Renzo

Cost Effective Energy Storage: The Orphan Stepchild of Alternative Energy

John,

I listened to Secretary Chu's testimony last Thursday in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. One thing Chu focused on was developing “transformational” technologies, which he likened to the work on transistors at Bell Labs. One of his five stated goals was the development of:

“Automobile batteries with two to three times the energy density that can survive 15 years of deep discharges”

Do you think he is implying lithium alone, or could PbC or other technologies fit that definition?

Cost Effective Energy Storage: The Orphan Stepchild of Alternative Energy

Barron's and Greentechmedia just reported (www.greentechmedia.com...) there is draft Smart-Grid legislation which would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) sweeping new powers to speed Grid development. These include:

1) Increased powers of eminent domain

2) Allowing "national cost-sharing" of transmission lines so that states could spread the cost of building lines in their territory to other states.

3) Directing the government to set aside enough land for 4-25 gigawatts of solar projects at a commission of only 0.1 cent per KWh.

Because the siting and permitting processes are so slow, it will take years before money actually gets to the players--solar, wind, and grid infrastructure builders--but it sure bodes well for the future of these companies.

Long Live the Cleantech Revolution

Frflyer,

I enjoy this kind of interchange but I don't want to pollute this investing post with too much hot air on my AGW philosophy. You may have noticed that both of our posts on this topic have mostly been ignored by the "thumbs".

Catastrophic AGW proponents and policy makers have decided on a Procrustean solution--chop off the generally less expensive legacy technologies that hang off the bed and stretch the newer, generally more expensive renewable technologies to try to fill the bed. I think it's a bad choice for both battery technology and energy policy.

I appreciate everyone's indulgence

Long Live the Cleantech Revolution

John Loundsbury,
Thank you for you discussion of Hyperion Power. It sounds interesting and safe but as far as I understand, it's still uranium-based and will therefore still have the problems of the highly, longly radioactive transuranics (like Pu) that are formed when non-fissile U238 (about 97% of low-enriched uranium) absorbs neutrons and decays. I fear that regardless of how safe or economical it may be, we will never accept a technology that will increase our nuclear waste problem. The other problem is there will at some point be a problem with peak uranium, just like peak oil.

Another nuclear technology (that is currently investable through microcap stocks) that is probably a better, though longer-term solution is thorium-based reactors. Thorium is a non-fissile very slightly radioactive element that is 500-times more abundant that fissile U235. When thorium is put in a reactor with a small amount of low-enriched uranium or plutonium it absorbs a neutron and decays to U233, which is fissile. This then produces energy just like U235. The cool thing is that ALL of the thorium is burned and the production of transuranics is greatly reduced compared to conventional reactors.

The really cool thing is that the waste produced from one type of thorium reactor (the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor--LFTR) is highly radioactive for only a few HUNDRED years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

The really, really cool thing is that it is almost weapons proliferation-proof.

The really, really super cool thing is that because it requires U or Pu to start the reactor, it can actually be used to burn Pu and other persistent, toxic transuranics that we already have lying around waiting to go to Yucca Mountain.

Problems?
1)It's "nuclear", which carries all that baggage, justified or not.
2)The nuclear industry is based on uranium and thorium reactors would eliminate the huge profits on uranium sales. Thorium is cheap. In fact the government has 3200 tons of thorium buried in Nevada because it became worthless when uranium reactors became the de facto technology.
3)The LFTR doesn't exist yet (though the concept was proven at Oak Ridge National Labs in the '60's with a somewhat similar molten-salt reactor). Development will take years, but could be done "quickly" as the reactors are in many ways simpler that current light-water reactors.

There is a microcap stock (which I own) that has a thorium fuel rod design which will supposedly be able to replace uranium rods in existing reactors. I don't know how far this is from commercial use, but it's closer than LFTR. As I understand it, this technology loses some of the advantages of LFTR in terms of reprocessing and waste issues. It's being developed in India.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but thorium seems like almost a panacea for our long-term power needs.

Here are two recent Google Tech Talks on the subject (See, I'm not making this up). The first is a little less technical than the second.

1) www.youtube.com/watch?...

2)thoriumenergy.blogspot...

Here's a very readable Cosmos Magazine article from 2006: www.cosmosmagazine.com... and there's a lot of blogging on the subject.

Long Live the Cleantech Revolution

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” (Edmund Burke) so I have to add a few, brief thoughts as a response to a frequent commentor’s latest AGW/renewable energy diatribe.

First, we all want to reduce fossil fuel use in a way that doesn't destroy the economy.

Alternatives to fossil fuel are needed. Pick your reason: the trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, peak oil or AGW. Energy storage bets will pay off handsomely as a consequence.

We commonly use religious terminology--believer, denier, agnostic-- when we are talking about AGW. It’s an easy shorthand that exposes the blind faith needed for a belief in imminent, catastrophic AGW. It’s not enough that I simply believe (as I really do) that increasing CO2 can warm the environment. I have to believe not only that the environment will be harmed, but also that it’s going to be an immediate, Gadarene decline that requires us to institute cap-and-trade this minute to save the planet. If I question the magnitude of AGW, its timing, or the efficacy of proposed draconian cures, then I am a “denier”. (This is a particularly cynical and stupid epithet considering its implicit allusion to the Holocaust).

There are reasoned arguments against the “consensus” of urgent, catastrophic AGW. Any of us can research these issues on our own. Comments composed mostly of quotations with a half-dozen links thrown in are unhelpful. Bibliographorrhea is no substitute for sober analysis of the issues.

I apologize for that last bit of snark and for the opening quote, which was meant as hyperbole. The popular consensus that Burke actually wrote the “triumph of evil” quote is wrong—it’s a 20th century fabrication. You can read an interesting, lengthy analysis in this, my sole link: (tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkeq...

Long Live the Cleantech Revolution

Good afternoon, John. It's helpful to have a concise summary of your theses.

I'm curious about Active Power. Their website (www.activepower.com/) shows that they focus almost exclusively on uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). There is, however, an interesting note suggesting their flywheels could complement battery stacks by isolating them from frequent charges and discharges, thereby increasing their lifespan. There is no mention of utility-scale power quality applications and also no discussion that I could find on their intellectual property.

How would you compare the utility of ACPW's flywheels to Pb/C batteries in the UPS market (competitive or complementary?) and do you think they have potential for utility-scale (substation) use?

Low-speed flywheels seem somewhat low-tech (not that there is anything wrong with that). Do you have a sense of their IP position and barriers for potential competitors?

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Mr. Korthof,

I'll be happy to buy a pure EV in Minneapolis when they sell one that works there in the winter. When will that be and how much will it cost?

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Frflyer,

I already said my mea culpa on my misuse of EV/PHEV terminology.

Nuclear and coal are for base load generation. Solar and wind should be pursued to supplement base load generation. My problem is that people take it as dogma that solar and wind are somehow a panacea, when in reality they can only supplement not replace existing coal, gas and nuclear plants-and then only in areas with a lot of sun or wind. (Ergo we shouldn't use tax dollars to put solar panels on roofs in Seattle.)

As to the relative economics of solar/wind and coal/nuclear, I'll be happy to cut and paste a long quote that states just the opposite conclusion when that is pertinent to the original discussion.

To reiterate--let's develop the green technologies, but let's be realistic about their economics (a la Li batteries in cars) and let's not dismiss the older "dirty" technologies like coal, nuclear and advanced internal combustion engines.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

John,

Has anyone looked at flow batteries for trucks? The energy profile seems to fit (at least for steady travel). From ZBB's website it looks like the ZESS-50 has an energy density of about 10 Wh/kg. I know zinc and bromine are dense, but I wonder if such a battery could be trimmed down for motive use.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Speculawyer,

Pardon my terminology. Instead of PHEV I should have said pure EV's (like the Phoenix and Tesla vehicles).

You cleverly realized that it's possible to heat batteries to make them work. I'm sure that doesn't affect the efficiency calculations of the system.

