http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2012/02/13/daily35-MIT-advances-liquid-metal-battery-technology.html

And watch the TED talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

Now, it would be foolish to hold that this technology will absolutely work as predicted. But it’s only one approach. The Aquion info I posted is another.

I see no problems of rising cost with large scale production due to material shortage. Neither of these technologies use hardtoobtainium.

I don’t see areal problems. These batteries can be stacked high in lower value sites. They could go into the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, … basements of new construction. We could fill up brownfields with them. Old, no longer used factory buildings could be re-purposed.

Think of how much real estate we now use for mining, slag heaps, coal plants, etc. Batteries can be widely distributed close to where the power is needed and can use marginal sites in those areas.

Power quality concerns – batteries have almost instant response to grid needs. Adding large amounts of batteries to the grid will greatly simplify the job of managing the grid.

I do expect we define “eventually” differently. I think we’re seeing the first few balls of snow that proceed the avalanche roll down the mountain.

Look back at past technology shifts. Once a critical “good enough” threshold is passed the old generally gives away to the new very rapidly.

Aquion Energy – sodium ion (“salt water”) batteries.

Inexpensive materials. Activated carbon anode and a sodium- and manganese-based cathode.

Operate at room temperature. No self discharge or problems in high heat conditions.

Can be 100% discharged without damage.

High tolerance to battery mismatch.

100% recyclable.

Third party testing >5,000 cycles rapid charges with no degrading. Company expects 20,000 cycles when fully developed.

Third-party tests have shown that Aquion’s battery can last for over 5,000 charge-discharge cycles and has an efficiency of over 85 percent.

Tested for two calendar years so far with no loss of performance.

Expected price around $300/kW.

@5,000 cycles = $0.06/kWh, @10,000 cycles = $0.03/kWh, @20,000 cycles = $0.015/kWh.

(Back of envelope calculations using 10k cycles)

$0.05/kWh Wind + $0.03/kWh Storage + Overhead + 15% Loss (85% Efficient) =~ $0.10/kWh Stored Wind.

Solar is expected to fall to close to $0.06/kWh.

That makes a combination of wind, solar and stored wind/solar cheaper than new nuclear, new coal or peaker gas. (Or old coal if you add in externalities.)

Lighter weight than lead acid batteries – cheaper shipping.

Going into production. Currently setting up factory in Pennsylvania. Should be shipping evaluation units to utilities later this year. Expect to be manufacturing in 2013.

http://www.aquionenergy.com/applications/

If Aquion produces what they claim they can produce then many of the fossil cyclings that you
point out will cease. There will be no need to build additional fossil fuel backup for new renewable generation.

And the liquid metal batteries coming out of MIT look to be even more promising that Aquion’s sodium-ion batteries.

But that’s not a condemnation of renewable energy. It’s just a marker along the road away from fossil fuels.

We are seeing a move away from older thinking “base load” concepts and toward “electricity when it’s needed” models. Neither wind nor solar can ever be 100% reliable baseline, there are times at which neither the wind blows nor the sun shines. But both are well on their way to being the cheapest ways to fill the grid, both in terms of cost and lack of environmental/health damage.

Massive amounts of work are being done on storage. New battery technologies are looking very promising. New pump-up is being developed.

New ways to do demand-shift are being discovered.

With each new way to store supply or time-shift demand we will have to cycle dispatchable fossil sources less often. Those carbon-nasty startups and shutdowns will fade away.

And exactly where did anyone accuse you of being against renewables? Is not accepting your opinion as the absolute truth a personal attack on you?

– Much of the press coverage of this study is incorrectly reporting that the study finds that wind energy does not reduce pollution, or that the pollution savings are always smaller than expected. The study is explicitly clear that neither of those interpretations is correct.

– “The study finds that at the wind energy levels of today and the foreseeable future, wind energy’s emissions savings are even larger than expected (12% carbon dioxide emissions savings with 10% of the electricity on the grid coming from wind, 21% carbon dioxide emissions savings at 20% wind).”

– The study acknowledges that its findings are a theoretical exercise based on the assumption that power plants in Illinois are operated in isolation from those in other states, and as a result the study’s conclusions have little to no bearing on how the actual utility system works, particularly at high levels of wind generation.

– The study also acknowledges that it uses very outdated and unreliable estimates for making assumptions about the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants at different output levels.

– Other analyses using more accurate assumptions and more reliable sources have found that wind’s emissions savings are as large or larger than expected.

– Real-world data confirms that states that have added significant amounts of wind energy, such as Illinois, have seen fossil fuel use and emissions decline by as much or more than expected.

– Finally, analysis of readily available DOE data puts to rest the idea that wind energy has a significant negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants.

Wind energy is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to generate electricity. Wind energy emits no pollution, creates no hazardous waste, and uses virtually no water. All of these advantages are beneficial to wildlife, and they are not shared by any non-renewable energy source.

For a more detailed analysis of the Argonne study, please see here: http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=16631

Tom@AWEA

I am very much a renewable energy advocate – a portion of my role involves them. But I’m always left scratching my head by those who are more ardent (greenies?) who react to any criticism by accusing a person of being against renewable energy, and perhaps other environmental aims.

Storage solutions have not become cost effective, although a lot of progress has been made. For now it all comes down to how much additional cost ratepayers will live with as to how much renewable energy is fed to the network.

And the result is? Wind and solar produce power a significant amount of time and during those periods fossil fuels are not burned.

The other choices? Burn fossil fuels 100% of the time. Or install more storage and identify more dispatchable load.

That is the whole point here. The intermittent and somewhat unpredictable nature of wind and solar requires that they not be treated as pure base load generators, with sufficient dispatchable backup from non-renewable sources. They do not simply replace existing capacity. That changes the impact of the two sources on both emissions and costs.

Other renewable sources such as hydropower and geothermal systems do not have exactly the same characteristic, but typically have non-favorable economics by comparison. As noted in this brief article, energy storage is a key remedy to the emissions problem but doesn’t yet solve the problems with costs.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/07/big-wind-renewable-energy-boost-as-illinois-gov-quinn-announces-rock-island-clean-line-project-labor-agreement/

In certain U.S. regions there are other characteristics that help reduce some of these problems. For example, California can mandate and increase its renewable portfolio because the Western Interconnection (WECC) allows for sufficient sharing across the transmission network that the immense amount of hydropower can be somewhat dispatched when needed – meaning when renewable sources are running significantly below capacity.