Vanderbilt University Students Look At Eos Energy Storage
As promised, I just did a phone interview for three engineering majors at Vanderbilt University who are studying the target market for our client Eos Energy Storage. We discussed the various ways in which this breakthrough in zinc-air batteries could impact the world, primarily by:
1) Enabling power utilities (or distributed generation/micro-grids) to store energy inexpensively, thus greatly expanding the amount of renewables they can integrate, and
2) Changing the consumer value proposition for electric transportation, providing attractive range at a greatly reduced price.
When they asked which of the two I thought to be more important, I responded that it’s the first one. The most important task from the standpoint of a sustainable energy policy is getting rid of coal, and, even if the cost of wind and solar continues to fall, there is no way to really make use of it without a low-cost strategy for energy storage. Let’s hope this is it.
Once coal is out of the picture, electric transportation will have a great deal more validity as “green” transportation.
I was thrilled to have helped a small team of bright, respectful young people in a school project. Ah, the halcyon days of college…
Solar and wind have a wonderful storage media spread over most of the USA and other developed countries. The Natural gas distribution system. simply use electricity generated as surplus to disassociate water into oxygen and hydrogen and pump the hydrogen into the natural gas pipeline where it mixes with Natural gas for distribution and to power the gas turbine “Peaking generators” at power plants. Many industrial processes use natural gas also. the addition of hydrogen to the pipeline reduces the demand for pumping gas out of the well prolonging the useful life of the gas well (Which cost $4 million to drill.
Unfortunately it’s not that simple, Hydrogen could cause embritlement of iron/steel gas pipes, being a much smaller molecule than methane it may well leak at the joints. Most importantly, unless the addition is very small, it will change the burning characteristics of the gas, both calorific value and flame speed which would probably require burner jet and metering changes.
Zinc-air batteries look promising and may work out well. However, I’m reminded of an olde expression: “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.”
If the zinc-air battery works out well, it could reduce the cost of power be evening out demand and compensating for variations in supply.
Whilst I agree that we need to get rid of coal generation I would like to suggest that “the most important task from the standpoint of a sustainable energy policy is getting rid of” ‘fossil carbon emissions’, rather than coal per se. If an energy storage unit could replace say a gallon of gasoline or a pound of coal then the gasoline route would provide better climate change mitigation.
Placing Eos batteries on grid is only effective if RE sourced electricity would be lost without additional storage. Currently in the UK most, if not all, RE generation, (because it is only a small proportion of total generation), can be absorbed by the grid without additional storage, the main requirement for storage is for load, rather than generation, balancing. I suspect the current situation is probably similar in the US.The other use for storage in regard to RE is for medium to long term (weeks to Seasonal) generation smoothing. This would probably not be effective with Eos battery tech because at 10,000 cycle life capacity this would represent hundreds, possibly thousands, of years of life, making pay back times unrealistic. In this case use in EVs would probably provide better climate response, replacing more transport carbon than generation (fossil) carbon.
In a nutshell; the effectiveness of batteries (or other storage technology) in mitigating fossil carbon is the product of several factors, two of the main ones being; the fossil carbon intensity of the existing technology and the cycle frequency of the storage medium.
Another major factor is economics; this tends to override other considerations and does not necessarily favour the best solution for climate change mitigation. For example; storing RE electricity during the day so that it can be sold at a higher price in the evening may provide an economic case for storage but if the electricity could have been used during the day immediately the storage medium is surplus to requirements in respect of power generation and merely adds additional costs and carbon footprint to the RE generation so that the operators can make a bigger profit.
What I am getting at in general is that one has to look at all the (complex) factors involved when comparing different uses for RE technologies, not just storage, and that we need to decide which is more important, solving the problems of climate change or providing business opportunities.
Are you sure we need “weeks to seasonal” storage?
With an expansive grid we are not likely to need more than multiple day storage. For example, Archer and Jacobson found that wind farms over a 200 mile area provided substantial output 85% of the time.
