Future Batteries

[Ed P]

If this Monash Uni (Australia) project gets commercially proven it could be a very important step towards making windmills and solar truly practical. (Imo they are not really practical today as when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun is behind clouds – green energy has to be 100% backed by good old gas.)

Highlights from the paper – 5 days phone battery life, cars that will go 1000 km on a charge.

[Bob Williams]

Ed wrote:

“(Imo they are not really practical today as when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun is behind clouds – green energy has to be 100% backed by good old gas.)” *

Living where I do Ed, I see a lot of the East Coast wind farms. I can stand on the Coastal Path at Sutton on Sea and see both the Humber estuary and the Wash farms, unless the visibility is not clear. They are continually growing in size and number, year upon year. I drive the coast roads often from North to South Lincs and I can tell you that the transmission of power from the Wash is not yet complete. A huge operation is underway atm to channel the power from the Tritton Knoll farm: I drive past it every time I go south.

You are correct about the wind being inconsistent of course, but what you are not aware of is the way the turbines work. Even a breath of wind will start these finely-balanced, very light (for their blade area) blades turning. They are all geared to take advantage of very low and very high wind forces and will still produce power from low wind forces: admittedly, this is  variable. Last year, over the whole year, the total energy produced was 15% of the UK requirement. In March, that became 25%, for a very windy month. [My birth month: ‘comes in like a lamb, goes out like a lion’]. That’s 25% of UK energy requirements during one of the coldest months. 25% that did not use gas or other fossil fuel.

Solar power on an industrial scale will soon begin to be seen in Lincolnshire fields: there are a few now, with more on the way. Industrial solar panels are considerably more efficient than the ones we see upon domestic buildings. They produce a certain amount of energy even on a cloudy day. In fact one of my great friends down the next street, has a large array on his south facing roof and he states that it is still producing a trickle on the cloudiest of days. He gets few energy bills, but does get a rebate, because he saved and paid for the installation upfront.

So it is really down to an economy of scale, as the wind farms become more numerous and the actual turbines much bigger, more energy is possible. It just needs all that energy production storing in a more efficient, longer lasting medium. Same goes for solar energy of course. Therefore the Renewable industry really needs the batteries you link to.

After all, unless there is a really dramatic, catastrophic planetary disaster, the sun will still shine and the wind will still blow. In varying amounts, anyway. And we need renewables, what we don’t need is energy from fossil fuels, for reasons made glaringly obvious to the whole world but ignored by the USA, China, India and several other nations. Including Germany, still making Climate Change pronouncements to others, but still burning Lignite (brown coal).

*Not 100% Ed, that’s an exaggeration.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Richard]

Bob, I have no doubt that the effectiveness of both wind turbines and solar panels are being improved as time passes. Your statement confirmed that production varies considerably. Some wind driven devices do even have to be stowed during adverse weather. The ideal situation is one where conditions show the least variation couple with tolerant devices able to adapt to the widest range of conditions. Ideally a robust storage system would absorb excess production during high output periods to load top periods of less favourable conditions. Like wise as you said not all solar systems are created equal, some have poor conversion factors compared to the very best. All systems I have heard discussed tend to lose a small amount of their capability each year, this is usually allowed for in the quoted output figures. Sadly when sun energy falls lower, so does the solar system output. In a tiny but related example, I have spent today recharging solar lights, they had enough light energy to recognise that light existed, but not enough to charge them to run for more than a few minutes at night. Once recharged they will give about 10 nights of operation. I know that the solar cells in question are largely dodgy, low efficiency rejects  produced only to mop of what would otherwise be waste.

I am not saying that the whole idea is bunkum, it is clearly not, problems exist to be solved and the wit of the human has to find ways to respond. The big outage last year showed how vulnerable the distribution system is to out of specification events, e.g critically excessive failures of both spinning and non-spinning systems. That was considerable worsened by out of specification trains that needed a roving engineer complete with laptop to restart them. They failed when power issues fell within the specified range but the trains did not meet the specification, oops.

The fact that named international backsliders exist, should not stop others from putting in the grunt to move forward. But it is a pipe dream to imagine that all can be or will be fixed within impossible time frames. It will take a range of solutions to a range of different problems, the challenge is developing and matching solutions to the specific problems

[Ed P]

Richard summed up my views. I think that both wind and solar should play a role in our energy balance, but until the problem of storing surpluses to fund the deficits is solved then we will still be heavily reliant on gas turbine technology as this is the only (almost) instant on generation system we have.

It is a great shame that our technical illiterates did not see the flaws in intermittent power generation and plumped to add stored energy such as that given by tidal barrages etc.That is why I am now a proponent of improved battery tech.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Isn’t hydroelectric still the best form of stored energy ? A river is a plus but you only need a high lake and a low lake. Release water from the top lake to generate electricity when you need it and then pump it back up again when eco energy is plentiful.

