9 ms·
CO2 Battery
- ricciardo 1y agoWhat are the drawbacks of this battery compared to a Lithium-Ion battery? I would assume practicality (sizing, installation, etc...) but I would be interested to hear others thoughts on this. This site does a great job marketing the battery but not defining the drawbacks, hence why I am asking.
- SoftTalker 1y agoMechanical complexity.
- nine_k 1y agoSay, lower round-trip efficiency, and maybe lower peak power. Also likely a larger area is required: can't make a powerwall out of it.
- salynchnew 1y agoSquare footage and durability of the form factor?
- cogman10 1y agoI think the biggest issue is perhaps the danger aspect of it. You are making wild pressure swings on some critical storage structures with some pretty wild temp swings. Making sure that doesn't ultimately destroy the CO2 canister or collapse the CO2 dome will be a challenge. It also has to be pretty big, which doesn't matter too much other than a critical failure would be more impressive. They say no leaks, but I'm sure there will be SOME CO2 leakage. Hard to make something like this with gases that doesn't leak at least a little. You could offset that with some CO2 capture via atmospheric distillation.
- datadrivenangel 1y agoThe storage of CO2 as a liquid means less pressure then a high pressure gas.
- cogman10 1y agoTo store CO2 as a liquid you either need to chill it or you need to increase the pressure until it becomes a liquid. It takes around 75psi to turn CO2 into a liquid at room temperature.
- RandallBrown 1y ago75 psi seems very low. Numbers I'm seeing online say more like 800-900 PSI.
- jabl 1y agoI would say the big issue would be the size and cost of the gas dome. For storing a substantial amount of gaseous CO2 that will be humongous.
- randallsquared 1y agoThe main drawback appears to be short storage time.
- philipkglass 1y agoThe biggest drawback that this web page acknowledges is lower round trip efficiency (75% for the CO2 battery, 85% for the lithium battery). If that is really the only deficiency, this device is great. I'd mostly be wary of what the actual costs and operational experience are. This device has moving parts that a battery doesn't. Looking at their news page, I see announcements of projects and partnerships but I don't think that they have any completed projects running yet. I suspect that their CAPEX comparison, where they show lithium ion batteries as 70% more expensive, may be aspirational rather than demonstrated. There are several companies that have already installed megawatt-scale lithium ion grid storage today: Samsung, BYD, Tesla, Fluence, LG Chem... and many of these projects have published costs and operational experience already.
- ggreer 1y agoThey built a small plant in Sardinia, but I can't find any information on what it cost to build or operate.[1] I'm skeptical of their cost claims. Turbines aren't cheap and compared to batteries, they require significant maintenance. And while you can increase energy storage by increasing the size/number of CO2 tanks, the only way to increase power output (or "charging" speed) is to add more/bigger compressors and turbines. There's also the issue of volumetric energy density. Wikipedia says that compressed CO2 storage has an energy density of 66.7 watt-hours per liter, though it's unclear if that's before or after turbine inefficiencies.[2] And that's the density in a compressed tank. It doesn't count the volume of the low pressure dome, which is many times larger. For comparison, lithium batteries are 250–700Wh per liter depending on the chemistry. Specific energy (energy per unit mass) is better than lithium ion, but since these are fixed installations, mass isn't a major concern. Considering their claims are for a theoretical full scale plant, and that the numbers are already worse than batteries (75% efficiency, lower volumetric energy density, $200/kWh), I'm not optimistic. This technology might have niche uses, but I don't see it competing with most lithium battery installations. That said, I hope I'm wrong. The more energy storage solutions we have, the better our future will be. 1. https://www.energy-storage.news/energy-dome-launches-4mwh-demonstrator-project-in-italy-plans-series-b/ https://www.energy-storage.news/energy-dome-launches-4mwh-de... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_carbon_dioxide_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_carbon_dioxide_ener...
- myrmidon 1y agoWorse efficiency, much higher (mechanical!) complexity, much more bespoke and slower to get installed. I honestly don't see this really taking off, batteries are too cheap already, people just haven't really realized yet. You can just order 1kWh of storage as a prismatic LiFePO cell for about $60 and have it delivered in the same week. Battery management and inverters are a solved problem, too, and don't have moving parts either.