Actually, there is a cost to having RE on the grid.
RE is intermittent and variable. To compensate for the variations in RE, it is necessary to operate conventional power systems in a mode which permits them to make quick adjustments to compensate for the variations in RE. It has been found possible to do so when RE provides up to about 30% of the power, but it still reduces the efficiency of conventional power systems.
To be able to do load following, conventional systems have to operate at partial capacity to provide spinning reserve. That is a less efficient mode of operation than operating at full load. In fact, many coal burning power plants cannot vary their output without significantly shortening their lives; the resulting changes in temperature result in thermal stress which causes cracks in the steam turbines. Thus, to compensate for load variations, smaller and less efficient power plants have to be used, including gas turbines. Thus, RE can reduce the consumption of fossil fuel to some degree, but considerably less than one might suppose. When hydroelectric systems are connected to the grid, that problem can be greatly reduced because hydro systems can do load following very well with minimal complications.
Having storage on the grid would greatly expedite load following since it could smooth out the load variations. That would provide time to activate the gas turbines from cold and permit power plants to change their output more gradually. Even without having RE on the grid, it would improve efficiency. It would also reduce the problems associated with the intermittent nature of RE.
Because RE systems generally, on average, provide less than 25% of their name plate ratings, getting all the power from RE systems would require RE systems to have at least FOUR TIMES their name-plate rating to provide sufficient power even if there were unlimited storage capacity.
The following link compares the material requirements of solar, wind, and nuclear power systems:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
Frank – the grid is constantly adjusting for changes in supply and demand. There are times that we simply shut down coal plants because they aren’t needed.
Wind is now starting to produce 50% of nameplate with latest technology and good siting.
And output capacity is irrelevant. What is important is cost of power produced.
Bob,
There may be sites where wind generators can operate at 50% capacity, but there are not enough such sites. A more realistic capacity factor is 25%. Improved technology cannot increase the percentage of nameplate capacity which is on average available. That is determined by nature over which we have no control. If there were unlimited storage available, then we could get by with a capacity factor of 25%, but only by overbuilding by a factor of four which would greatly increase costs. RE systems require somewhere about 10 times as much concrete and steel as coal and nuclear power plants; exact figures seem to be unavailable. That extreme disparity in material requirements has to affect costs.
Land requirements also must be considered, even though they are hard to pin down exactly. Wind farms require, in addition to the space required by the generators, space for access roads, work space around the wind generators, space for power lines, and space for the transformers and power converters. That can be reduced by having them off-shore, but then the technical and maintenance problems greatly add to the cost.
I’ve already posted a link above to an item and discussion about material and space requirements for RE. Although it is rather lengthy, reading it is worthwhile. The discussion shows the diligence being brought to bear on attempting to get more accurate numbers.
There are some coal plants which are shut down when the power from them is not needed. Some are even regularly shut down overnight. However, the largest and most efficient coal plants cannot be shut down like that without drastically shortening their life. To shut down a large coal plant fully can take a full week. The turbine has to be kept turning until it cools off else it will actually sag between the bearings. Cooling it off too quickly causes thermal stress and stress cracks in the metal. Unfortunately, few people have done the necessary studying to understand all this.
The following link is to a somewhat technical article that explains the problems and costs related to using coal plants for load following ( you can find similar additional articles):
http://www.ipautah.com/data/upfiles/newsletters/CyclingArticles.pdf
For nuclear plants, there is an additional problem with load following. The output of a reactor can be adjusted by how far the control rods are inserted and by how many are inserted. However, controlling the reactor with the control rods results in uneven neutron flux in the core which causes uneven use of the nuclear fuel. That problem can to some degree be mitigated by rearranging the fuel rods during refueling. Normally, during refueling, only about one third of the fuel rods are replaced with new fuel rods; the remaining ones are rearranged to help even out fuel usage thereby improving the efficiency of fuel usage. But using nuclear plants for load following will reduce the efficiency of fuel usage thereby increasing nuclear waste. The output of a reactor can be reduced by adding boric acid to the cooling water, but obviously the amount of boric acid in the cooling water cannot conveniently adjusted on a regular basis.
In any case, having renewable energy sources connected to the grid does reduce the efficiency of fossil fuel burning plants. However, that doesn’t mean that RE fails to reduce fossil fuel usage, but it does not reduce fossil fuel usage as much as one might suppose. Exact figures seem to be unavailable and can be determined only through experience.
That aim should be to reduce the use of fossil fuels as much as possible. That means eliminating the need to use fossil fuels for backup when RE is insufficient. Simply reducing fossil fuel usage by perhaps 75% is not sufficient. Already CO2 emissions are a problem. Probably eventually the world’s demand for energy will be AT LEAST five times what it is now. Therefore, we’d still have a CO2 emissions problem even if 75% of the world’s energy requirements were met by RE. Thus, we must migrate to energy sources that can provide practically 100% of the world’s energy needs, not 50% or 75%. RE cannot do that.
RE is most useful for places where connecting to the grid is impractical, such as in small island nations and remote villages in developing countries. The only other option in those cases is Diesel generators in small and medium sizes and they are exceedingly expensive to operate because of fuel and maintenance costs. So, people in those situations will simply have to accept the fact that electricity will be less than 100% reliable and live with it, or use Diesel power for backup.
Frank – the median capacity for wind turbines is 40%. The range is 24% to 50.6%. One quarter of all turbines are producing in the 24% to 35% range, one quarter in the 44% to 51%. The other half produce in the 35% to 44% range.
Capacity is not a particularly useful number. The important number is cents per kWh. The median price for onshore wind is $0.05/kWh. The only electricity source with a cheaper median price is hydro from older dams.
The overnight median cost of wind is $1.57. The overnight median price for nuclear is $3.04. That should tell you that wind is not using huge amounts more concrete and steel than nuclear. Or at least other costs of building nuclear far outweigh and advantage it has in terms of concrete and steel.
http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/
Financing costs of nuclear essentially double the cost of nuclear. Wind does not have that problem because new wind farms are built in less than two years and start creating income streams to service the debt.
Wind farms use less than 2% of the farm’s total area for turbine footings. That other 98% is still available for original use, be that farming, grazing or wildlife. On farming locations existing farm roads are generally used to access the turbines. On grazing lands the roads are allow to regrow grasses.
Land for wind and rooftops/parking lots/brownfield space for solar is not an issue.
There’s no need to load follow with coal. Just shut the plants down in all but the most demanding parts of the year for now. That is what is happening already. And as we green our grid we can close them altogether.
We don’t get from where we are in one easy step. Right now we are closing coal plants and mostly replacing them with natural gas plants. That’s roughly a 50% savings in CO2 emissions. And natural gas can load follow. A plus or two.
When/if we get affordable storage we will see NG plants operating less. Over some number of decades we will be able to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. The speed will depend on how much more concerned we get about climate change.
Bob,
You write, “Wind farms use less than 2% of the farm’s total area for turbine footings. That other 98% is still available for original use, be that farming, grazing or wildlife.”
Not so, except for the first part.
The space required for working around the wind generators is not available for original use. The space required for the access roads, power lines, transformers, and associated equipment are not available for original use either. The roads and work areas must remain available at all times for maintenance which requires heavy equipment, including huge cranes. That additional space is far from insignificant. It would be helpful to read a maintenance manual for wind generators to see how much maintenance is actually required; it is more than generally realized.
Also, wind generators have to be installed in open areas where the wind is not attenuated by trees. Even when trees do not need to be leveled for the wind generators, in some desirable locations trees have to be leveled for access roads and power lines. Unfortunately, these problems have not been adequately quantified, but that does not mean that they should be overlooked.
The median capacity you show for wind turbines is far greater than any figures I have seen, and over the last few years, I have checked many different sources.
