Apparently, this company (EOS) has overcome the recharge limitation that exists in conventional zinc-air batteries, and supposedly has several patents on the technology. If true, this technology would be a big boost for all sorts of battery powered technology, not just grid storage. The big question: what is the conversion efficiency? – Anthony
Guest post by Mathias Aarre Mæhlum
In the next few years, an increasing amount of wind turbines and solar panels is expected to be built all around the world, reducing the stress that coal, fossil fuels and other polluting methods of harnessing energy does on our environment.
There are several challenges related to the electrical grid we face when solar, wind and other renewable energy sources reaches 10, 15 and 20% of the total useful energy generated. This article focuses solely on energy storage. Why is energy storage important?
Wind and solar energy (other renewable energy sources as well) are highly fluctuating. We are having a hard time predicting the flow of the energy resulting in two main problems:
How can we assure that we have enough energy to satisfy the rate of consumption? Imagine days where the amount of energy harnessed does not reach the demand. Or if we flip the coin, days where we generate too much electricity and want to store the surplus for times when energy is scarce.
A stable flow of energy is also important. If we are to exchange our current base load energy systems with renewable energy sources, we need some kind of device between the electricity generation and consumer, ensuring a stable and controllable flow.
Batteries have previously not been applicable for utility-scale energy storage. There are several reasons for this, but most important is the price tag. In the last ten years, technological advancements have been made in a battery that utilizes zinc and air as reactants. The key here is that the air comes from the outside rather than acting as a reactant within the battery.
This result in one very interesting thing: Since there is only one reactant in the battery itself, we can expect an increased energy density. In theory, this can be up to ten times the density of ion-lithium batteries. In addition to this, zinc-air batteries are expected to have a lifetime of 30 years. This things all help with lowering the costs, allowing us to use the technology on larger scale.
It looks like zinc-air batteries on utility-scale could be a valuable addition to our renewable energy systems and help us transition towards the smart grid. The first utility-scale zinc-air batteries are promised to be on the market within 2013:
As I posted (far) above, energy density in batteries is measured per kg (mass) not volume. So zinc-air gets rid of lots of kgs, but at the expense of puffing up hugely with air. For “stationary” applications, this is perhaps OK. For rolling stock, not so much.
There are other ways to use improved and longer life batteries – off peak a company can recharge batteries like this (although the article contains information that suggest an improved lead acid battery for utility operations) can then turn around and use it for peak times – and generate a modest profit. Or provide power during peaks that exceed available generation – (btw, this is already being done in China. I’m looking at possible employment with a firm that does just that) Lithium batteries are toast in utility kinds of applications – the fire risk is very real and happens all too often. Ther eis also a firm in Silicon Valley called Alphabet Energy that is selling products that collect waste heat and generate electricity – another possible application here. ROI is probably more important here…
This battery technology will require massive subsidies; and if adopted, will likely ride the coattails of the existing subsidies now going to solar and wind in the form of an added premium on the existing subsidies. Remember what green energy is all about — forcing a technical approach on the public that wouldn’t otherwise be adopted except for the political goal of pursuing the green energy agenda.
If one has been successful in convincing the voting public to accept heavily subsidized energy production as the pathway towards implementing a green energy agenda — as has been done here in Washington State with its plethora of windmills covering what previously had been a largely rural landscape — why should one care what it costs to implement this kind of battery technology as long as it can successfully enhance the transmission grid’s ability to follow a load?
And if what happened in Washington State becomes the normal pattern, very few members of the voting public will care that energy now costs significantly more than it used to cost; or that very significant portions of what had been a rural landscape have now been covered with energy production facilities in the name of pursuing a policy of environmental protection.
@ur momisugly Brian H
Mass or volume, the same dynamic would apply subject to the specific heat of the material. The point is that if you dissipate ten times the energy in the same amount of mass or volume you will get a much more extreme temperature rise. High internal temperatures tend to damage or deteriorate any batteries that I know of and also presents a fire or explosion hazard. That would not be conducive to longer battery life.
Detailed drawings, performance graphs and specifications along with an explanation of the chemical reaction are needed to understand how this cell would behave.
tesla_x et al,
why does everyone think that “in some time” the price of [insert your prefered grain energy source here] stays the same as it is now while the price of “conventional” energy sources gets up?
