We’ve seen so many press releases for a new battery technology that seems almost to good to be true over the years. A lot of them were and never made it past the press release. Here’s to hoping this one isn’t one of those.
From the University of Southern California
USC scientists create new battery that’s cheap, clean, rechargeable… and organic
Scientists at USC have developed a water-based organic battery that is long lasting, built from cheap, eco-friendly components.
The new battery – which uses no metals or toxic materials – is intended for use in power plants, where it can make the energy grid more resilient and efficient by creating a large-scale means to store energy for use as needed.
“The batteries last for about 5,000 recharge cycles, giving them an estimated 15-year lifespan,” said Sri Narayan, professor of chemistry at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and corresponding author of a paper describing the new batteries that was published online by the Journal of the Electrochemical Society on June 20. “Lithium ion batteries degrade after around 1,000 cycles, and cost 10 times more to manufacture.”
Narayan collaborated with Surya Prakash, Prakash, professor of chemistry and director of the USC Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, as well as USC’s Bo Yang, Lena Hoober-Burkhardt, and Fang Wang.
“Such organic flow batteries will be game-changers for grid electrical energy storage in terms of simplicity, cost, reliability and sustainability,” said Prakash.
The batteries could pave the way for renewable energy sources to make up a greater share of the nation’s energy generation. Solar panels can only generate power when the sun’s shining, and wind turbines can only generate power when the wind blows. That inherent unreliability makes it difficult for power companies to rely on them to meet customer demand.
With batteries to store surplus energy and then dole it out as needed, that sporadic unreliability could cease to be such an issue.
“‘Mega-scale’ energy storage is a critical problem in the future of the renewable energy, requiring inexpensive and eco-friendly solutions,” Narayan said.
The new battery is based on a redox flow design – similar in design to a fuel cell, with two tanks of electroactive materials dissolved in water. The solutions are pumped into a cell containing a membrane between the two fluids with electrodes on either side, releasing energy.
The design has the advantage of decoupling power from energy. The tanks of electroactive materials can be made as large as needed – increasing total amount of energy the system can store – or the central cell can be tweaked to release that energy faster or slower, altering the amount of power (energy released over time) that the system can generate.
The team’s breakthrough centered around the electroactive materials. While previous battery designs have used metals or toxic chemicals, Narayan and Prakash wanted to find an organic compound that could be dissolved in water. Such a system would create a minimal impact on the environment, and would likely be cheap, they figured.
Through a combination of molecule design and trial-and-error, they found that certain naturally occurring quinones – oxidized organic compounds – fit the bill. Quinones are found in plants, fungi, bacteria, and some animals, and are involved in photosynthesis and cellular respiration.
“These are the types of molecules that nature uses for energy transfer,” Narayan said.
Currently, the quinones needed for the batteries are manufactured from naturally occurring hydrocarbons. In the future, the potential exists to derive them from carbon dioxide, Narayan said.
The team has filed several patents in regards to design of the battery, and next plans to build a larger scale version.
This research was funded by the ARPA-E Open-FOA program (DE-AR0000337), the University of Southern California, and the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute.
==============================================================
Here is the paper, which is open access.