RE systems are a very diffuse source of power and require additional power lines, a cost which must be factored in. Also, the legal delays acquiring rights of way to instal power lines should not be underestimated. The very organizations which rightly are concerned with the problems of using coal quite often oppose new power lines. Nuclear systems minimize these problems because they require far less space and can generally be installed on land that has already been dedicated for power generation. They can also be connected to existing power lines.
It’s true that Brayton cycle natural gas turbines can load follow. Also, they can be started and brought up to full power within a few minutes; those are both important advantages. However, their efficiency is low and the fuel they use is often obtained by fracking, a method for which the environmental consequences have not been adequately evaluated at least partly because under the previous administration, legislation was enacted prohibiting the EPA from studying it. There is reason to believe that fracking is hazardous for several reasons. And, without fracking, probably we would not have enough natural gas to be expanding its use for power generation.
Although its true that wind generators can be placed on roofs, the buildings on which they are put disturb the air flow thereby making the wind generators much less efficient. There is also a positive relationship between elevation and wind velocity and existing buildings were never designed to support high towers.
So far as putting PV systems on roofs is concerned, the number of such installations which have resulted in disconnecting from the grid is quite small because they have to depend on the grid for backup power. Also, PV systems are very inefficient compared with solar systems designed to provide building heat and domestic hot water. Therefore, it would make more sense for buildings to use solar energy for heat than for electricity. Because of recent regulation changes in California, using solar panels for heat should become more common there.
Let us suppose that you were a utility company executive and could see that in the near future, you would have to buy more power for your customers. Let us further suppose that someone who owned a wind farm approached you and offered to sell you power for a certain price but could not tell you when the power would be available. Would you really be willing to commit the company to buying the power?
If wind power were truly competitive, it would not be necessary to have laws requiring that utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from RE. The technology is already well developed so little R & D would be required except for storage and it is unclear whether economical storage will ever exist for all areas. Pumped storage works fine, but there are geographical limitations.
So far as I can see, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is the most promising solution for our energy requirements. Even if it doesn’t work out, the new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant seems to be far better than the nuclear plants which we are now using. If we were to put all the emphasis on RE and it failed to be practical, then we would have wasted precious time and money, to our considerable detriment, which could have been spent on something that does work. If experience ever proves that RE is workable as the major energy source for large countries, then fine, we can use it. So far as I know, there is not even one place on the entire planet that has succeeded in getting close to 100% of its power from RE, except for hydro power, and that is not everywhere available. But to depend on something that has not been demonstrated to be practical doesn’t seem to make the most sense.
Frank, I’m not going to argue with you on whether wind turbines use 2% or 4% of the wind farm areas. Power lines go underline. Existing farm roads are used for access.
There is no shortage of places to place all the wind turbines we could ever want.
If you don’t wish to believe the EIA numbers I provided you then use the site to check back to the sources. But, again, output capacity is not the important statistic. Cost per kWh generated is what counts.
Your PV roof argument doesn’t hold water. When panels produce power it gets used. When they don’t power comes from somewhere else. It’s exactly the same for all modes of generation. When a nuclear reactor goes off line then power has to come from somewhere other than that reactor.
When power is coming from solar panels the need to burn fossil fuel is lessened.
All the variability is what grid operators deal with 24/365.
Were I a grid operator and someone came to me with an offer to sell me wind generated electricity I would look at the price and whether I had ample dispatchable supply/load to work with the variability. Later, as more storage becomes available, it will be possible to incorporate far more wind than the 25% to 35% the grid can now easily absorb. Adding EVs to the grid will increase those numbers because they are dispatchable load.
You can dream about whiz-bang reactors of any sort you want to, but the utility industry has told you that they are just too expensive to consider.
—
From the conservative publication – Forbes…
“Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy in the United States, the freshly-retired CEO of Exelon, America’s largest producer of nuclear power, said in Chicago Thursday.
And it won’t become economically viable, he said, for the forseeable future.
“Let me state unequivocably that I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like,” said John Rowe, who retired 17 days ago as chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, which operates 22 nuclear power plants, more than any other utility in the United States.