[Ed P]

Wheels-Of-Fire wrote:

Isn’t hydroelectric still the best form of stored energy ? A river is a plus but you only need a high lake and a low lake. Release water from the top lake to generate electricity when you need it and then pump it back up again when eco energy is plentiful.

The French do it better! link

[Richard]

Stored water is useful, the UK have had one or two schemes for years, but one should question the comparative efficiencies of different systems. Any efficiency comparison must take account of their space requirements and what might be termed their opportunity costs. I am disappointed that for a small, but quite damp land we fail to capture more of the potential tiny hydro schemes. They might only serve a couple of properties, but the total contribution of many small scale schemes is worthy of consideration. They tend to provide more stable output with fewer short-term variations. Coupling such ideas with better flood management schemes requires rather more joined-up thinking than is usual. However, it could offer a financial return on the flood prevention investment deployed.

Battery storage does offer one potential advantage in that it provides a sink load when production is high but demand is weak, a problem that is feared by many distribution organisations. However, batteries can only take so much load and only if they are already partially discharged. (The Germans have faced a situation of either considering paying people to use excess power or already doing so when peak output ran embarrassingly ahead of demands. I cannot now remember the exact details.) Spain has limits on domestic solar installations because of fears about the impact on their distribution network. Load management is a fiendishly complicated issue with different loads and power sources. Each has their own complex characteristics, make a mismatch and pay the price with an outage. Some have proposed hydrogen storage as yet another alternative ‘load’ and Toyota are currently going for hydrogen schemes as a research and feasibility study.

Dealing with waste in the most environmentally valuable way is another area of concern. While pure, (OK impure if you prefer the term) incineration does clear biohazardous waste, the concerns about resultant effluent can be an issue. Chemical digestion to produce harvestable and gas could be an alternative. Some sewage works have done so for years offsetting their power requirements by on site power and heat generation.

In short, we need to stop thinking in silo fiefdoms, with all the ‘my-silo is better than-your-silo’ claims that it entails. There is no one answer, the solution is an evolving mosaic of solutions.

 

[Ed P]

The big UK domestic electricity providers are currently struggling with how to use and incentivise the use of batteries within domestic solar installations. Unfortunately as most (all?) domestic installations are only single phase any optimisation is limited to the area around the nearest transformer. (Simply put, solar production from a house in sunny Cornwall cannot be used to boil a kettle in rain sodden Manchester.)

Bigger commercial installations on farms etc are 3-phase so the issues are of a much smaller scale, but still there.

[Richard]

There is another problem, domestic systems cannot supply the grid during power outages, due to the risk to line workers and others. This is one of the reasons they are line synchronised, if the synchronising source is lost, the domestic system should shut off, meaning that the home is in darkness. It is possible, but can be difficult and expensive to have a main supply isolated domestic set up as building control and the area supply authority area must agree. I understand that a few isolation systems have been approved for some distribution zones when they are supplied and installed by approved companies.

Portable generators can be used but not as part of the building wiring. Even using low voltage lighting from a battery supply can become challenging to approve if it is part of the domestic building wiring. The difference between ‘building wiring’ and standby systems can become subject to tedious discussions if it looks slightly ‘installed’. Several people I know still carry the scars from their battles to get approved systems.

[Bob Williams]

Just recovering from a power cut, coincidentally. There is a Met Office yellow warning here for tomorrow, 0300 to 1800. High winds and possible additional power cuts. I will bring the wheelie bins close to the house wall and weight them down. More later.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Ed P]

About the only power I need during a protracted outage is power for the gas central heating. With the circulating pump drawing about 200 watts and the boiler safety system at tens of watts I reckon I could get away with a chunky UPS to cover the typical max for outages of 3-4 hours. (ex another Winter of Discontent!)

[Richard]

Because we have a house covered by wireless phones to avoid the dash to the nearest example when it rings I installed a small UPS to drive the base station. A UPS to support the heating service is certainly an option. However, you might need a bigger example than expected to cope with the inrush as the system starts up, the average draw across even a multi hour break should not be that large as the system probably does not run for more than a few minutes every hour.  I would hope that a well insulated place should be able to survive our typical outage, 40 minutes is typical, an hour or two unusual. Night-time lighting could be a slightly bigger issue, though torches meet that need at a push.

[Richard]

Looking at our directly wired dedicated, fused switch heating installation, I wondered, are indirectly wired boiler setups, i.e. via a three pin plug allowed? You would need to break into the supply run with a socket and plug to allow the insertion of a UPS.

One day I might give the router a UPS. Then I should I provide the switches, PCs and server with a UPS as well? Where would it end, include the TV as well?

[Ed P]

My two years old boiler sits on a 13A three pin plug socket. It has been inspected by three different heating engineers without comment. As boiler interlocks fail safe on loss of power I see no safety reason for requiring a boiler to be hard wired.

btw my router sits on an UPS – best protection going against lightning strikes frying everything!

