4 ms·

(Disclaimer: I know very little about either Vanadium or the alternatives I will suggest, so these are the opinions of a lay person on the subject) Why is yet

(Disclaimer: I know very little about either Vanadium or the alternatives I will suggest, so these are the opinions of a lay person on the subject) Why is yet another mineral we have to mine, then presumably buy from an industry that will become another iteration of today's energy giants, the solution? What is wrong with present methodologies of energy storage? For example using surplus power to pump water up hill, to later recuperate during peak hours? Or heating water? Things of that vein that're obviously not efficient, but trivial enough to implement for single buildings (whether a house or a sky scraper) without needing any change to infrastructure. To be clear, what I'm against here is the creation of demand for yet another substance we'll despoil the planet some more for. Mines are festering wounds upon the planet. And I seriously doubt harvesting sea creatures will lead to anything more than the same sort of damage inflicted upon a seabed already scarred by dragnets. Edit: From reading further, and to answer my own question, the problem is that all research in this field is geared towards the identification of materials or energy sources that can be commoditised.

Nanzikambe 12y ago
"Metallic vanadium is not found in nature, but vanadium compounds occur naturally in about 65 different minerals. Economically significant examples include patronite (VS4),[26] vanadinite (Pb5(VO4)3Cl), and carnotite (K2(UO2)2(VO4)2·3H2O). Much of the world's vanadium production is sourced from vanadium-bearing magnetite found in ultramafic gabbro bodies. Vanadium is mined mostly in South Africa, north-western China, and eastern Russia. In 2010 these three countries mined more than 98% of the 56,000 tonnes of produced vanadium.[27] Vanadium is also present in bauxite and in fossil fuel deposits such as crude oil, coal, oil shale and tar sands. In crude oil, concentrations up to 1200 ppm have been reported. When such oil products are burned, the traces of vanadium may initiate corrosion in motors and boilers.[28] An estimated 110,000 tonnes of vanadium per year are released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.[29] Vanadium has also been detected spectroscopically in light from the Sun and some other stars.[30]" "Vanadium metal is obtained via a multistep process that begins with the roasting of crushed ore with NaCl or Na2CO3 at about 850 °C to give sodium metavanadate (NaVO3). An aqueous extract of this solid is acidified to give "red cake", a polyvanadate salt, which is reduced with calcium metal. As an alternative for small-scale production, vanadium pentoxide is reduced with hydrogen or magnesium. Many other methods are also in use, in all of which vanadium is produced as a byproduct of other processes.[31] Purification of vanadium is possible by the crystal bar process developed by Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan Hendrik de Boer in 1925. It involves the formation of the metal iodide, in this example vanadium(III) iodide, and the subsequent decomposition to yield pure metal.[32]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium#Occurrence So not only is extracting this stuff going to involve mining, the process of extraction itself relies on extremely toxic substances, and the most economic areas to mine it are places it's less than prudent to rely upon economically (China, Russia, South Africa)
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Neither salt nor sodium carbonate is particularly toxic. The sodium carbonate is pretty reactive, as are hydrogen, magnesium and calcium. The various stages of vanadium compounds are likely a bigger concern than the various reaction agents. The big reason pumped storage isn't more prevalent is that it isn't all that trivial to make it economical (you need a big reservoir to have much capacity). You also end up needing a lot of concrete, which also comes from mines (and requires a bunch of energy to produce). The better tradeoff is probably to examine and carefully control mining practices (as opposed to sort of endorsing the status quo material consumption).
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The problem with mining is rock rarely contains only one metal. The ore is crushed, the desired metal is extracted, and slag filled with heavy metal is deposited on the ground, where rain leaches poisonous metals into the water supply.
Tarrosion 12y ago
> What is wrong with present methodologies of energy storage? For example using surplus power to pump water up hill, to later recuperate during peak hours? Say you want to store 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity (most places in the United States, about $0.12 worth). That's 3.6 million joules of energy. The potential energy gained by moving an object away from the Earth is approximately m * g * h, were m is mass, g gravity, and h height. g is approximately 10, and in a home system let's say h is also approximately 10. Probably less. Then the amount of water you need to move is approximately 36,000 kilograms. At 1 kilogram per liter, that's 36,000 liters or approximately 9,000 gallons. For comparison, that's roughly the size of a moderate swimming pool. And of course, there are many other problems: converting electricity to pump action to water movement to potential energy back to electricity is not 100% efficient. That much water is extremely heavy; there's a reason swimming pools are often built in the ground. Etc. And all that for just 1 kilowatt hour! My urban apartment uses O(10) kilowatt hours per day, so even if only a small fraction of that must be stored, my roommate and I would require a swimming pool or three. Hard to find space in a city...this could all be done remotely, but then transmission loss cuts the efficiency further.
- Nanzikambe 12y ago
  And now I know :) Thanks for taking the time to make this detailed & informative reply! So basically the point is that Vanadium presents the most efficient method of power storage we know of to date?
  - sanxiyn 12y ago
    I don't think so. In energy storage, pumped-storage hydroelectricity(PSH) is still the undisputed king. It currently represents >99% of installed capacity, and has a quite good efficiency. As I understand, Vanadium redox battery is not more efficient than PSH. And no energy storage system is proven to scale to PSH scale. About the only problem with PSH is need for a reservoir and hence site selection. In Europe, it is said that Norway, which has lots of good sites for PSH, alone, can support entire energy storage demand of Europe. As I understand it is more problematic in US.
chm 12y ago
Because no thermodynamic cycle is 100% efficient.
pjc50 12y ago
Not so much "commoditised" in the economic sense, but "can be deployed widely". Inefficient storage is pointless. If it ends up being cheaper to throw the surplus away and then later run a fossil fuel generator, people will do that. Time-shifted heating has long been a thing in the UK; "Economy 7" electricity is cheaper at night, used in conjunction with oil-filled storage heaters. "Pump water up hill" requires a suitable hill. There are not nearly as many of these as you think, and flooding them is environmental damage of its own. There's also a difference between using a substance re-usably for energy storage, versus extracting a non-renewable resource and burning it. Grid-scale batteries are key to getting to a situation where most energy is renewable. The other tech that might work here is the molten salt battery, but that's harder to handle and doesn't scale down well.
- stephenmm 12y ago
  It seems to me that the molten salts make the most sense and seems to be the farthest along: https://www.solar-reserve.com https://www.solar-reserve.com The case for small scale electric storage seems less obvious to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery#Vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery#Vehicles but lithium ion seems to be working for now.
scythe 12y ago
>using surplus power to pump water up hill, to later recuperate during peak hours Consider e.g. http://www.forum-netzintegration.de/uploads/media/DUH_Sintef_Bakken_21022011_01.pdf http://www.forum-netzintegration.de/uploads/media/DUH_Sintef... >Or heating water? This is thermodynamically ridiculous. There's huge energy losses involved, cf Carnot efficiency of such a system. >From reading further, and to answer my own question, the problem is that all research in this field is geared towards the identification of materials or energy sources that can be commoditized. Oh please. It's a difficult problem. If there was an easy way to solve it cheaply without consequences it would have been done already. There are problems with dams and hot water and "layman" solutions like those. There are also problems with compressed air, batteries, and molten salts, not to mention loopy stuff like superconductors and nanosprings.