An Inexpensive Aqueous Flow Battery for Large-Scale Electrical Energy Storage Based on Water-Soluble Organic Redox Couples
Abstract
We introduce a novel Organic Redox Flow Battery (ORBAT), for meeting the demanding requirements of cost, eco-friendliness, and durability for large-scale energy storage. ORBAT employs two different water-soluble organic redox couples on the positive and negative side of a flow battery. Redox couples such as quinones are particularly attractive for this application. No precious metal catalyst is needed because of the fast proton-coupled electron transfer processes. Furthermore, in acid media, the quinones exhibit good chemical stability. These properties render quinone-based redox couples very attractive for high-efficiency metal-free rechargeable batteries. We demonstrate the rechargeability of ORBAT with anthraquinone-2-sulfonic acid or anthraquinone-2,6-disulfonic acid on the negative side, and 1,2-dihydrobenzoquinone- 3,5-disulfonic acid on the positive side. The ORBAT cell uses a membrane-electrode assembly configuration similar to that used in polymer electrolyte fuel cells. Such a battery can be charged and discharged multiple times at high faradaic efficiency without any noticeable degradation of performance. We show that solubility and mass transport properties of the reactants and products are paramount to achieving high current densities and high efficiency. The ORBAT configuration presents a unique opportunity for developing an inexpensive and sustainable metal-free rechargeable battery for large-scale electrical energy storage.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse of the work in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Full text: http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/161/9/A1371.full.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery
Here is a decent starting point. Note that in terms of energy stored per kilogram, Lithium Ion beats lead acid hands down. But in terms of energy stored per dollar, lead acid is 2.5:1 or better than Lithium. Bulk storage for wind farms is NOT about energy/kilogram, it is about energy/dollar. So why didn’t they compare themselves to the lowest energy/dollar technology?
One can conclude that they are either too incompetent to understand which economics are important for this application, are that they are being deliberately misleading. I allow that there may be other options, I just can’t think of one.
Jake J wrote;
“The technology of batteries is phenomenally primitive, so you’d think there’d be low-hanging fruit out there. ”
Har de har har….. A fellow by the name of Ford (Henry to be exact) hired another fellow by the name of Edison (that light bulb fellow) back about one hundred years ago to “improve” the “phenomenally primitive” technology of batteries for an electric car. After a year or so Mr. Ford complained that Mr. Edison had not improved battery technology much, Mr. Edison replied; “Not true, I have found about one hundred things THAT DO NOT WORK” (paraphrased slightly). That would be your imagined “low hanging fruit”.
So, Jake, I suggest you use your wisdom to make the technology of batteries “phenomenally UNPRIMITIVE”. Have you ever even built a battery from scratch, you know specify/buy some materials (hint, there is basically one column in the table of elements that contains good materials for batteries, perhaps you could expand the table by discovering “Light Lithium”), process them, assemble them, charge them up, do some life testing ???? I suspect NOT.
The overarching problem with “organic” materials is the purity, which leads to degradation and lifetime issues. Folks have been trying to make “organic” LEDS (OLEDS) for about thirty years. They appear inexpensive to produce, but the impurities that come along with the inexpensive production technology ALWAYS limit the life time. Who really wants a smart phone with a display you can not see after 6 months (well, maybe Apple ™ they would have a ready excuse for you to upgrade) ???
So, Jake, please use your phenomenal wisdom to enlighten us all about how much better battery’s should be by making a phenomenally better one. You will be rewarded financially beyond your wildest dreams I assure you.
Disclaimer, I do not now and never have designed a battery, I have designed systems that use batteries, and I believe the battery designers when they tell me I cannot pack the power output of a modern electrical power plant into my pocket in a AA battery. But, those guys are so “primitive”, HECK ONLY THE WHOLE WORLD (well those of us fortunate enough to have a modern electrical system) HAVE BEEN RELYING ON THEIR ELECTRICITY FOR A CENTURY OR SO…..
davidmhofer: The article asserts that they have filed patents. Doesn’t make anything else you said wrong. Lead acid is cheap and environmentally benign compared to other battery systems.
speaking of batteries, this one was promo-ed on abc radio’s “what the papers say” as – if u don’t have subsidised panels+feed-in tariff solar (can’t afford it/living in a rental whatever) you will pay astronomical electricity bills while we solar people will be laughing at you. when i read the actual article, it didn’t seem ready for the big laugh time, yet:
22 June: Austn Financial Review: Batteries rev up solar tensions
by Ben Potter and Angela Macdonald-Smith
Out of the garage, the red and black Zero SR motorcycle purring contentedly below Melbourne’s Bolte Bridge is a beast that produces 60 horsepower and has won a “Holy s##t!” road-test rating from Gizmag.
At home, it doubles as a 14kWh storage battery that the bike’s owner can plug into a solar roof-top system to power the house and avoid peak grid charges.