“Having said that, let me also state unequivocably that new ones don’t make any sense right now.”
“I’m the nuclear guy,” Rowe said. “And you won’t get better results with nuclear. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.””
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/
(I have no idea why there are so many spelling mistakes in the Forbes article.)
blank msg needed because I forgot to check the notify boxes.
Bob,
Regardless of what Forbes has printed, there are a number of sources which assert that nuclear power is less expensive than all other sources of power except for hydro. The following article is one of them:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
Those who receive much of their income from coal naturally want to delay as long as possible the implementation of nuclear power and will so all they can to do so.
An important cost of nuclear power has been delays resulting from bureaucracy. When a nuclear plant has been mostly or entirely completed and bringing it on-line is delayed, the interest costs add up and there is no income to offset the interest cost. If delays are long enough, that can even more than double the cost of the electricity generated by a nuclear plant. There are countries which have build nuclear plants which have been completed on time and without huge cost over-runs unlike many of those built here in the U.S.
Although I have not read many Forbes articles, I wonder whether they are considering the new Westinghouse AP1000 plant which is less expensive partly, but not entirely, because they have found ways to do much of the work in a factory instead of on-site. I also wonder whether they have studied the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR); that looks as though it should cost far less than our current pressurized water uranium reactors. The LFTR can be mostly factory build with far less on-site work which reduces costs and improves quality.
When cars first became available, they were dangerous and unreliable. As time passed and experience was gained, they became much safer, much less expensive, and more reliable. The same situation occurred when electricity was new. With time and experience, power generation became safer, more reliable, and cheaper. The same situation occurred with other technologies. Surely it would be unreasonable to assume that nuclear technology, unlike other technologies, has been permanently frozen, not amenable to improvement, and should be permanently banned.
It is certainly true that grid operators daily deal with variability. However, variability is not an all or nothing thing; there are degrees of variability and when variability becomes excessive, it is much more difficult and expensive to deal with it. Experience in Europe indicates that the variability can be adequately dealt with when up to 30% of the power comes from RE, but when it is more than 30%, it becomes a serious problem.
Frank,
Thanks for a helpful and understandable insight into the challenges of coal based generation, which has filled a few more gaps in my knowledge. This is one of the ‘complex factors’ we need to consider in the overall understanding of how to best use storage technologies.
Your point regarding the benefits of hydroelectric systems on the grid to support RE was in the back of my mind when I wrote my previous comment because in the UK we have a moderate amount of hydro, including about 2GW of pumped hydro storage (about 2.5% UK average demand) which currently can probably provide more than sufficient compensation for the level of RE on the grid (other than hydro or geothermal).
Looking further ahead however the situation could change significantly. In December 2010 we (the UK) had a sustained period (about 2 weeks) when wind output was rarely above 10% of rated capacity and solar, although very minimal, would have been well below average output too. Andy Boston (Tech head at Eon) has suggested that with a high RE component of generation we would have needed about 8TWh of storage to cover this period, presumably from high/excess RE output earlier in the year. This is probably a once a year event, if that, so the amortisation of costs for this scale of storage based on Eos technology (@ $160/KWh) and assuming $0.16/KWh additional storage premium would take about 1,000 years to recoup. Conversely, if such a battery could be used on a daily cycle basis, giving it a lifetime of about 30 years, then the additional storage premium is only about 1.6¢/1p per KWh, quite acceptable, particularly if pumped storage is not an option.
Nick,
One thing I didn’t mention is that load cycling even reduces the life of large power transformers. I don’t know how significant that problem is, but I’d guess that it’s less of a problem than load cycling steam turbines.
Another way to smooth out the load is temporarily to drop loads that are not immediately essential, such as air conditioning. Here in Albuquerque NM, the power company can shut down home and other air conditioning systems if the load becomes excessive. If air conditioning systems are shunt down for perhaps 15 minutes on a rotating basis, it doesn’t create problems for users.