Nanzikambe 12y ago

"Metallic vanadium is not found in nature, but vanadium compounds occur naturally in about 65 different minerals. Economically significant examples include patronite (VS4),[26] vanadinite (Pb5(VO4)3Cl), and carnotite (K2(UO2)2(VO4)2·3H2O). Much of the world's vanadium production is sourced from vanadium-bearing magnetite found in ultramafic gabbro bodies. Vanadium is mined mostly in South Africa, north-western China, and eastern Russia. In 2010 these three countries mined more than 98% of the 56,000 tonnes of produced vanadium.[27] Vanadium is also present in bauxite and in fossil fuel deposits such as crude oil, coal, oil shale and tar sands. In crude oil, concentrations up to 1200 ppm have been reported. When such oil products are burned, the traces of vanadium may initiate corrosion in motors and boilers.[28] An estimated 110,000 tonnes of vanadium per year are released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.[29] Vanadium has also been detected spectroscopically in light from the Sun and some other stars.[30]" "Vanadium metal is obtained via a multistep process that begins with the roasting of crushed ore with NaCl or Na2CO3 at about 850 °C to give sodium metavanadate (NaVO3). An aqueous extract of this solid is acidified to give "red cake", a polyvanadate salt, which is reduced with calcium metal. As an alternative for small-scale production, vanadium pentoxide is reduced with hydrogen or magnesium. Many other methods are also in use, in all of which vanadium is produced as a byproduct of other processes.[31] Purification of vanadium is possible by the crystal bar process developed by Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan Hendrik de Boer in 1925. It involves the formation of the metal iodide, in this example vanadium(III) iodide, and the subsequent decomposition to yield pure metal.[32]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium#Occurrence So not only is extracting this stuff going to involve mining, the process of extraction itself relies on extremely toxic substances, and the most economic areas to mine it are places it's less than prudent to rely upon economically (China, Russia, South Africa)