It’s part of a new wave of battery technology that – if embraced by the 1.3 million Australian households with roof-top solar panels – threatens to tighten the screws on an electricity industry already battling falling demand.
New generation batteries like those in the Zero motorcycle or in stationary storage systems are a quantum leap forwards for households that make their own electricity…
Adam Dalby, owner of Solar Australia in Newcastle, has installed 16 lithium-ion storage systems costing $7500 to $14,000 for a fridge-sized 8kWh system, which can make a household self-sufficient 70-80 per cent of the time.
Bigger systems could just about take them “off the grid”. Dalby says houses in NSW can save 52¢ /kWh at peak times by storing solar power for later rather than having to sell it into the grid at the reduced 6¢ feed-in-tariff…
Electric industry’s death spiral
Experts warn that this could accelerate the electricity industry’s “death spiral”, pushing up costs for anyone reliant on the grid. As industry shutdowns and energy efficiencies cut electricity demand, network charges – more than half of retail prices – rise. The more people cut their use, the more prices rise…
James Deutsher, who imports Zeros from California and has sold 10 from his Collingwood warehouse, says 40 per cent of inquiries are from “green-oriented” people; the rest want “the next curve in motorcycle evolution”…
At $19,000-$25,000, the Zero SR isn’t cheap and none is yet connected to a solar system…
Soaring retail energy prices and the slashing of feed-in tariffs from 60¢ or more, to 6-8¢ encouraged Bosch Australia to bring in the high-end BPT-S 5 Hybrid, which provides 4.4-13.2 kWh. It sells for about $25,000-$30,000 retail…
MacGill (Iain MacGill, associate professor of electrical engineering at UNSW) cautions safety is an issue – stored energy can escape as fire…
“I am now inclined to say, ‘stuff the utilities, stuff the government’, put on more panels and go off the grid,” said Peter Campbell of Templestowe, a Collins Street IT consultant.
http://www.afr.com/p/national/batteries_rev_up_solar_tensions_XeJwOp1rNDyLMSt75pFncN
davidmhoffer reckons it’s a “press release to secure more funding“.
I have to agree, when they say : “In the future, the potential exists to derive them [quinones] from carbon dioxide“.
Currently, the quinones needed for the batteries are manufactured from naturally occurring hydrocarbons.
That would be oil/coal/gas.
When I see these attempts at deliberate deception, I assume the rest isn’t any better.
I designed several batteries for high current military applications in the 1990s.
I came up with a single use seawater activated battery for emergency power that produced sea salt as a byproduct. Worked well. Maybe someone would like it.
Later I studied the problem of recharge-ability and came to the conclusion that “precharged” fuel cells packs were better that recharging on the fly. I migrated to hydrogen fuel cells like Ballard System’s cell. Replace the packs when they are “empty”.
No battery can compete with energy density stored in hydrocarbons. Ie run gasoline through the cell, stripping the H2 to run through the cell. H2 is dangerous.
Eventually I realized that you can’t beat wood for sustainability, recycle ability, and total energy storage. Face it, trees convert CO2 and sunlight to stored chemical energy that can be released on demand. Wood is awesome. Then came the green movement and their cartload of crazy.
.. the rest is a long sad story…
The good news is that research on improving battery storage is increasing. I’ve heard about other organic storage mechanisms in the past, so this doesn’t surprise me.
This startup company is in the same university incubator that I have space in, they have a very good platform:
http://sinodesystems.com/technology/
If you read the conclusions in the paper, they use words like “This opens up the door for research…” and ” We have demonstrated the feasibility…”.
Having read so many promises of energy breakthroughs, I share the skepticism expressed by Anthony and others. It sounds like the research is not anywhere finished and more $$$ are needed. DUH
For those who believe that these batteries connected with electricity from an intermittent wind turbine will replace gasoline powered cars, the grid is already under stress with the shutdown of reliable high density electricity coal powered and nuclear plants just to meet current demand. Also as indicated , private companies have developed over a number of years an extensive refueling grid for the gas and diesel powered auto/truck to travel all over the country. Are you willing to invest a Huge amount of tax dollars to replace a system that is working quite well?
