Another twist on energy storage
Grab our Forum Feed

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Another twist on energy storage

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,453

    Default Another twist on energy storage

    Uses solar energy to heat expanding gas in CAES rather than natural gas. Of note, the company claims they need a peak to off-peak price premium of $0.07/kWh to be viable.

    http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-the-wind/?hp

    If long lifetime (20 years) batteries become available at $250/kWh, batteries will be a much better choice ($0.04/kWh). Even at $500/kWh and 20 year life, batteries would be close to viable at a $0.07/kWh price differential. They could also reliably handle voltage regulation, so could serve double duty.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    True, the use of molten salt to store solar thermal energy, to then make the air compression tech function more adiabatically, would certainly be viable.

    $0.07 / kW*hr is very cheap, at a point where other factors may become more important, like how much space is required, what toxic chemicals are used (if any), what max power output can be achieved, etc.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,453

    Default Cheap?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason M. Hendler View Post
    $0.07 / kW*hr is very cheap
    How do you figure that's cheap? Compared to what? The U.S. average price of electricity for industry is in that range.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able5_6_b.html

    Wind generation cost is in that range.

    $0.07/kWh is not cheap unless you compare it to PV.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GM-Volt.com
    Advertisements

  5. Advertisement

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdt View Post
    How do you figure that's cheap? Compared to what? The U.S. average price of electricity for industry is in that range.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able5_6_b.html

    Wind generation cost is in that range.

    $0.07/kWh is not cheap unless you compare it to PV.
    Sorry, you didn't state whether that was cost or price, and I thought you meant price. Still, we are rapidly approaching the point where the cost isn't the issue, it's other factors, like size, toxicity, strategic commodities, etc.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason M. Hendler View Post
    Still, we are rapidly approaching the point where the cost isn't the issue, it's other factors, like size, toxicity, strategic commodities, etc.
    What do you mean we are approaching a point where cost isn't the issue? How are we approaching that point exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason M. Hendler View Post
    Sorry, you didn't state whether that was cost or price, and I thought you meant price.
    In my defense, I actually did say price, "Uses solar energy to heat expanding gas in CAES rather than natural gas. Of note, the company claims they need a peak to off-peak price premium of $0.07/kWh to be viable." That seems pretty clear to me as indicating price, but just in case it wasn't clear it's a peak to off-peak price difference.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdt View Post
    What do you mean we are approaching a point where cost isn't the issue? How are we approaching that point exactly?
    If you hadn't noticed in the news lately, legislators, lawyers, community activists, etc. are starting to really push back on renewable energy projects - water usage, wind noise, component toxicity, land usage, etc. are all being scrutinized. It seems we are past the point of cost being the concern, and are now looking at many other factors.

    In my defense, I actually did say price, "Uses solar energy to heat expanding gas in CAES rather than natural gas. Of note, the company claims they need a peak to off-peak price premium of $0.07/kWh to be viable." That seems pretty clear to me as indicating price, but just in case it wasn't clear it's a peak to off-peak price difference.
    You got me - I didn't catch the distinction, but see my response above, for why I am not even looking at cost / price anymore, and contemplating new factors that are shaping the selection of green techs moving forward. It really seems solar thermal, using water to drive steam turbines, is going to lose, except for applications where steam is required in an industrial process.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason M. Hendler View Post
    It seems we are past the point of cost being the concern, and are now looking at many other factors.
    Cost is always going to be a concern.

  10. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdt View Post
    Cost is always going to be a concern.


    I actually agree with Jason on this point. While cost is always important, we have to also stop comparing renewable with non-renewables that are acquired from questionable countries.

    What is very important is for us to actually do some planning and have some sort of energy policy. Just running hot with petroleum until we have supply problems (which are coming - only the exact date is uncertain) is not a wise policy. Sure, we have been doing that for decades but we have been digging ourselves into an ever deeper pit.

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Texas View Post
    I actually agree with Jason on this point. While cost is always important, we have to also stop comparing renewable with non-renewables that are acquired from questionable countries.

    What is very important is for us to actually do some planning and have some sort of energy policy. Just running hot with petroleum until we have supply problems (which are coming - only the exact date is uncertain) is not a wise policy. Sure, we have been doing that for decades but we have been digging ourselves into an ever deeper pit.
    No disagreement with that. Cost will still matter.

  12. Advertisement

  13. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdt View Post
    No disagreement with that. Cost will still matter.

    Jason did write:

    "at a point where other factors may become more important"

    I don't think you can take the extreme and write that Jason meant that cost is no object. Just go ahead and make everything out of gold! What do you think?

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert LinkInsert ImageInsert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts