Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

#298970 31-Jul-2022 15:12
Send private message

I read a paywall article from the Daily Telegraph today.

Apparently the U.K. Will shortly have the highest level of off shore wind generation in the world. Of course, they need to store some of it. So this:

“Much of the power will have to be stored for days or weeks at a time. Lithium batteries cannot do the job: their sweet spot is two hours, and they are expensive. You need "long duration" storage at a cost that must ultimately fall below $100 (£82) per megawatt hour (MWh), the global benchmark of commercial viability.

That is now in sight, and one of the world leaders is a British start-up. Highview Power has refined a beautifully simple technology using liquid air stored in insulated steel towers at low pressure.

This cryogenic process cools air to minus 196 degrees using the standard kit for LNG. It compresses the volume 700-fold. The liquid re-expands with a blast of force when heated and drives a turbine, providing dispatchable power with the help of a flywheel.

Fresh tanks can be added to cover several days or even weeks of energy storage. The efficiency loss or "boil off" rate from storage vats is 0.1 per cent each day, and much of this is recaptured by the closed system.”

I’m no expert in the subject but that sounds clever and something we could use here.





View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
DjShadow
4222 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1322

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #2948579 31-Jul-2022 15:21
Send private message

I still like the idea of using turbines that work off the current in the Cook Strait


SomeoneSomewhere
1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

  #2948580 31-Jul-2022 15:22
Send private message

The figure that rarely gets reported is simply what the overall efficiency is.

 

Wikipedia says that it's around 25 to 70% depending on how much additional low-grade heat/cold source is available nearby.

 

That's... OK? Still not in the same ballpark as shipping it overseas via cable (>95%), or pumped hydro (70-85%), or the ideal of just shifting demand to meet generation.

 

Still better than hydrogen (18-46%)

 

 


gzt

gzt
18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

  #2948581 31-Jul-2022 15:23
Send private message

Brilliant. I heard of sand batteries recently. For the most part sand is good for localized storage only:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520

gzt

gzt
18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

  #2948583 31-Jul-2022 15:32
Send private message

SomeoneSomewhere: That's... OK? Still not in the same ballpark as shipping it overseas via cable (>95%), or pumped hydro (70-85%), or the ideal of just shifting demand to meet generation.

In the common case where energy is lost because storage is limited there are gains at low efficiency. 10% of a gigawatt is 100 million watts etc.

huckster
886 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 460

ID Verified
Lifetime subscriber

  #2948587 31-Jul-2022 15:42
Send private message

Sounds encouraging if it can re-use existing technologies and be built fairly easily and quickly.


neb

neb
11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2948674 31-Jul-2022 18:51
Send private message

gzt: I heard of sand batteries recently.

 

 

One for the things that annoy you thread: When some genius journalist decides that "sand battery" is a much more cromulent term than the correct one, thermal energy storage. It's not a battery in any way, shape, or form.

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

  #2948683 31-Jul-2022 19:29
Send private message

neb:
gzt: I heard of sand batteries recently.
One for the things that annoy you thread: When some genius journalist decides that "sand battery" is a much more cromulent term than the correct one, thermal energy storage. It's not a battery in any way, shape, or form.

 

Another term for battery, though not entirely synonymous, is accumulator. It doesn't have to be electrical. Anything that accumulates energy qualifies. 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


Scott3
4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2948707 31-Jul-2022 22:18
Send private message

Geektastic: I read a paywall article from the Daily Telegraph today.

Apparently the U.K. Will shortly have the highest level of off shore wind generation in the world. Of course, they need to store some of it. So this:

“Much of the power will have to be stored for days or weeks at a time. Lithium batteries cannot do the job: their sweet spot is two hours, and they are expensive. You need "long duration" storage at a cost that must ultimately fall below $100 (£82) per megawatt hour (MWh), the global benchmark of commercial viability.

That is now in sight, and one of the world leaders is a British start-up. Highview Power has refined a beautifully simple technology using liquid air stored in insulated steel towers at low pressure.

This cryogenic process cools air to minus 196 degrees using the standard kit for LNG. It compresses the volume 700-fold. The liquid re-expands with a blast of force when heated and drives a turbine, providing dispatchable power with the help of a flywheel.

Fresh tanks can be added to cover several days or even weeks of energy storage. The efficiency loss or "boil off" rate from storage vats is 0.1 per cent each day, and much of this is recaptured by the closed system.”

I’m no expert in the subject but that sounds clever and something we could use here.

 

With any stored energy solution, there are a few key parameters:

 

     

  1. Capital cost (per MWh storage capacity)
  2. How quickly the energy can be released (MW/MWh)
  3. Round trip efficiency
  4. Standing losses.

 

Round trip efficiency is going to be the challenge for liquid air storage. A quick internet search gives 60%, which is pretty bad. For comparison a Tesla power wall sits at 90%, and pumped hydro siting at 70% - 80%. Obviously just not running a hydro dam, thereby holding back the water is (near) 100% efficient.

 

In locations where power regularly has periods of being near free , or negitive priced, poor round trip efficiency might not be an issue. If people are paying you to take away the power from their nuclear plant (as they would be to slow to ramp up again if they shut it down), then this is grea.

 

 

 

NZ has cira 3TWh of storage in our hydro dams at the moment (cira 3.5 Weeks power, if we had zero inflows, used no other power, and had enough generation / transmission capacity).

