article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (11) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
November 17, 2006

Mass Storage Key to Future of Renewables

Peterborough, New Hampshire [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The vanadium-based Flow Battery from VRB Power Systems, Inc. is proving that mass storage for intermittent resources such as wind and solar is achievable, according to the company's CEO Tim Hennessy.

"It's been the engineer's dream for many years to be able to catch the lightning bolt -- to catch large amounts of power and to store it."

-- Tim Hennessy, VRB Power Systems, CEO

"It's been the engineer's dream for many years to be able to catch the lightning bolt -- to catch large amounts of power and to store it," said Hennessy, speaking on RenewableEnergyAccess.com's Inside Renewable Energy podcast. The Flow Battery, said Hennessy, is one of the answers to that dream.

The solar and wind industries are often criticized for their inability to store huge amounts of electricity. But the Flow Battery is changing that. VRB Power recently signed a deal with Tapbury Management to supply a 1.5-megawatt (MW) storage system for the Sorne Hill wind farm in Donegal, Ireland.

Eventually, Tapbury will scale its order to a 6 MW storage system, said Hennessy.

Want to learn about how the Flow Battery works? Listen to the Inside Renewable Energy podcast, linked below.
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
Reader Comments (11)
 
No image available
November 17, 2006
Second Birth
A.A.

Renewables in synergy,
Replace our present energy,
Of fossil fuels and nuclear power,
Which presently is turning sour,
Polluting air and atmosphere,
Ground water all which we hold dear,
Warming and evaporation,
Storms affecting transportation,
Drought with deserts to expand,
What will become of living man?
Nuclear wastes to harm our Earth,
Renewables we need for second birth.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 1 of 11
No image available
November 17, 2006
"The VRB-ESS is particularly beneficial.. through its ability to "inventory" electricity, allowing for the optimal match of supply and demand....and is characterized by having the lowest ecological impact of all energy storage technologies."

"Scheer argues that the reason why many still think renewable energy cannot replace fossil and nuclear power is because those working in these industries have made efforts to propagate the notion. Furthermore, a largely unsuspecting public seldom differentiates between a vested interest and an independent expert. Scientists and industrialists, dependent on nuclear and fossil fuel industries for their livelihoods, shun evidence that suggests a total shift to renewable energy is possible."

I think that Dr. Scheer is completely right in his conclusions.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 2 of 11
No image available
November 17, 2006
While storage is very important in applications where round-the-clock power is required, it is of no importance in the key peak power requirements in hot areas. Where air-conditioning is 30% of the peak load (as in California), the sun is up at preciseley when solar power is needed - storage is not required. It is a mistake to judge solar power based on all-day, all-night operation. I happen to think that for air-conditioning, it's not even required to generate electricity. On-premises thermal-solar heated fluids could be used in either solar absorption cooling units or dessicant evaporative cooling systems.
Comment 3 of 11
No image available
November 18, 2006
I guess one objective is to not have to depend on the grid at all if possible. During non-generating hours from the renewable sources, you could then tap the "inventory" storage of electricity. As more and more individual households drop off the grid, less and less demand from the grid is necessary. Just curious, if eventually supply is far greater than demand for electricity from the grid, would the utilities charge less?
Comment 4 of 11
No image available
Anonymous
November 18, 2006
The podcast mischaracterize the need for storage, and should be revised. The claim of the reporter that storage is a "pressing issue" is simply not consistent with wind integration today. The wind industry includes this amongst the myths about wind (see http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/050629_Myths_vs_Facts_Fact_Sheet.pdf).

In May 2006 all 3 national utility membership organizations (EEI, NRECA, APPA) stated, "The addition of a wind plant to a power system does not require the addition of
any backup..." see http://www.uwig.org/UWIGWindIntegration052006.pdf.

The electric grid is designed to meet many changes in energy production because no power plant is 100% reliable. The grid operator matches electricity generation to electricity use, and wind energy's variability is just one more variable in the mix.
Islands, short on resources, and facing higher energy prices, will value storage sooner than the rest of the U.S.
Comment 5 of 11
No image available
November 20, 2006
Storage is important because it reduces the amount of standby power production needed in the system, allowing a higher percentage of generation to come from renewable sources. That is the goal, if CO2 reduction is to happen.

Energy stored from the wind blowing at night can be sold during the day. Energy generated on a sunny day can be sold on a cloudy day. Utilities will pay more for power from a wind energy plus storage system than for a wind energy system alone, since it reduces risk for them.

Stephen
Comment 6 of 11
No image available
November 22, 2006
Would these replace gas stations if cars are electric?
Comment 7 of 11
No image available
November 23, 2006
What is it with these guys from wind energy trade organisations (hostile comment by Mike Jacobs)? What compels them to bandy the word "myth" so frequently? Why do they get so emotional over any suggestion that wind energy can be very inconvenient to integrate - and impossible to integrate above a certain penetration - without storage?


In West Denmark, where I live and which has more wind power per capita than anywhere else in the World, we are lucky to have inter-connectors that have, roughly, the same capacity as our wind capacity. Whenever the wind blows strongly, West Denmark exports electricity. A REAL myth created by wind enthusiasts is that "West Denmark supplies 25% of its electricity from wind". WRONG! Wind energy while generating the equivalent of 25% of our demand is mostly exported to Norway, Sweden and Germany. These countries act as "electricity stores" for Danish wind in the same way as VRB ESSs (or similar)are needed to balance any island grid.
Comment 8 of 11
No image available
November 25, 2006
Myth (n.) A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

Transmission lines linking windy areas to other places are necessary for wind- the power grid is a network, and the utility operators know how to use it to integrate wind, without storage. Same is true for nuclear, or urban centers lacking sufficient power plants.

The U.S. adds more wind than nuclear or carbon-captured coal last year, this year, or next year. The utility industry, the power system operators, and states that live with wind agree that using wind for 10% of the electric supply is manageable without storage. (And then the utility begins to prepare for 20% renewables.) See real information, not rhetoric, at

http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/content.do?subchannel=-536881511&id=-536881350&agency=Commerce

http://www.nyserda.org/publications/wind_integration_report.pdf

Don't confuse islands' needs with the mainland.
Comment 9 of 11
No image available
January 22, 2007
The cheapest ( but also lowest value) option is to pump it over the grid to someone who wants it as the wind guy says. The most expensive but highest value option is to store the stuff if you make it when its cheap , and sell it at the next peak when its expensive. Other obvious options are to store at the destination when lines are overloaded at peak in order to avoid reconnectoring expenses,to store at source to allow you to restart a system after grid loss ( since generators cant use permanent magnets they need current before they can start generating), and to store in the grid at various points to help stabilise instantaneous demand changes.

Theres lots of options in between . Before we get heated it would be nice to know the relative costs, relative values and how these are likely to change!
Comment 10 of 11
No image available
January 22, 2007
Storage is important but obiously you wnat to do it at lowest cost, and to sell your output at the highest ( peak ) price. Theres going to be a set of options depending on locality, interconnnect and cost of storage systems.
Comment 11 of 11
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Third Sun Solar and Wind Power, Ltd. ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe SolarCraft FRONIUS USA LLC Solar Electronics Division altPOWER, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo