
Kevin Kilty
Over the past few days I have been catching up on some reading in the scientific literature that shows up routinely in my mailbox or inbox. A surprising amount lately has been about energy storage. It appears that the storage problem is becoming almost universally recognized, but as is usual, not universally understood. When I read a paper filled with enthusiasm about some new breakthrough, the description is always limited to a very narrow technical discussion about how this particular idea works. It does not go into the details about how such a device would fit into a workable system. It is to little avail if a new technology comes with new burdens placed on the system in which it must work – this is one flaw of so-called renewables within the grid. They may add energy to a delivery network, but they can’t be dispatched arbitrarily, and contribute little to voltage/frequency support. They placed the burden of ancillary services on other parts of the system.
Two Achilles heels
Whenever I read about some new or improved scheme to store energy I ponder two things about it. These are two ubiquitous Achilles heels: 1) What limitations does the second law of thermodynamics place on it, and 2) what are the other constraints that would limit its usefulness in a system? I focus on the second law because the first law just refers to conservation of energy itself, and this is not where most limitations on the use of energy, or in fact limitations on any human activity, come from.[1]
Some definitions
Losses on energy to work conversion imposed by the second law are called irreversibilities, or an even fancier term is “destruction of exergy”. What this means is that some energy converted in a system doesn’t contribute to useful work. Useful work is always and everywhere the goal. So, things that contribute to this problem include: 1) that heat can’t be converted 100% into work; 2) chemical reactions cannot be made to go to completion and lead to some amount disordered materials; 3) that high temperatures contribute to heat flow into the dead state[2], or as Willis Eschenbach terms them, to parasitic losses; 4) high pressures contribute to loss of the mechanical energy used to produce high pressure in the first place. This work also heads to the dead state; 5) long chains of conversion with little losses at each step; 6) fast rates of conversion. Be aware of these problems.
Systems issues include: 1) inadequate amounts of critical materials; 2) inadequate available terrain; 3) resources in the wrong places that require long distance transport; 4) demands for impossible slew rates (problems with time constants); 5) weight and volume constraints; 6) impossible demands of time span and huge demands for mass per unit of stored energy; and, 7) complexity.[3] Table 1 shows general examples.
Table 1.
| General physical category of energy storage | Examples | Systems or second law constraints. |
| Kinetic energy (KE) | Rotating KE of the turbo-machinery in a thermal power plant | As mechanical energy it is 100% available, but is subject to varying amounts of friction. Severe systems constraints particularly duration. |
| Mechanical Potential energy (PE) | Pumped Hydro. Raising massive blocks. | As mechanical energy it is 100% available, but has frictional losses. Many systems constraints, mainly with regard to mass/terrain. |
| Thermal Energy | Molten salt reservoirs, hot rocks, glowing hot metals, etc. | Availability constraints following directly from the second law. Excessive materials demands. Parasitic losses. |
| Chemical Energy[4] | Batteries. Hydrogen or hydrogen carriers like ammonia. | Many second law constraints from chemical equilibrium and the production of disordered products. Many systems constraints, such as exotic material. |
Recent Examples
Let’s examine a couple of examples from my recent readings. How to power aircraft is a genuine problem to solve for advocates of renewable energy mainly because they like to fly places free of guilt. The December 2020 issue of Physics Today included an article on using hydrogen to power aircraft.[4] The systems problems with hydrogen as a fuel begin with means to produce the hydrogen in the first place, storing it, transporting it, and so on. Yet, just assuming an available hydrogen supply, aircraft are also weight and volume constrained. One reader of this Physics today article[5] wrote in to explain that through a constraint on available volume aircraft using hydrogen are limited to short hauls. So short in fact, that we would return to the air transport system of the 1930s.
The September 2021 issue of Physics Today included an article that began thusly,
“ Experts say lithium-ion batteries will be overtaken for grid-scale energy storage applications by other battery technologies and nonchemical storage.”
Experts say otherwise. One odd assertion in this article is that hydrogen is a non-chemical form of storage. As there are no sources of hydrogen, chemistry is central to its production and use.[6] More revealing still is the artist’s rendering of a solar farm coupled to a gravity storage system like that proposed by Energy Vault(™). The storage facility is a tiny building four stories high that looks more appropriate to administrative offices. It wouldn’t store but a few moments worth of energy. There seems to be little recognition of the materials handling problems to make raised mass storage feasible as I outlined here some time ago. There are constraints on slew rate of schemes that raise massive blocks into a pile of stored energy, or pull rail cars upslope. Pumped hydro is a better method of storing potential energy, but in this case the systems limitation is the lack of available terrain and issues over water use.[7]
Recently the “Science Magazine Table of Contents” came into my email inbox which allowed me access to a brief summary about thermal energy storage.[8] Thermal systems of energy storage suffer ubiquitously from second law limitations about converting heat into work. They all involve taking valuable work and turning it into heat, which then is turned back into useful work at the typical 35-40% efficiency of a thermal power plant. There are long chains of conversion involved.
This article was broadcasting a recent improvement in thermophotovoltaic (TPV) devices which could absorb the broad thermal spectrum of radiation from a hot mass of material at nearly 2,700K, heated so by renewable energy, and turn this back into electrical energy. Yet, the efficiency indicated here is only about 40%, which is the same efficiency that a conventional thermal plant operating at far lower temperature can provide. As high temperatures lead to increasingly larger parasitic losses, high temperature storage of energy as heat has a problem with not only the second law, but also with any system requiring long duration storage. Unavoidable parasitic loss accumulates into a huge total energy loss which has to be made up with generating facilities. Secondary storage batteries have this same problem.
One of the most serious systems problems for renewable energy to solve is the various time-scales of response required to make a reliable grid. There is first the very short time scale of fractions of a second needed for automatic control systems to keep frequency and voltage within prescribed limits. Next there is a daily time scale of response needed to handle the daily variations in load. Following this is an unknown amount of storage to handle outages resulting from weather that may last for 10 days or more. Finally, there is the issue of seasonal shifting of energy supply which requires either a large overbuilding of generation or massive long-term storage, or some hybrid in between.
The present grid handles the very short time scale problem by relying on the rotational KE of its turbomachinery which stores several seconds worth of demand in spinning mass.[9] All other time-scales are covered by using stored fossil fuels on site right up to 95% capacity factor of the plant. It is not overly complex and we have nearly a century of systems engineering experience making this system 99.9% or more reliable.
Wind plants have very little rotational energy to aid in the very short time scale stability issue and solar has none. One remedy is to add “synchronous condensers” into a renewables grid to act as an analog to the rotating turbomachinery of thermal plants. These solutions are parasitic which only consume energy in exchange for short term stability. Solutions to the longer term system problems rely on cascading elements of diverse energy storage and conversion schemes that require lots of mass, lots of ground space, exotic materials, transmission utilities, embodied energy, excess generating capacity, and so forth. Not only are such elements unproven themselves, but we have zero systems engineering experience with them. Could they be made to work? Who knows? Have a look at their heels.
References:
- I have taught engineering thermodynamics for twenty years. I find the first law of thermodynamics is relatively easy to understand even if people have some difficulty applying it. However, the second law is far more difficult for people, even chemists, physicists and engineers, to fully fathom. I am still learning about applying parts of it after five decades of use. It is entirely in control of all processes of energy use. It runs the universe. Since energy costs money to convert and deliver, the second law even controls the expense of activities that people wouldn’t think of as related to thermodynamics. I think it even covers the zeroth and third laws of thermodynamics. Thus, while the best textbook on Thermodynamics, Zemansky’s Heat and Thermodynamics calls friction a third-law issue, I think it more correctly belongs to the second law.
- Dead state is an engineering concept. It is a physical state where despite being full of apparent energy, has none that can be used to do work. We usually consider the dead state to be a temperature of 288K, a pressure of one atmosphere, an electrical potential of Earth ground, chemical species in equilibrium at minimum Gibbs free energy, and a relative humidity of 100% saturation.
- Owning two VW Beetles, I am familiar with the characteristics of German engineers, which is to make complicated designs work. The rest of us aim for simplicity.
- David Kramer, Hydrogen-powered aircraft may be getting a lift, Physics Today, 73, 12, 27 (2020); doi: 10.1063/PT.3.4632
- Peter Rez, Hydrogen as an aviation fuel, Physics Today, Readers Forum, September 2021, p. 11. While Mr. Rez contemplates hydrogen used in fuel cells to run a turbofan or turboprop sort of aircraft, hydrogen could be used as a combustion fuel. Yet this would involve the second-law constraints of turning heat into work, along with all the other mass, volume, and complexity constraints of hydrogen. In particular hydrogen possesses a lot of energy per unit mass, but a unit mass takes a lot of volume. It makes little sense to go this route.
- David Kramer, Better ways to store energy are needed to attain Biden’s carbon-free grid, Physics Today, September 2021, p. 20. Biden’s?
- Not only are the best places for pumped hydro already being put to use, but legal battles over water ownership and usage limit it even more.
- Robert F. Service, Thermal Batteries could efficiently store wind and solar energy in a renewable grid, Science, Vol 376, Issue 6590, online version 13 April 2022. doi: 10.1126/science.abq5215
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kevin,
Would it enhance your post to include definitions for energy and work?
I was deeply skeptical at first with what I learned in Thermodynamics long ago; that energy is “the capacity to do work”.
I like your invocation of Newton’s first law of motion below, because work is a force acting over a distance.
If folks can get that, they may eventually understand power vs energy; and we could stop correcting units (KW vs KWHr)😉
The problem here is defining “energy”. As we have encountered greater and greater complexity in the natural world, our definition of energy — i.e. what we call “energy” in a situation — has had to change to keep up. It all started with mechanical work and mechanical PE directly as an integral of Newton’s second law. Then with the discovery of radioactivity people first thought that conservation of energy might be a dead letter, but then by the time we get to nuclear bombs and reactors it is all made clear through E=mc^2…
Well, yeah.
Hence the somehow unsatisfying definition I quoted.
Do you have a better one?
Untrue … all that is needed is to define the system so that heat is work. To use a simple example. I take a container with a few gas molecules and place it in a vacuum. I then instantaneously remove the container so that there is no time for them to interact, and convert the heat into outward motion of the gas.
All the heat is converted to work. The reason this works, is because I am defining the work as being the same movement as the heat, but expressed in a different place (outside the container that is instantly removed).
That shows the key thing about thermodynamics, work and heat are the same, the difference depends on how you define your system.
What you are doing is simply looking at the first law rendering of the issue. Sometimes “heat” is exactly what we want, say for cooking on a range top, and then a resistance heater will turn 100% of the electrical work into heat (of course second law issues of heat transfer now mean that 100% of this heat isn’t useful to the cooking). But the power cycle of a thermal plant is meant to turn heat of burning coal into work (electrical work), and this cannot be done at 100% efficiency. There are advanced ultra super critical coal plants that do a decent job though, with efficiency approaching 50%.
The best energy storage system in use today is a uranium dioxide nuclear fuel pellet.
Nano-nuke in my car…. instead of a plume of fire out the exhaust on the drag strip, there is a giant cloud of glowing steam LOL. Nuke to steam to electricity to grid wire, to my car’s hot little Lithium battery… sounds very expensive. Why not NG 3 tier generation system…. a lot cheaper. Better yet CNG tank in my car.
Yup, they harness the energy of supernova explosions, and have held the charge for billions of years.
Although drastically simplified, I’ve always liked this summary of the three laws:
(I’ll grant the third may not be fully accurate, but the first two definitely sum up the basics)
The Quantum Holy Grouse is hiding in the forest of possibilities.
I thought it was the Holy Quail and Indiana Jones found it.
I could be mistaken.
Using large spinning weights to even out wind derived power would work keeping the output steady over a period of minutes. As mentioned above, it is parasitic – you will always use more power than you can retrieve, but at least some variability of the power is removed.
Battery storage for a wind farm is even better – it too can be used to even out power and to even replace it for a matter of minutes to maybe a few hours.
If you have 1) lots of water and 2) elevation nearby you can use elevated water as your battery. This is a giant step forward as your battery can be picking up “free” energy all the while (in the form of feeder streams). Trouble is, it can’t be used in most places.
One could in theory use elevated water next to the ocean, using saltwater marshes as your storage. No telling the ecological damage that would take place, but it could be done… The efficiency would be extremely low due to the low elevation of the water.
The problems with all of these schemes are high-cost, low efficiency, and impact to terrain.
One can solve all of this by using a gas or nuclear-powered gas turbine. Power can be delivered reliably and steady, they both have some amount of rotational energy storage in them allowing for a controlled rollover of power to another facility, they are highly efficient, and impact by far less terrain. One could even construct a wind turbine on top of each reactor to keep the greenies happy (they would not actually be hooked up, just there to turn freely).
The engineering problems are not that hard to solve given some rationale choices. It is the stupidity of green activists that seems intractable.
Oh, and I am now claiming my F-150 pickup truck is electric, I had to charge the battery after all. (It sat too long without use) I added a plug to make attaching the trickle charger easy – so it is now a plug-in electric vehicle. I want my rebate!
Kevin, You called losses on energy to work conversion imposed by the second law irreversibilities. If I understand the second law and efficiency, even a reversible heat engine loses some heat to the enviroment that cannot even theoretically be converted to work. Thus the efficiency based on a Carnot cycle is (Thot-Tcold)/Thot where these are the temperatures of the reservoirs that the heat is flowing from and to. Irreversible heat engines just perform at a fraction of the possible limit of a reversible engine. It would be more appropriate to call losses on heat to work conversion Second Law losses so people don’t think that a more efficient engine can exceed the theoretical limit of (Thot-Tcold)/Thot.
A completely reversible heat engine would achieve 100% efficiency only when compared to a Carnot engine, the (Thot-Tcold)/Thot you mention. This is possibly very far below the 100% efficiency of turning energy completely into work. There are forms of energy that are 100% available to be turned into work — mechanical energy for instance. Irreversibilities work against achieving the theoretically possible efficiency. So, a mechanical source of energy suffers friction and is less than 100% efficient; a heat engine turns out to have some irreversibilities like heat loss, or turbulence and viscosity in its working fluids and can’t achive the Carnot limit.
Part of the difficulty with thermodynamics is its jargon. Irrevesibilities is just a general term for things like friction, turbulence, viscosity, heat loss, diffusion, pressure leak, incomplete or competing chemical reactions, mixing, …
Thank you. An excellent, succinct summary of the issues.
There is no shortage of technically competent scientists and engineers to explain all this to politicians, media, envirotards, and the rest.
They simply cannot have what they want. Not without destroying the civilisation so painfully built over the centuries. Yet here we are, several decades into the global warming-based “renewables” swindle, galloping down $hit Avenue without saddle. I am filled with trepidation about what the world will look like when these schemes unwind.
Good article. The lefties are pushing this green energy believing that SOMEONE will figure out all this technical difficulties. As the article points out all the fixes are complex, not really workable, expensive, and often require lots of land to implement. A lot of lefties who are intelligent enough to know what the problems are do not seem willing to straighten out their greenie friends.
Thank you for this fine explanation.
I have posted on several threads on this site some version of the following:
Please show me a Solar PV, Wind, and Battery installation which both delivers electricity solely on the output of the system, but is able to produce more PV, wind, and battery systems with the output of the system.
Unless and until there are many such systems in operation, this is just the perpetual motion machine shown in your first diagram, with many bells and whistles and subsidies to hide that fact.