Because the UK has a somewhat chilly climate, perhaps shutting down air conditioning systems temporarily would not be very effective. However, there may be other loads which can be temporarily dropped without creating undo problems. Financial incentives to power users can make this more palatable.
Hydro power and pumped storage are good, but unfortunately geography and weather limit their availability. I wonder if putting the storage burden on the end user has ever been discussed. Whether that would be a reasonable thing to do I don’t know.
I remain convinced that the only solution for most large prosperous countries, and eventually for large poor countries also, is nuclear power. Unfortunately, insufficient work has been done to develop better nuclear power systems and fuel cycles to deal with the familiar problems with our pressurized water uranium reactors. I see the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR, pronounced “lifter”) as a promising solution. The following web site will provide more information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8
In addition, I highly recommend the book “Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future” by Richard Martin; it is readily available from the usual sources. I’ve read many books on renewable energy and nuclear energy and “Super Fuel” is an especially good one. Google searches will provide additional information.
Because thorium occurs with other mined elements, especially rare earth elements, we’ve already mined enough thorium to last for many decades.
Whether we like it or not, the world’s demand for energy will greatly increase as China, India, African nations, and other nations increase their demand for power. One of my fears is that the push for renewable energy will delay the implementation of a better nuclear technology until the unacceptable limitations of renewable energy systems become inescapably obvious. By then, the problems of global warming could be much greater. Global warming itself would increase the demand for power to cope with the warming; that’s a positive feedback loop which I think has not been considered.
” I wonder if putting the storage burden on the end user has ever been discussed. Whether that would be a reasonable thing to do I don’t know.”
Solar is going on a lot of rooftops because it makes financial sense at the end user level. Retail parity is easier to reach than wholesale parity.
The same may be true with storage. I don’t think Eos has short term plans to build a battery for small time players but Aquion is. They should be manufacturing a sodium-ion battery in the next few months as soon as their factory is finished.
If the prices turn out to match their predictions it could well make sense for people who have TOU billing to install some batteries and buy their daytime power at nighttime rates.
PV does often make financial sense at the end user level. That’s because of subsidies. If it were not for the subsidies, it would not make financial sense.
Using solar energy for hot water and heating would make more financial sense than PV if it were not for the subsidies.
We’re getting there. There’s an installer in New Jersey doing installs in the NJ/PA area for $3.50/watt. No subsidies.
At that price and figuring 6% financing on the solar and 3% inflation for the 20 year period normally used when calculating LCOE solar would cost one $0.195/kWh and grid power would average $0.188/kWh. Solar, without subsidies, is 4% more expensive.
If you then credit the extra couple of decades or so of pretty much free electricity then solar is a good long term investment.
Then there’s an installer in the LA area doing finished systems for $2.85. Without subsidies. The lower price and longer solar day makes the LCOE for solar $0.137/kWh and the expected 20 year average price of grid electricity $0.188/kWh.
That’s already a nickel better than grid parity. With no subsidies included. 27% better. And then 20+ years of almost free electricity.
—
We’re approaching the point at which subsidies won’t be needed for solar. Get some more efficient solar installers up and running and prices down just a bit more.
Solar subsidies have really paid off. Unlike fossil fuels which we’ve been subsidizing for 100 years and their prices keep going up.
Made a mistake. I didn’t notice that the state electricity prices I was using were not residential but average of residential, commercial and industrial.
The projected 20 year average electricity for NJ would be $0.211/kWh. Solar for $0.195/kWh.
The projected 20 year average electricity for CA would be $0.207/kWh. Solar for $0.137/kWh.
Solar, without subsidies, cheaper in both areas.
Nick, why should the UK stand alone? Do you grow your own bananas, coffee and tea?
Europe is working toward a unified grid that ties together hydro and geothermal from Iceland all the way to solar from North Africa. When the UK has a lot of wind or tidal it can sell some on to other countries and then buy back solar, hydro or geothermal when it needs more supply.
Check out Desertec. Europe is stringing new transmission right now. Morocco is building solar with the anticipation of selling into Europe on the transmission line that already connects them to Spain.
