Electricity Storage - A new system

[mattnunn]

Sometime you read of an engineering or scientific breakthru and you think - fk why didn't I think of that!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1978...

Seems to good to be true, 70% efficiency is much better than puping water up hills etc...

But the real question I have is, what would they do with the CO2 they strip out of the air? Will it be "deemed" a process which creates CO2, however illogical that may sound?

[spikeyhead]

The real reason for the publicity.

Dr Fox urged the government to provide incentives in its forthcoming electricity legislation for firms to store energy on a commercial scale with this and other technologies.

[ewenm]

It's interesting stuff. For me, the key to a lot of emerging energy tech will be re-use of waste products from other industrial processes.

[Simpo Two]

They could put the CO2 back in the air; there's no net gain.

However, it looks like expensive nonsense to me. Nuclear is the only intelligent way forward. But, thanks to gobby lefties and the media, the public are too frightened. So we will all end up paying billions for this claptrap - while the rest of the world forges ahead (even more).

[mattnunn]

Simpo Two said:

They could put the CO2 back in the air; there's no net gain.

However, it looks like expensive nonsense to me. Nuclear is the only intelligent way forward. But, thanks to gobby lefties and the media, the public are too frightened. So we will all end up paying billions for this claptrap - while the rest of the world forges ahead (even more).

However the electricity is produced having backup capacity for periods of surges in use is handy surely?

[Simpo Two]

Sure. You have a system of energy generation that isn't very good, and then strap on another system (more cost, more efficiency losses) to try to iron out the problems with the first.

[anonymous-user]

EH? So you are storing energy in the "phase change" of a material? Hardly a new idea is it? The issue with all these so called "amazing new technologies" is the COST! There are literally hundreds (probably thousands) or ways to convert electricity to some other form of reversable potential energy and they ALL fall down on the fact that per kW/hr stored, they are generally 10x more expensive than just generating what you need, when you need it. Until hydrocarbon fuels become so expensive to give these systems "cost neutrality" then they will remain a small scale part of the global energy infrastructure.

We could (and should) spend the equvalent money on developing a "modern" nuclear solution to tide us through until other more viable technologies mature (like the ITER project etc)

[Nimby]

mattnunn said:

But the real question I have is, what would they do with the CO2 they strip out of the air? Will it be "deemed" a process which creates CO2, however illogical that may sound?

There's hardly any CO2 in air (390 ppm). But once they've separated it they may as well sell it - eg to the carbonated drinks or welding industry, so then it may well count as "captured" and get a huge Government subsidy.

Edited by Nimby on Wednesday 3rd October 10:05

[The Black Flash]

Max_Torque said:

EH? So you are storing energy in the "phase change" of a material? Hardly a new idea is it? The issue with all these so called "amazing new technologies" is the COST! There are literally hundreds (probably thousands) or ways to convert electricity to some other form of reversable potential energy and they ALL fall down on the fact that per kW/hr stored, they are generally 10x more expensive than just generating what you need, when you need it. Until hydrocarbon fuels become so expensive to give these systems "cost neutrality" then they will remain a small scale part of the global energy infrastructure.

We could (and should) spend the equvalent money on developing a "modern" nuclear solution to tide us through until other more viable technologies mature (like the ITER project etc)

Isn't it more the case that some of the time, you end up generating energy you don't need (particularly with nuclear). Hence the likes of Dinorwig etc.

[spikeyhead]

The Black Flash said:

Isn't it more the case that some of the time, you end up generating energy you don't need (particularly with nuclear). Hence the likes of Dinorwig etc.

Nuclear is one of the most flexible. Coal has to be run fairly constantly, wind provides when it blows. We really should just build some modern nuclear plants and forget most of the rest.

[mattnunn]

spikeyhead said:

The Black Flash said:

Isn't it more the case that some of the time, you end up generating energy you don't need (particularly with nuclear). Hence the likes of Dinorwig etc.

Nuclear is one of the most flexible. Coal has to be run fairly constantly, wind provides when it blows. We really should just build some modern nuclear plants and forget most of the rest.

Don't they have a habit of melting down once in a generation and causing babies to be born with 2 heads etc...

I'm pretty sure the Japanese would be sticking to nuclear if it made sense.

[The Black Flash]

spikeyhead said:

The Black Flash said:

Isn't it more the case that some of the time, you end up generating energy you don't need (particularly with nuclear). Hence the likes of Dinorwig etc.

Nuclear is one of the most flexible. Coal has to be run fairly constantly, wind provides when it blows. We really should just build some modern nuclear plants and forget most of the rest.

Hmmm, reading up it seems that nuclear can be flexible, but gets less so as each new charge of fuel is used up. So with a high percentage of nuclear, the fueling of each station is staggered so that the overall effect is that it is flexible; but with a lower percentage, you'd tend to use them as constant baseline. Interesting!

Anyway, I certainly don't disagree with your last sentence. But I suspect that with any energy mix there will be some sense in using storage to damp out the demand cycle / respond rapidly to sudden demand or outage.

And indeed, the only way I can see large scale wind and the likes becomming useful (which I'd see as a good thing, if it were offshore and cost-effective ) is if efficient storage becomes available.

[Simpo Two]

mattnunn said:

Don't they have a habit of melting down once in a generation and causing babies to be born with 2 heads etc...

Cars kill many more people than nuclear power stations, but we still use cars. Everything has a price, you just decide which to pay - climate change, the odd bit of melt-down or living in the dark in a hut.