Billy;
I was just commenting on the limited range of applications. Stationary storage is far different from e.g. automotive.
In other news: On CNBC the price of Natural Gas in the USA dropped below $2.50 / unit and is poised to drop below the cost of coal just a few cents below that. (Coal being historically ‘dirt cheap’ as it is basically just dirt that burns…)
In an interview with T. Boone Pickens, he predicted a “One Handle” in the next year. Not a one dollar price, but prices starting with a $1.xx (so likely about $1.80 to $1.90 ).
At that price even coal and oil have trouble “competing”… (And wind, solar, etc. are just “crazy talk” ideas…)
Prices are likely to stay that way for several years as we turn the ‘permitted’ CNG / LNG import facilities we thought we would need (and built some of) into CNG / LNG export facilities…
In related news:
The Tar Sands oil that WAS going to come to the USA will likely (now that Obama has declined to approve the pipeline to our refineries in Texas) head to Vancouver and shipping to China. They field holds about the same ( a bit more…) oil as Saudi Arabia…
But hey, why would you want to crash the prices of gasoline and Diesel the way natural gas prices have crashed…. better to keep that nasty stuff out and have the Chinese take it away…
LamontT says:
January 16, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Zonc-air batteries? 😉
REPLY: typo – fixed -A
REPLY to REPLY: Freudian slip – covered up. -JV
E.M.Smith says:
January 19, 2012 at 3:22 am
In other news: On CNBC the price of Natural Gas in the USA dropped below $2.50 / unit and is poised to drop below the cost of coal just a few cents below that.
There is no universal delivered cost of coal or natural gas.
In the US the delivered price of steam coal varies from less then $1/MMBtu to more then $4/mmbtu. The wholesale price of delivered natural gas also varies quite a bit. No one that consumes natural gas ever pays the ‘well head’ price or the ‘Henry Hub’ price.
A ‘spot price’ for cheap natural gas is always interesting…but at $2.50/unit I would expect to see a fairly rapid contraction in drilling rigs. Drill bits cost real money and they don’t last forever.
Here it is, the rig count for gas is down 12% year on year.
http://www.wtrg.com/rotaryrigs.html
Don’t confound two different characteristics; storage capacity and delivery rate. Just because your storage density may be 10X doesn’t mean your delivery rate is also 10X. Energy dissipation is going to be a function of the internal impedance and current flow. While most of the nitty-gritty details are not presented, you could at least drop by their website and poke around before doing your Chicken Little imitation.
E.M.Smith says:
January 19, 2012 at 3:22 am
“But hey, why would you want to crash the prices of gasoline and Diesel the way natural gas prices have crashed…. better to keep that nasty stuff out and have the Chinese take it away…”
It’s much worse.
The EU and US are implementing an Iranian oil boycott that will further hike fuel prices at the pump.
Just as if the current prices are not high enough.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
Good technology update, Anthony. A promising option to address one of the most important challenges to this country’s future energy management and security.
Old technology! I have patent data from the 1960’s and 1980’s they have a great way to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps they have been waiting for key patents to expire. The green left have religiously ignored this technology for all of the greenhouse ‘crisis’ be cause the major company in the field is Israeli. Zink Air got no attention and no DOE grant money and does not show up in any of the IPCC analysis as energy technology of interest. The numbers for this company are not significantly better than the 1970 designs from Popular Science. The dendrite problem held back in vehicle charging for a while but that’s fixed with polymer electrolytes and was always fixable with variants on the battery swap approach. Recharging out of the vehicle involved either removing some of the plates and replacing them with spacers that prevented dendrite formation or spooling the metal from real to real like a tape player.
Everyone in government focused on Lithium and tried to pick winners. As a result Aluminium air and zink air were ignored. No attempts were made to develop aluminium based on demand hydrogen even though its a very safe fuel to ship. You can air drop alloy fuels without a para shoot. Israeli Zink air has been available for grid applications since the 1960’s. When you see them picking winners always ask what losers are they avoiding? Why? There is often no good technological reason for their choice. They don’t want a technological solution.