You also noted that cars can run out of gas. I concede that point.

My point remains that we need to focus on practical, cost-effective solutions, not feel-good remedies that you can prove via spread sheet will boost efficiencies by a few percent at the cost of a few thousand dollars. (FYI, I took some poetic license with the aforementioned numbers).

Back to work on my online ME degree.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Thank you for the kind words, Isaac. Hyperion has an interesting idea I would love to see implemented, but I think the idea of multiple "small" plants is going to suffer greatly from the NIMBY phenomenon and concerns about proliferation. Thorium-based power is really quite a cool idea that's still a long way from commercialization, but is starting to gain traction. Get this-the waste from a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is essentially non-radioactive after a few hundred (not tens of thousands) of years. Google "thorium power".

I hope you are able to get a practical PHEV commuter car. I'm sure there is a significant market for such a vehicle. I'm concerned, though, that forcing Detroit to make such vehicles will push them even further into insolvency when government tax breaks end (as they will, inevitably). CNG seems to be a practical, greener alternative. There is still a lot that can be done to improve the efficiency of gasoline engines-direct injection for example.

The Administration and green evangelists are letting the somewhat fantastical "perfect" solutions of PHEV, wind and solar power get in the way of practical, less expensive "good" solutions like CNG vehicles, improvements on internal combustion, and nuclear power.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Thank you for another concise analysis of the problems inherent to the use of lithium batteries in HEV’s and PHEV’s. There seems to be a consensus that a 40-mile range is adequate to make a PHEV commercially viable. I’d like to know where, exactly, people expect to drive these vehicles. A vehicle may have a 40-mile range in a moderate, costal climate. However, if you make it cold and add a heater (or AC) and a few hills you have an expensive, minimally useful, piece of modern green art in the driveway. The upper third of the country gets cold enough in the winter that the physics, chemistry and economics of such a vehicle make it completely impractical much of the year.

The DOE report (p.8) rates the efficiency of A123Systems’ battery (the apotheosis of Li technology) at 98%(30ºC), 90%(0ºC), 80%(-15ºC) and 48%(-30ºC). So, below –15ºC (that’s actually +5º in American degrees), efficiency plummets. So what? How often does it get that cold? Ask a friend in Minneapolis, Chicago or Toronto.

There’s no way to design a battery around this problem. Things move more slowly when they are cold. This includes ions. You all remember your Arrhenius equation from chemistry, so you know that a reaction’s rate is cut in half for every drop of 10ºC. That means a lot less power on a cold day. It’s physics. The only way around it is a bigger battery or magical thinking about the power of green technology.

There’s an implicit geographic arrogance in discussions of the viability of PHEV’s. The calculation any rational person does when buying a new car is not what he needs from the vehicle under average conditions, but what he needs from it under extreme conditions. Ask yourself “Could my wife and kids end up stuck on the turnpike on a cold winter day because the terrain was hilly and there was a traffic jam and she had to run the heater just a little too long?” Why would I buy the car if the answer is yes? Ultimately, no one will buy a car they can’t be reasonably certain of being able to use 365 days a year. How can Detroit make money on PHEV’s if much of the country can’t practically use them?

The first step in solving a problem is to admit it exists. There is NO substitute for hydrocarbons in most transportation applications. They don’t degrade with heat or cold. If unused they last forever, and their energy density is unparalleled. Our ultimate goal is to decrease CO2 emissions and our foreign oil dependence. We can waste our money pushing impractical, expensive solutions like PHEV’s or we can do practical things like investing in next-generation nuclear technology like thorium-based reactors.

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

Thank you for another installment in a stellar series of articles. The way you logically categorize the technologies and their power/energy profiles makes the arcane understandable.

It seems that Axion and ZBB are both looking at a similar niche in the grid storage market with their Power Cube and ZESS modules. Are these products complementary or competetive? It seems that PbC provides better short term (frequency regulation) power, whereas Zn/Br is better for longer-term (peak shaving) power. Is this correct?