (assuming you traded perfectly). A tigher efficiency envelope lets you exploit many smaller 10-20% cost gaps, rather than having to sit for many days to wait for gaps in the 30-40% range. Not to say that Lithium would have a higher ROI over all than this technology, just to say that round trip efficiencies have significant impact on revenues here.
- loufe 5y agoI'm surprised nobody has posted the "revolutionary battery checklist" meme comment yet. It's exciting to see all these developments in clean-tech but the headlines always seem to mischaracterize the actual stage of development these technologies seem to be in.
- AlexanderDhoore 5y agoWhat is the "revolutionary battery checklist" meme comment?
- Escapado 5y agoThis one I presume: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: [ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale. [ ] it will be too expensive for users. [ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles. [ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels. [ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures. [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable. [ ] it has too short of a lifetime. [ ] its charge rate is too slow. [ ] its materials are too toxic. [ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode. [ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care. [ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then. [ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it. [ ] your claims are lies. ----------------------------------------------------------------
- m_mueller 5y agoarticle actually seems to cover all this issues well (except maybe for ‘your claims are lies’), so I’m hopeful about this one.
- xxs 5y ago>liquid-CO2 system has a round-trip efficiency of 75-80% You mean this part? Edit: this is pretty much theoretical Carno cycle and it has moving parts
- throwaway316943 5y agoFair’s fair, I have to ask what happens when one of these fails catastrophically? The step where the CO2 reaches 300C while surrounded by “steel shot” bricks sounds like it could be the world’s biggest pipe bomb. Although even a large leak could kill nearby people and wildlife through suffocation.
- notimetorelax 5y agoCO2 is lighter than air and it doesn’t oxidize much. Seems like a safer option to many other alternatives.
- MattPalmer1086 5y agoNo, it's heavier than air.
- inglor_cz 5y agoCarbon dioxide is heavier than air and concentrates e.g. on floors of caves, where it is deadly for smaller animals. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/cave-of-dogs https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/cave-of-dogs
- Eric_WVGG 5y agoYup. Back in 1986, Lake Nyos “belched” a cloud of carbon dioxide. Instead of going up, it went out, killing everything in its path. 1700 villagers, animals, even the insects. The homes (and presumably the plants) just sat there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
- joelthelion 5y ago> CO2 is lighter than air It is not : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- InfiniteRand 5y agoI wish there were more articles that went along the lines of, this is a revolutionary new technology that has been in use for a few years and is gaining steam rather than this is a revolutionary new technology set to change the world sometime in the future (such as this article)
- elmo2you 5y agoI think we can "thank" the popularity of the startup business model (and the prolific idea/delusion that this is where innovation takes place) first and foremost for that. Personally, I've rather just seen an increase in deception and questionable investments (of money and other resources), compared to more traditional approaches. I'd even go as far as to call most of the startup based industry "Smoke and Mirrors Inc", but that might be a bit on the cynical side. Still, securing more investments for "potential" solutions (more like regardless of actual feasibility) appears to have become a higher priority than actually showing/proving that something is an improvement (by any measure besides the financials gains for early investors). EDIT: While this sure does not rule out the possibility of true innovation and progress, I can't say I'm impressed with the actually success ratio. Combined with the amount of downright deception I've seen, usually without legal consequences (let alone penal ones), I wonder if the net sum is even a move in the positive direction.
- pfdietz 5y agoThe problem with this is not storing the liquid CO2, it's storing the "spent" low pressure CO2 gas. The volume required will be very large. The energy/volume of this will be even worse than pumped hydro.
- Animats 5y agoI think this is the paper behind that.[1] Round trip efficiency is listed there as about 75%. It was previously proposed at Lawerence Livermore.[2] It was apparently tried in China in 2016, at least at pilot plant stage. It's an obvious idea. There's been lots of interest in compressed air storage, and compressed CO2 storage is in some ways easier, because you can liquify it easily. So why hasn't this come up much before? [1] https://sco2.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/presentations/2021/Manzoni-Adiabatic_Compressed_CO2_Energy_Storage-118_c.pdf https://sco2.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/presentations/2021/Man... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/03/26/how-captured-co2-could-provide-the-energy-storage-solution-everyone-is-looking-for/?sh=4c90955fddef https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/03/26/how-capt...
- dahfizz 5y ago>So why hasn't this come up much before? My guess is volumetric inneficiency. This will be an alternative to pumped hydro, not batteries. But this has none of the conveniences of pumped hydro - nature already built the holding tank and you only need a pump and generator. Storing all the uncompressed CO2 will require a massive structure for relatively little energy storage.
- belorn 5y agoThe other large aspect is that the technology has the same major issue as pumped hydro when compared to lithium-ion batteries. They don't give a clear return of investment. Long duration general means that the intended target has a long charge cycle, and the longer the charge cycle is, the longer it will take to get an return of the investment. In contrast, lithium-ion batteries (with solar) is used with a daily charge cycle which means that calculating a return of investment is almost trivial. Every day the sun go down, demands goes up, batteries are discharged. Long duration storage tend to be combined with wind, and so you discharge during days of calm weather.
- dahfizz 5y agoMy understanding is that storage is not tightly coupled to a specific power source. Pumped hydro, or any kind of storage, is just another knob that the electrical grid operators have at their disposal to make sure load matches generation.
- jefurii 5y agoSomebody in that company is a fan of Devo...