- SoftTalker 1y agoWith the energy source (presumably solar/wind) being "free," efficiency isn't the most important thing. But the whole thing sounds sort of "Rube Goldberg" even if it works, batteries or supercapacitors or something like that are probably going to be a lot more reliable. It's sort of like arguing for going back to steam engines because we've got a new way to boil water.
- cogman10 1y ago> It's sort of like arguing for going back to steam engines because we've got a new way to boil water. A large portion of power comes from new and exciting ways to boil water that turns a turbine ;) Most fossil fuel plants are water boilers as are all nuclear plants. There's even some solar power plants that are effectively just water boilers.
- ethan_smith 1y agoThe efficiency concerns here are valid. For comparison, modern lithium power stations are hitting 90%+ round-trip efficiency pretty consistently now. The mechanical complexity is what worries me most - CO2 phase changes, compression/decompression cycles, heat exchangers...that's a lot of potential failure points compared to solid-state lithium cells. When researching portable power stations (I used gearscouts to compare $/Wh across different capacities), even budget lithium units are getting surprisingly cost-effective. We're seeing <$0.30/Wh for some models now. That said, if Energy Dome can achieve reasonable $/kWh at grid scale without the lithium supply chain constraints, the efficiency trade-off might be worth it. The real question is whether the mechanical complexity translates to higher maintenance costs that eat into any capex savings. https://gearscouts.com/power-stations https://gearscouts.com/power-stations
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- SoftTalker 1y agoNot a battery in the chemical sense. Energy storage through phase change of a gas coupled with a mechanical generator to make electricity.
- datameta 1y agoA thermal sand battery and gravity-water battery are both non-chemical so the term battery extends beyond "vessel with redox reaction".
- datadrivenangel 1y agoThis is potentially promising because it puts pressure on batteries, which gives us more options and reduces the dependence on specific minerals. Also may be cheap enough to be worth putting right next to a solar farm when batteries don't make sense.
- nine_k 1y agoCan somebody versed in thermodynamics explain me how can it work? They say that they keep CO2 in liquid form at room temperature, then turn it into gas, and grab the energy so released. * Isn't the gas be very cold on expansion from a high-pressure, room-temp liquid? It could grab some thermal energy from the environment, of course, even in winter, but isn't the efficiency going to depend on ambient temperature significantly? - To turn the gas into the liquid, they need to compress it; this will produce large amounts of heat. It will need large radiators to dissipate (and lose), or some kind of storage to be reused when expanding the gas. What could that be? - How can the whole thing have a 75% round-trip efficiency, if they use turbines that only have about 40% efficiency in thermal power plants? They must be using something else, not bound by the confines of the Carnot cycle. What might that be?
- schainks 1y agoMarketing. They have marketing. I am _very_ suspicious the efficiency is anywhere close to 75%.
- cyberax 1y agoThere are papers that do thermodynamic analysis of similar systems finding something like ~65% efficiency. So 75% might be a bit fluffed up, but not outrageously so. E.g. if they can use the waste heat for district heating and count that as useful work.
- jabl 1y agoLooking at the diagram on the web page, seems the key is the water. When expanding, use heat stored in the water to heat the gas. Likewise when compressing CO2 into liquid, use the water to store the excess heat generated?
- pragma_x 1y agoMy hunch is that they're doing this for three reasons. 1. Decompressing the gas can be used to do work, like turning a turbine or something. It's not particularly efficient, as you mention, but it can store some energy for a while. Also the tech to do this is practically off-the-shelf right now, and doesn't rely on a ton of R&D to ramp up. Well, maybe the large storage tanks do, but that should be all. So it _does_ function and nobody else is doing it this way so perhaps all that's seen as a competitive edge of sorts. 2. The storage tech has viable side-products, so the bottom-line could be diversified as to not be completely reliant on electricity generation. The compressed gas itself can be sold. Processed a little further, it can be sold as dry ice. Or maybe the facility can be dual-purposed for refrigeration of goods. 3. IMO, they're using CO2 as a working fluid is an attempt to sound carbon-sequestration-adjacent. Basically, doubling-down on environmentally-sound keywords to attract investment. Yes, I'm saying they're greenwashing what should otherwise be a sand battery or something else that moves _heat_ around more efficiently.
- bee_rider 1y agoHow does it compare to CAES? (Compressed air) Is there an advantage to the domes? IIRC some CAES system are put into old mines, that sort of thing.