Finally having gone through 1 week or more power outage, 2 times in the last 3 years, I think I’ll stick to a gasoline engine for my main vehicle. Does anyone report the miles in an electric vehicle in a cold climate when the heater is blasting, the wipers and lights are on driving home from work in a snowstorm which might take 3 hrs to make a 30 minute trip?
Anthony: This has already been done! CellCube sold by American Vanadium Corp. and already in production. Proven technology, German engineering via Guildemeister. 20 year lifespan and unlimited charge cycles. Scaleable to whatever size you want. Just add another Cube.
Sounds a lot like plant roots, no?
So what’s the bet these people that call the quinones “eco-friendly” also call carbon dioxide a pollutant?
During December and January In the valleys of southeastern Washington state we can go weeks with no wind and heavy fog from temperature inversions. To tide us over, batteries accompanying our wind farms would match the size of large water tanks.
This Harvard report suggests Rhubarb as a source of quinones; it is also an earlier article. I wonder how many acres of Rhubarb will have to be harvested to keep Winnipeg cozy during, say the 1st week of January?
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-study-of-quinones-flow-battery-2014-1
So, Jake, I suggest you use your wisdom to make the technology of batteries “phenomenally UNPRIMITIVE”. Have you ever even built a battery from scratch, you know specify/buy some materials (hint, there is basically one column in the table of elements that contains good materials for batteries, perhaps you could expand the table by discovering “Light Lithium”), process them, assemble them, charge them up, do some life testing ???? I suspect NOT.
No need to “suspect” anything. I never claimed I could do it. I’m just carping from the sidelines, like any good American.
Disclaimer, I do not now and never have designed a battery, I have designed systems that use batteries, and I believe the battery designers when they tell me I cannot pack the power output of a modern electrical power plant into my pocket in a AA battery. But, those guys are so “primitive”, HECK ONLY THE WHOLE WORLD (well those of us fortunate enough to have a modern electrical system) HAVE BEEN RELYING ON THEIR ELECTRICITY FOR A CENTURY OR SO
You seem vehement. And condescending. Do you live in London?
In the valleys of southeastern Washington state we can go weeks with no wind and heavy fog from temperature inversions. To tide us over, batteries accompanying our wind farms would match the size of large water tanks.
Call me wrong — please — but last time I looked, they were weren’t sticking the windmills in valleys. But if I’m wrong and they are doing that, what’s wrong with “the size of large water tanks” once you’ve ruined the landscape?
Finally having gone through 1 week or more power outage, 2 times in the last 3 years, I think I’ll stick to a gasoline engine for my main vehicle. Does anyone report the miles in an electric vehicle in a cold climate when the heater is blasting, the wipers and lights are on driving home from work in a snowstorm which might take 3 hrs to make a 30 minute trip?
At this point, I wouldn’t rely solely on an EV for more reasons than one. Mine wouldn’t go for 3:30 even at the height of summer. In any case, the answer to your question is — between 1.5 and 2 miles per kWh.
I like my EV, but I would never, ever portray it as anything more than an in-town runabout. That much said, as an in-town runabout in Seattle, it really does do the trick. Trust me, this is not to try and order anyone to get one. The long story is longer, and waaaaaaay too boring, so I’ll end here. Bottom line: I ain’t smug about it at all.
Rule Number 1
If it sounds too good to be true, then it is almost always too good to be true.
Jake J.
Easter Washington has hills and valleys. The inversions cover all the hills and valleys. So, no solar, no wind, nothing. On top of that, Eastern Washington gets quite cold.
But all of that is irrelevant. Washington state gets 95%+ of all its energy from Hydro. Those windmills are an absolute waste and environmental eyesore.
Catcracking says: June 25, 2014 at 10:09 pm
… It sounds like the research is not anywhere finished and more $$$ are needed. DUH
Well, yeah.