[blacklion1725]

OK tell me I am mad: If we take “natural” energy from things like the wind, sun, tides etc, might that not in itself unbalance nature? I probably am mad – all my family and mates think so about this – but if a wind is blowing from A to B naturally, and we take a lot of energy out of it – then it either won’t get to B or will be weaker when it gets there. If we take energy that would otherwise heat plants/earth/water from the Sun then (global warming arguments aside) we are changing the natural warming of those elements. Likewise turbines using the tides.

I know these would have to be on a major scale but there’s already examples where hydro-electric dams are affecting the fish stocks “downstream” – I was in Russia recently and there is a sturgeon (so caviar) shortage which is attributed to the Volga hydro-electric dam.

Cue the men in white coats for me!

[Ed P]

I think the clue is in your question – we do not take a LOT of energy from the sources. With respect to solar, we take a relatively small amount then put it back over a wider area in the form of heat.

Wind energy is an interesting question, but again we only take the bit from the portion that is near the ground that otherwise tends to be dispersed naturally by ground friction and interaction with vegetation.

If by some miracle we could take most of the energy from the wind we would again put it back over a wider area. I guess the nett effect in that imaginary case would be to slow down changes in the weather, and in warmer climates reduce the number of hurricanes.

However, I take your more general point. Because humanity has the capability of making major change, then the law of unintended consequences comes into force. You are therefore completely correct in implying that we cannot be 100% certain that humanity’s actions will have no unintended negative consequences.

I’ll give you a simple example. Removing the many millions of tons of sulfur from ships bunker fuel will definitely cut down air pollution. However, scientific studies show that the emission of SO2/SO3 in oceanic areas results in more cloud formation, more rain and hence global cooling. So one action to improve the quality of the environment may well have a unintended significant negative effect by increasing global warming – we just do not know how many degrees that will be!

[Ed P]

Addendum to previous post. This link is probably more relevant to my point about ships bunkers, but do read the first as it hints at the triple whammy impacts of clearing forests for Palm Oil production in Indonesia and Brazil.

[Richard]

I suspect the answer is even simpler than that, crops use solar energy to grow, remember photosynthesis and all that. Even crops that have not had human effort and have been growing for millennia have done so without any obvious effect on solar production. What can have an effect is local farming habits that affect the micro climate, that can have a knock on effect. Rain forests grew over time and this reduced atmospheric CO2, slaughter them and expect a local climate impact, burn them and produce two effects, more CO2 and local climate changes.

Wind is the product of pressure differences between areas. These are usually caused by temperature differences. Hot air rises and though atmospheric movements appear easy to explain, they are complex and not easily analysed. While wind turbines, or windmills before them do not affect the fundamental fact that high pressure needs to flow towards lower pressure areas. The flow may be very slightly slowed down by barriers of all sorts, buildings, hills, mountains and so on but it will still find a way. As Ed said at best we could only harvest a tiny amount of the total energy available, the turbines are low down relative to the total sum of winds, which are far stronger at higher elevations. Interestingly, they can also flow in different directions at different elevations, certainly not so easily explained. The current crop of wind harvesters reach a height of what, 400 metres, unlike buildings, hills or mountains they do not block the wind they absorb a small amount of its very local energy. However, they can have other effects such as long tails of eddy currents. I understand that silting and scouring round the base of the marine installations can be an issue in some cases. In some areas fish are finding them a safer area in which to spawn and breed. Weeds grow attached to the bases and the local sea area may be slightly calmed, so yes there are impacts. Unfortunately birds are negatively impacted, as they cannot easily identify the hazard of whirling blades with obvious detrimental effects on them. While I am not a fan of land installations, which can cause a range of issues from noise, visual intrusions, bird strikes through to basic NIMBY, Even they potentially cause less impact than many alternatives, such as coal and combustion generally. How many people and animals died from the combustion pollution?

Tidal barrages have been modelled to produce quite severe effects in unsuitable cases with silting in the basins expected to either require considerable dredging or reducing their life spans. Dams and river diversions can be highly detrimental to whole areas. While intended to increase agricultural production they have laid waste to the area. They have brought up salt levels creating salt pans out of lakes or deserts out of land. These then affected the local climates.

[Ed P]

Richard, don’t forget the large scale impacts that are caused by simple human practices such as goat farming and slash & burn agriculture.

Latest research claims that humans caused the Sahara Desert. link

I think the research is quite plausible as I’ve witnessed the small-scale impact of semi-nomadic slash and burn farming on fertile areas of Zambia.

[Richard]

I am aware of the reputation of the goat, or many would have it the ‘desert maker’. They will eat plants roots and all and that is not all they will eat, I have seen them settle into a nice(?) snack of cement powder bags. This research may or may not be the entire picture. However, it is an interesting brick for the ‘wall of knowledge’. I had in mind the far more rapid transformation of the Aral Sea with almost equally devastating effects. Cotton production does appear to be a root cause of many recent issues.

[Author]

Posts