- RandallBrown 1y ago> No cryogenic temperatures and high costs that are typically associated with compressed air energy storage Not sure if there's more scattered around the site, but that's on the front page.
- conradev 1y agoLithium-ion batteries are falling in cost so rapidly that any new process being ramped up is risky business. Form is way further along than this landing page and yet has a long way to go: https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/form-energy-brings-in-more-cash-as-it-prepares-for-mass-battery-deployment/ https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/form-energy-brings-in-mor... The scale of investment required makes it quite hard for new companies to compete on cost: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/battery-industry-scavenger-lyten-hit-cash-crunch https://www.theinformation.com/articles/battery-industry-sca...
- barbazoo 1y agoWhat about from an environmental standpoint if we think about that these Lithium--Ion batteries will have to be replaced and recycled every (as the article says, not sure if true) <12 years. We have a history of not pricing in negative externalities, did we do that this time?
- ysofunny 1y ago> We have a history of not pricing in negative externalities, did we do that this time? I worry the answering that question requires answering this question: whose negative externalities?
- fragmede 1y agoHumanity's. We've only got one Earth, and if my factory can just dump toxic waste down the drain which flows right to the bay and kills all the fish, for free, why would I pay for it when I could be spending that money on a yacht?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- brandonagr2 1y agoWhat is the negative externality of recycling batteries? That is way better than having to mine minerals out of the ground, eventually there won't need to be any significant mining and all the battery minerals will be in a constant cycle of being used then recycled
- epistasis 1y agoSome key parameters for new grid storage tech: - Round trip efficiency: how much electricity comes out from electricity going in - $/kWH capacity: lower is better, how does the battery cost scale as additional energy capacity is added? - $/kW capacity: lower is better, how does the battery cost scale as additional power capacity is added? - power to energy ratio: higher is better, to a certain point, but not usually at the expense of $/kWh capacity. If your ratio is 1:100, then you're in range of 4 days duration, which means at most 90 full discharges in a year, which highly limits the amounts of revenue possible. - Leakage of energy per hour, when charged: does a charged battery hold for hours? Days? Weeks? These all add up to the $/kWh delivered back to the grid, which determines the ultimate economic potential of the battery tech. Lithium ion is doing really great on all of these, and is getting cheaper at a tremendous rate, so to compete a new tech has to already be beating it on at least one metric, and have the hope of keeping up as lithium ion advances.
- metalliqaz 1y agoThere is also security of access to rare earth metals needed for those batteries.
- epistasis 1y agoThis is not an issue. Lithium, iron, and phosphate are all abundant.
- eldaisfish 1y agoIf lithium was as abundant as you claim, why is the Lithium Triangle a thing? The largest exporter is Australia and the largest importer is China. Were lithium abundant, why does China import most of its lithium?
- 7thaccount 1y agoI think because we weren't doing a whole lot of looking until recently. I think a bunch of lithium has been recently discovered in Arkansas.
- drmaximus 1y agoRelevant video: https://youtu.be/GSzh8D8Of0k?si=cTH_k8p2FetVmQro https://youtu.be/GSzh8D8Of0k?si=cTH_k8p2FetVmQro
- dinfinity 1y agoThis answers most of the important questions surrounding this specific tech. Much appreciated.
- Peteragain 1y ago75%? That would mean a 87.5% efficient compressor/liquifier and a 87.5% efficient turbine/generator set? Inconceivable!
- pjdesno 1y agoIt appears to be about as efficient as a pumped storage hydro facility (e.g. here's one in Massachusetts, built in 1970 or so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Swamp_Hydroelectric_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Swamp_Hydroelectric_Power...) A gas-based design seems like it would be better at a small scale - e.g. the facility in the link has a reservoir the better part of a mile away from the turbines, and has a max output of 600 MW or so. CO2 may actually be a good working fluid for the purpose - cheap, non-toxic except for suffocation hazard, and liquid at room temperature at semi-reasonable pressures. I'm not an expert on that sort of thing, though.
- daqnz 1y ago> A gas-based design seems like it would be better at a small scale The major advantage over pumped hydro would be you do not need very specific geography to make it happen (90 - 300+m change in elevation)
- schainks 1y agoMaybe I missed something, but what's the cost per kWh?