If we’d spent a tenth of the past decades’ windmill and solar panel subsidies on storage research, green power might not be the white elephant it is today.
Even if storage can’t span the entire windless or overcast periods that shut down ‘eco-friendly’ power, it can cover the instantaneous drops that really tax the backup equipment. Coal and nuke take a while to crank up and shut down, which leaves gas turbines and diesel. Those two can jump in quickly, but even they are designed for continuous running. Starting and stopping are big wear producers, shortening the equipments’ useful life. A battery (or alternative) can fill in and let the machinery warm up to operating temperature in the safest manner.
Energy density may be a consideration for motorbikes and ev’s, but it isn’t for a power plant or wind farm. A couple big storage tanks at the bottom of a wind turbine tower would hardly be noticeable, especially if you painted a couple trees or a WWF logo on them.
Wind turbines are absolutely as advanced as they are ever going to get, and solar panels will get better on their own as they steal ideas from the research labs. Storage is the tough problem, the place where new ideas and out of the box thinking will get us the most bang for our taxpayer bucks.
There doesn’t seem to be anything on turnaround efficiency (what you get out for what you put in).
As a pretty safe rule, the turnaround efficiency of large scale power storage is less than 75%. That is because 25% of energy input is lost in things like mechanical losses, pumps, heating in chemical processes and the like.
This is for a cycle which delivers around 88% efficiency “each way” in its cycle.
Some technologies claim higher turnaround efficiency, but they operate with some ongoing fixed energy consumption (eg maintaining high temperature) and this brings the claims back into line.
If we lose 25% of the energy in turnaround, this means 25% increase in the primary generation capacity which needs to go through storage. More wind turbines just to cover energy loss. Not good.
As a rule (and worldwide experience confirms) it is cheaper to hold generating capacity in reserve than to store power in devices which lose 25% of the power put into them.
And another poster makes a good point- storage is no good for seasonal variation which would involve holding stored power for weeks or months. We need the reserve primary power generating capacity for seasonal variation in any case, and storage capacity is largely redundant for most of the year. The only argument is avoided marginal cost of production once the capacity is built. But the full cost of extra wind turbines and solar panels is not cheap and this can be avoided now if we never build them.
Unless this technology delivers a remarkable improvement I turnaround efficiency, I wouldn’t get too excited about it.
Good. However, there is no need to refer to climate change, renewable power sources and such. A large market segment exists for cheap &. reliable storage in data centers called UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply). If the technology is so good as they claim, they can get rich fast with no taxpayers’ money involved whatsoever. That’s how it is supposed to work.
Once they shall have built up a large enough manufacturing capacity, presumably in China, where else? they can start looking for other applications. Or, if all else fails, our Chinese comrades can.
Even if the technology turns out to be inferior, all they have to do is to convince banks to lend them a large sum, grab the money and run as it is proper in a post normal economy.
I’m not buying it. Never met a rechargeable battery that didn’t wear out in a few years (or less) using them every other day for 2 hours – 2 hours and 30 min. on a full charge. Wouldn’t trust an electric vehicle any farther than I could walk (with any purchases I’d make). The question for large scale storage is, “would you have surgery with this kind of power running the facility you were going to have it in?” Not me.
The technology has existed for over 100 years. It’s called the Nickel-Iron battery. It uses Nickel cathode and Iron anode with potassium hydroxide as the electrolyte. They have almost infinite cycles and will last up to 100 years. They use the cheapest and most abundant elements on earth, and they don’t pollute one bit. Their only downside is the power density, which is much lower than a lead-acid battery – but everything else about this is positive.
@John Eggert:
>but it appears that this produces electricity at a voltage of less than one volt.
>Better have very short wires to the inverter or a number of these in series to produce a decent voltage
There may be other technical problems with these batteries, but of all of them, the voltage is pretty irrelevant. ‘Batteries’ (like anti-aircraft batteries) are so called because they are stacked cells connected in series to provide a useful total (i.e. 12.6V from the six 2.1V cells in a lead-acid car battery.)