maxerickson 12y ago
Neither salt nor sodium carbonate is particularly toxic. The sodium carbonate is pretty reactive, as are hydrogen, magnesium and calcium. The various stages of vanadium compounds are likely a bigger concern than the various reaction agents. The big reason pumped storage isn't more prevalent is that it isn't all that trivial to make it economical (you need a big reservoir to have much capacity). You also end up needing a lot of concrete, which also comes from mines (and requires a bunch of energy to produce). The better tradeoff is probably to examine and carefully control mining practices (as opposed to sort of endorsing the status quo material consumption).
- rayiner 12y ago
  The problem with mining is rock rarely contains only one metal. The ore is crushed, the desired metal is extracted, and slag filled with heavy metal is deposited on the ground, where rain leaches poisonous metals into the water supply.

Tarrosion 12y ago

> What is wrong with present methodologies of energy storage? For example using surplus power to pump water up hill, to later recuperate during peak hours? Say you want to store 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity (most places in the United States, about $0.12 worth). That's 3.6 million joules of energy. The potential energy gained by moving an object away from the Earth is approximately m * g * h, were m is mass, g gravity, and h height. g is approximately 10, and in a home system let's say h is also approximately 10. Probably less. Then the amount of water you need to move is approximately 36,000 kilograms. At 1 kilogram per liter, that's 36,000 liters or approximately 9,000 gallons. For comparison, that's roughly the size of a moderate swimming pool. And of course, there are many other problems: converting electricity to pump action to water movement to potential energy back to electricity is not 100% efficient. That much water is extremely heavy; there's a reason swimming pools are often built in the ground. Etc. And all that for just 1 kilowatt hour! My urban apartment uses O(10) kilowatt hours per day, so even if only a small fraction of that must be stored, my roommate and I would require a swimming pool or three. Hard to find space in a city...this could all be done remotely, but then transmission loss cuts the efficiency further.

Nanzikambe 12y ago
And now I know :) Thanks for taking the time to make this detailed & informative reply! So basically the point is that Vanadium presents the most efficient method of power storage we know of to date?
- sanxiyn 12y ago
  I don't think so. In energy storage, pumped-storage hydroelectricity(PSH) is still the undisputed king. It currently represents >99% of installed capacity, and has a quite good efficiency. As I understand, Vanadium redox battery is not more efficient than PSH. And no energy storage system is proven to scale to PSH scale. About the only problem with PSH is need for a reservoir and hence site selection. In Europe, it is said that Norway, which has lots of good sites for PSH, alone, can support entire energy storage demand of Europe. As I understand it is more problematic in US.

chm 12y ago

Because no thermodynamic cycle is 100% efficient.

pjc50 12y ago

Not so much "commoditised" in the economic sense, but "can be deployed widely". Inefficient storage is pointless. If it ends up being cheaper to throw the surplus away and then later run a fossil fuel generator, people will do that. Time-shifted heating has long been a thing in the UK; "Economy 7" electricity is cheaper at night, used in conjunction with oil-filled storage heaters. "Pump water up hill" requires a suitable hill. There are not nearly as many of these as you think, and flooding them is environmental damage of its own. There's also a difference between using a substance re-usably for energy storage, versus extracting a non-renewable resource and burning it. Grid-scale batteries are key to getting to a situation where most energy is renewable. The other tech that might work here is the molten salt battery, but that's harder to handle and doesn't scale down well.

stephenmm 12y ago
It seems to me that the molten salts make the most sense and seems to be the farthest along: https://www.solar-reserve.com https://www.solar-reserve.com The case for small scale electric storage seems less obvious to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery#Vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery#Vehicles but lithium ion seems to be working for now.

scythe 12y ago

>using surplus power to pump water up hill, to later recuperate during peak hours Consider e.g. http://www.forum-netzintegration.de/uploads/media/DUH_Sintef_Bakken_21022011_01.pdf http://www.forum-netzintegration.de/uploads/media/DUH_Sintef... >Or heating water? This is thermodynamically ridiculous. There's huge energy losses involved, cf Carnot efficiency of such a system. >From reading further, and to answer my own question, the problem is that all research in this field is geared towards the identification of materials or energy sources that can be commoditized. Oh please. It's a difficult problem. If there was an easy way to solve it cheaply without consequences it would have been done already. There are problems with dams and hot water and "layman" solutions like those. There are also problems with compressed air, batteries, and molten salts, not to mention loopy stuff like superconductors and nanosprings.