- darksaints 1y agoThere are historical examples of entire villages around lakes suffocating during a limnic erruption. I can't exactly find what sort of specs an installation of a large co2 battery might have, so it may be small beans relatively speaking, but that is still a lot of co2 in a very small area, and I certainly hope that both the engineers and regulators know what they're doing with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnic_eruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnic_eruption
- jonplackett 1y agoYou may have the coolest battery tech ever - but your website won’t scroll down.
- metalman 1y agobrilliant!, WOW!, how the fuck did everybody else miss this till now! this could be easily cobbled together useing junkyard salvage! zero exotic anything! -37°c, I've lived in colder places. it will scale down to house or smaller sizes, or all the way up to primary grid power. far north areas with abandoned mines into the permafrost will benifit from this. very tickled by this edit: there are a number of hazards and failure modes that are unique to this , but in no way as a dangerous as most other current power generation and handling of chemical storage and transport, and most of the danger to the public can be eliminated by sufficient set backs, ie:in a breach the CO² would dissapate below lethal levels quickly.
- gs17 1y agoIt's a cool idea, but unfortunately their brochure has no details. It's just there to get you to fill out the contact form. One of the few numbers I could find on their site was: > Our standard frame 200MWh battery requires about 5 he (12 acres) of land to be built. They also refer to it as a "20MW/200MWh" plant.
- epistasis 1y agoThat is a rather large amount of land, which more concerningly to me means a huge amount of equipment to get to that 200MWh, which would hint at very very high cost. I wonder how cheap they can get it.
- umittal10 1y ago[dead]
- benlivengood 1y agoI'm guessing the diagram is missing a bit on the heat exchanger side; they're going to need to dump plenty of (environmental) heat into the expansion thingy to keep the liquid CO2 boiling off indefinitely at the pressure they want. If this is intended for small-scale to medium-scale on-premise storage then the evaporating CO2 could also serve as the cold side of a building-size AC system for extra efficiency during the high demand portion of the duck curve. I think there may be quite a market for maintaining hot and cold (and pressurized/liquified) sinks throughout the day/night cycle in highrises or entire cities.
- TeeMassive 1y agotl;dr: it's a gas compression/decompression energy storage mechanism. It's nothing new and I have never seen one being being financially viable so far.
- calmbonsai 1y agoI come away with more questions than answers. The website is so numerically data-poor it serves as a net detriment to selling this solution. - What's the energy areal and volumetric density kWh/m2 & kWh/m3 of this storage? - How did they derive their CapEx savings figures? - What's the peak charge/discharge rate of an installation? - Can this storage be up/down-scaled in capacity and rate and by what limiting factors?
- gs17 1y agoYeah, they have very little information. They say "20MW" once, but it's not clear what part of it is 20MW. They imply it can be scaled up or down but don't say much.
- credit_guy 1y agoThis is a fairly elegant idea. But it's definitely not "long term storage" as they claim it to be. A long-term storage solution that only holds energy for 8 hours is quite useless. Also, a long-term storage solution needs to be proportionally less expensive than a short term one in order to be equally profitable. For example, if you charge-discharge a lithium battery on a daily basis, and you use any long term solution to charge-discharge every 100 days, then the second needs to be 100 times cheaper if you want to get the same profit, because you sell the electricity only once vs 100 times for the battery. But this solution claims to be only slightly less expensive than lithium batteries, certainly not by a factor of 100. Not even by a factor of 2.
- calrain 1y agoIf that large storage bladder fails, I'm assuming people and animals all around it will suffocate? I wonder if they design in flow channels for the heavier CO2 to flow down to safe, unpopulated areas.
- klunger 1y agoAt first, I thought this was an elaborate joke because fossil fuels are effectively "CO2 batteries." Instead, it's compressed gas. Which is fine and possibly the best solution in certain contexts. But, it isn't exactly revolutionary or necessarily preferable to Li-ion most of the time.
- adrian_b 1y agoEnergy is extracted like from compressed gas, but the advantage of CO2 is that it can be liquefied at a relatively low pressure, so it can be stored at a relatively low volume in vessels that have to resist only to modest pressures. So it is much easier to store a high amount of energy than it would be to store that energy in compressed air.
- sambeau 1y agoWhat is the advantage here over compressed air?
- pwg 1y agoLikely that CO2 liquefies at a lower pressure than air liquefies, making the storage pressure vessels cheaper as a result.
- thelastgallon 1y agoIf this works, along with CO2 for heat pumps, it would be the biggest technological breakthrough.