What I’ve read about Eos leads me to think that they’ve got an attractive grid storage battery. But it seems that what they have at the moment isn’t appropriate for EVs/PHEVs.
The capacity is great but the power rating is low. Seems like they said that they could only do two 100% DoD cycles per day. It took six hours to charge and then six to discharge. That’s too slow a discharge for EVs/acceleration.
—
The most promising EV battery seems to be Evira. 400Wh/kg, third party (US Navy) tested. The Leaf has a 120Wh/kg battery. This capacity would give the Leaf a 250 mile range, same size/weight battery. Low price. 1,000 100% DoD cycles (a 200,000 mile battery in a 200 mile range EV).
Yes, power density is an admitted problem. For EVs, they’re either going to have it fix it, or develop a hybrid solution with lead-acid, Li-ion, or perhaps capacitors.
Bob,
It’s unfortunate that those batteries cannot be charged and discharged faster. However, there are applications where the slow charge and discharge would not be so serious.
Eos could be a workhorse for the grid. There’s nothing that says that one battery has to fit all purposes.
If they turn out to be really cheap (their potential high cycle life suggests they might) then using them to move nighttime wind to mornings and midday solar to evenings could be their role.
I’d certainly like to have some ‘buy them once’ batteries for my system.
That said, I’m thinking Ambri’s liquid metal battery could be the real answer for the grid.
Interesting times ahead as we watch new storage solutions appear. The last piece of the 21st Century grid puzzle.
Do you not look at the negative side of wind power? Go to Google and see what others are saying about this pie in the sky. Have you heard of wind turbine syndrome? Are you old enough to remember when Walter cronkite and others on the east coast would not allow wind turbines offshore? Many who lived close to these wind farms abandoned their homes. Would you want to live where a reflection hits your house thousands of times a day? TV reception without cable is impossivle at some of these locations.
A more serious problem with off-shore turbines is maintenance.
Although the problems of salt-water spray, which causes corrosion, can be dealt with, doing so greatly adds to the costs. Also, cranes are required to lift parts to the turbines and it is difficult to keep the cranes steady when they are mounted on boats.
For more information, just do a google search on “offshore wind turbine maintenance costs.”
Frank, of course salt is corrosive. That means that offshore turbines have to use different materials and seals for some critical parts. But if you think about it, we build ships which ply the oceans for 50+ years, right down in the water. We know how to build things that last in marine environments.
Costs for offshore wind turbines are a bit higher, but that’s largely offset by more windy hours along with generally stronger daytime winds when demand is higher. The EIA is projecting that the cost of offshore wind will be about the same as combined cycle natural gas in ten years. Only a penny or two higher than onshore, but delivering more peak hour power.
As for the cranes, they are on ships that have “legs”. When they reach position they let down long jacks not unlike what RVs use to level themselves. The feet of these jacks rest on the ocean floor and steady the rig.
You can look at one here –
http://gcaptain.com/huisman-delivers-600mt-crane-offshore/
Then for deeper water we’re floating the turbines. The entire rig gets built in dry dock and towed to the site. Once there it is moored by cable to anchors on the sea floor.
This site shows one design –
http://inhabitat.com/new-wind-float-stable-enough-to-hold-worlds-largest-wind-turbine/
Gary – medical studies have found no “wind turbine syndrome”. There is some indication that a very small number of people are worrying themselves sick over something that they imagine to exist.
As for “many” abandoning their homes, I’ll be you can’t find an exact number, just some unsubstantiated claims.
Now, there have been some poorly sited wind turbines. Some have been installed too close to homes. Local governments need to set some reasonable limits before issuing permits. I think the general rule of thumb is ‘no closer than a half mile’, but check that out.
If you do look around on the web you’ll find all sorts of claims. You’ll find people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.
Best you look for well done studies.
I just noticed recently that the Eos site is stating that their test batteries have completed more than 5,000 cycles and seem to be doing fine.