Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Energy Storage Series: Making the Case for Batteries

Do you like this news?

 
 
17 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 17
March 20, 2013
Battery and capacitors are expensive options for grid-level storage. I've seen a proposal for a mag-lev rail system where massive weights on rail cars progress up and down inclines. As a gravity storage concept, a MAPS facility would require less time to implement than a pumped hydro station. If the hills are there, such as in California, why not take advantage of them for energy storage?
Comment
2 of 17
March 20, 2013
There are two sides of the story in energy storage. One is an energy spent to store energy, and an other energy spent on retrival stored energy. Batteries are attractive in both storing and retrival amount of energy loss for storage, and as every method have their problems with cost, weight per KW of stored energy. Where are real numbers, is cost of energy storage based on using not subsidized energy cost for storing and retrieval? What is cost of storing versus retrieval for each method?
Only addressing those concerns gives a real picture about this aspect of intermittent alternative energy.
Generally I am in favour of base alternative energy and my R&D with effective conversion of pressure into energy also can help in stored energy effective retrieval for wind and solar.
But the best solution is developing ways to save energy during consumption stage of any type of energy source.
Comment
3 of 17
March 20, 2013
Thermal energy storage used in concentrating solar power is a relatively cheap and efficient option for renewable energy storage. Thermal energy storage can achieve up to 99% round-trip efficiencies, and the cost is currently ~5 times less than batteries.
Comment
4 of 17
March 20, 2013
CKHO, how can you possibly justify that remark about thermal energy storage? If the molten salt used in current CSP power plants is (say) at 400 deg C, the electrical output conversion efficiency is well below 20%.

"99% storage efficiency" can exist only in a fevered imagination!
Comment
5 of 17
March 20, 2013
Hugh, it is correct to speak of high-90s efficiency for thermal storage as it is measured on a thermal-out/thermal-in basis. This is appropriate for CSP-T which collects thermal energy. The later thermal-to-electric conversion stage is the same whether the original thermal input energy was stored or not.

Whether CSP-T can compete with concentrated or flat-plate PV is another story. Costs and conversion efficiencies argue otherwise but cheap, efficient storage is a clear advantage for CSP-T.
Comment
6 of 17
March 21, 2013
This article should have had some critical editing! But it was written by an editor.

"56 gigawatts (GW) of "long-duration" bulk energy storage" mixes energy and power terms. Power x time = Energy.

Hard to sort out the truly good info from all the fluff.
Comment
7 of 17
March 22, 2013
Good article. Storage of energy is crucial in Renewable Energy Generation of power. Hitherto Batteries are the only option widely used but at exorbitant cost. How about Thermal storage which is used in CSP?
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
No image available
Comment
8 of 17
Anonymous
March 22, 2013
It is a fact that if large amounts of grid power comes from intermittent renewable sources such as solar or wind, then there is a real need for large scale storage capacity. But due to cost, batteries are currently a poor choice except in certain limited applications.

In most locations nothing can currently compete with pumped hydro, either from a cost or flexibility basis. Pumped hydro also has the advantage that it allows very long term storage capability, and its power output can easily be regulated to match demand.

Compressed air storage systems can have good cycle efficiencies, but its installed capital costs are high, and the compression/expansion equipment requires a fair amount of maintenance.
Comment
9 of 17
March 23, 2013
Heavy weights on MagLev trains for gravitational energy storage??

A truly hilariously bonkers idea... thanks for the smile.

It's true that moderately high-temp. thermal storage for CSP works well and barely affects overall installational efficiency, so there's definitely a place for it currently.

The goal, remember is not so much storage per se, but in making RE sources dispatchable.

Long term, I expect that overall cost (i.e. $/Watt-delivered) of PV feeding an electrochemical storage method has the potential to outperform moderate-temp. heat engines.
Comment
10 of 17
March 23, 2013
The MagLev concept is based on solid theory and engineering by some of the same folks involved in the underlying design of MagLev trains in Japan and elsewhere. I think you are rejecting it without having looked into it, Carlos.
Comment
11 of 17
March 23, 2013
Thank you for a good article. It would be useful to look at the factors that drives the storage demand, those being the financial and technical. As it is in the end the "dollars" that will decide what will be done, let's consider the financial part:
The financial reasons have traditionally justified pumped hydro installations and flexible power plants. With the introduction of wind and solar, the equation is radically changing. Wind power can generate (or not generate) for long unforeseen periods of days, increasing the storage capacity needs while reducing the frequency of full storage cycles. This is a killing equation from financial point of view and calls for storage means which have very low cost of capacity. The efficiency is not as important as people seem to think. Just think about it: until today the efficiency of 60-70% has been enough to make a grid scale storage profitable. Since this is now changing, it seems fair to believe that we will see more flexible generation capacity and storage forms that have lower cost of capacity than current main storage forms.