 

NZ's big issue is cover for dry years. Our current hydro can largely cover shorter peaking needs.

 

 

 


Long term in NZ, with a move towards 100% renewable energy I would expect the following:

 

  • Construction of a lot more renewable generation. Will need to re-work the market, as we will want to overbuild, meaning when production conditions are good, we have to turn down / off renewable generation, which under the current system would send the market price to near zero.
  • Re-configuration of how our existing hydro is operated, to function more as a peak filler than it already it. Again need to rework the market to encourage this, and reward participants for holding reserves.
  • Possible construction of Lake Onslow pumped storage. Ballpark 5.5TWh, $4b, decade long construction time. Would more than double our current storage, and probability the most realistic way to deal with dry years in a 100% renewal grid station. But it is flatteringly expensive Cira NZ$700/MWh. Easily cheaper than grid scale batteries (cira US$300,000/MWh), but no were near the cira US$100/MWh for the liquid air solution discussed. Pro's would be good round trip efficiency, and minimal losses (would expect rain to make up for evaporation & ground soakage, given there is currently a lake in the location), also very long project life, 50 year design life for the civil bits is likely, and this could likely be extended further. Still would need a cira $400/ton carbon price to justify the project (currently around $80).
  • Residential / commercial customers moved to time of use rates, and over time, encouraging the likes of automatic freezer defrosting, Water heating, EV charging to be done at night via timers.



I don't think eliminating fossil fuels from our power grid is sensible, but instead we should plan to fire up the fossil fuel plants for the likes of 1 in 25 dry years, major unscheduled equipment outages etc. Building Onslow is cripplingly expensive, and with climate change we run the risk of say 2 or 3 consecutive dry years, where it would end up empty and useless regardless. I think those resources would be better to go into building more renewable generation, and moving loads (like light vehicles, industrial heat, domestic water heating etc) from fossil fuels to electric.

 

 

 

 


Wellingtondave
160 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 88


  #2948718 31-Jul-2022 23:48
Send private message

You'll know if it's a great idea by watching the oil (or other shell entities) buy up the patents / sue or otherwise make anyone who attempts such a thing disappear. 


MikeAqua
8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817


  #2948776 1-Aug-2022 09:52
Send private message

DjShadow:

 

I still like the idea of using turbines that work off the current in the Cook Strait

 

 

Could be tough.  It's a whale migration route, international and domestic shipping route and important fishing area (rec and commercial).

 

Presumably, you would need to stay out of the cable zone too.





Mike


MikeAqua
8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817


  #2948825 1-Aug-2022 10:03
Send private message

SomeoneSomewhere:

 

or the ideal of just shifting demand to meet generation.

 

 

The idea of demand shifting from a domestic perspective is interesting, because the thrust of govt policy from decades now has been towards use of electricity as an energy source in the home.

 

- Air quality statutes pushed people away from fire to heat pumps (an effectively banned wetbacks).

 

- Push for EVs

 

- Banning natural gas connections for new houses

 

So people get home of an evening, turn on a couple of heat pumps, plug in the car, bath the kids and turn on the induction hob.  Maybe 8 kW of load all at once.

 

Very peak loady.





Mike


tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2948826 1-Aug-2022 10:03
Send private message

Id prefer regional and variable green power, solar/wind/tide (if available) than a massive storage facility.


wellygary
8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287


  #2948829 1-Aug-2022 10:10
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

DjShadow:

 

I still like the idea of using turbines that work off the current in the Cook Strait

 

 

Could be tough.  It's a whale migration route, international and domestic shipping route and important fishing area (rec and commercial).

 

Presumably, you would need to stay out of the cable zone too.

 

 

Can't see why you would need to stay out if the Cable zone, in fact its probably a good place "killing two birds with one stone"

 

The Turbines would either be seabed mounted or allowed to float at a pre determined depth, they would move very little and would rely on the flow of the water, they would not increase the flows around them, 

 

The cable zone is to stop random anchors dragging across the cable,  precisely located fixed objects shouldn't be a worry for it..


MikeAqua
8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817


  #2948846 1-Aug-2022 10:41
Send private message

wellygary:

 

Can't see why you would need to stay out if the Cable zone, in fact its probably a good place "killing two birds with one stone"

 

The Turbines would either be seabed mounted or allowed to float at a pre determined depth, they would move very little and would rely on the flow of the water, they would not increase the flows around them, 

 

The cable zone is to stop random anchors dragging across the cable,  precisely located fixed objects shouldn't be a worry for it..

 

 

At the moment you can't legally engage in any from of bottom contact activity in the cable zone, or anything that might result in gear being lots and coming into contact with the bottom.  I believe a law change would be required.

 

Management of the cable zone is pretty serious (there is a dedicated patrol vessel) and highly conservative.  The concerns would be that gear that is anchored to the seabed breaks loose and damages the cables.

 

 





Mike


Scott3
4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2948864 1-Aug-2022 11:19
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Id prefer regional and variable green power, solar/wind/tide (if available) than a massive storage facility.

 

 

You do need storage for that. Peak demand in NZ is cold winter evenings and mornings. When there is no solar output, and it is often still (no wind).

 

Fortunately we are already well placed with hydro storage, but this might require further optimization if we want to get rid of gas peakers.


 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.