Drawing a conclusion, the underlying financial restrictions will not enable a scenario based on small distributed storage facilities (managed by end-users). Energy companies will not give away this business, if it can be financially justified. And if it can not, then it will not happen. As a consequence, there is no real potential storage at end-users (including the battery cars). Making this short, the financial restrictions will most probably favour grid scale flow battery type storage and more flexible power generation to balance the grid in future. And some distributed (non-RES) generation.
Comment
12 of 17
March 23, 2013
Joel,

No - I've looked into gravitational storage in many places and many contexts. The masses involved and the mass transport rates required are staggering. Dinorwig makes sense, and fulfills its specific role very well. The hardware required to replicate that with a train-set, no matter how sophisticated, seems to me to be a self-evident non-starter.

I have also looked cursorily into MagLev (trains) on and off, and they still strike me as a triumph of (perfectly understandable!) Sci-Fi fantasy over engineering common-sense.

Nevertheless, I'm certainly quite prepared to look again - never say never, etc...

However - ask yourself why there are still so very few MagLev trains in existence, and then look closely at the rare places where they have been deployed: MagLevs are big shiny technology status-symbols; and as such are not required to be an especially effective use of resources.

As a rule of thumb, for low to moderate speeds, the additional power requirement for true MagLev exceeds that needed due to steel-on-rail frictional losses. A colleague of mine put the cross-over at something in excess of 500 kmh, but the calculations are admittedly a few years old now. Has anything changed to drastically alter this?

Do you expect rolling friction to be a big loss-mechanism in a MagLev gravitational storage system?

I'm genuinely interested, so any link would be appreciated.
Comment
13 of 17
March 23, 2013
Carlos, with the mass we're talking about, wear and tear on tracks, axles, and bearings, plus the friction deficit would rule out wheeled rail cars.

The weights employed for a mag-lev system would be concrete, a relatively cheap material. Dinorwig is pumped hydro but required 1.2 million tones of concrete and cement, plus a huge energy cost excavating the mountain. Less concrete could have been used for a mag-lev system and at much lower capital expenditure. Note that mag-lev system rail cars only transport the concrete loads, which are loaded or unloaded at either end of the incline. Quite ingenious. There's a video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE92_Ds6XvI
Comment
14 of 17
March 24, 2013
Joel,

Sorry - but I found that Youtube fairly unconvincing. Sadly, they make the elementary error of mixing up power with storage capacity, although when discussing 'smaller installations' they do get the units right. Maybe just an oversight...

Anyway: lots of individual masses - lets say of the order of a thousand tons - being moved through, let's say, 300m.

Taking dimensions of 30x5x5 m per block, and density of 2.4 kg/dm³, that's about 1.8 kT mass, giving 5400 MJ stored per block. About enough to heat a whole 15m³ of water from 20°C up to 100°C.

The video mentions output powers of up to 1 GW - so that's one block arriving every 5 seconds...

So to emulate a 500 MW power station, we're looking at a block every 10 seconds, or 360 per hour.

If the system can operate for 2 hours, that's already more concrete than Dinorwig - *just for the blocks* - and before we even start accounting for the track-ways and other infrastructure.

I'm not dismissing this as completely ludicrous, but note that my back-of-envelope figures assume 100% efficiency, and we haven't even considered the trackway engineering issued around handling fluctuating 2000 ton loads every few seconds on steep terrain. Note that this is a very different problem from the much more common one of static loading, as seen in large buildings, etc.

So, more a question of impractical than impossible.

In the end, I simply question why we would look to harness the weakest (by far) of the four fundamental forces in designing a storage system.
Comment
15 of 17
March 24, 2013
Dear Joel and Carlos,
I designed device that converts pressure (weight, deep water, compressed air, etc) into very powerfull rotary motion or thrust.
Very practical, output 15-20 MW @ 5bar per every cubic meter of device size (generator extra size). Thrust version, output 20 MN @ 5bar also per cubic meter of device size, is important for aviation/marine/surface transportation eliminating rotary motion, can not get investment to be able develope, numbers of output are based on prototype testing. Can somebody finance evaluation?
Can be used also for energy storage and eliminate need for transmission lines producing power in the place of consumption. Car with small compressed air tank can travel thousands of miles (need to be prooven).
Comment
16 of 17
March 24, 2013
Arov,

I wish you the very best of luck, but your claim:

"Car with small compressed air tank can travel thousands of miles (need to be prooven)"

does not fill me with confidence.

Compressed air - or any other 'spring' for that matter - stores energy by mechanical confinement.

The total energy that can be stored in a pressure vessel of practical size and weight is determined by the ultimate tensile strength of the vessel material.

And even taking the maximum possible density of the strongest interatomic bonds, the theoretical maximum is rather modest.
Comment
17 of 17
March 24, 2013
Carlos,
Thanks for reply, for invented pressure use mechanism I have minimal use of air (leaks only), second if you use thrust and not torque to drive car efficiency of thrust is (tire dia / shaft dia) bigger or power required less (you do not need 150 hp to push car, you can push it yourself with one manpower when it stalls, somebody from the start did it wrong dating back to steam train)
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

James Montgomery

View James Montgomery's Profile
About: Jim is Associate Editor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, covering the solar and wind beats. He previously was news editor for Solid State Technology and Photovolta... more »

Advertise With Us

Geothermal Resources Council Solar FlexRack HelioSage Richardson RFPD, Inc. Blue Sky Energy, Inc. ReneSola Enecsys
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters