I’m a little suspicious that this is more efficient than the thermal battery tech people have been working on. Compressing air generates heat which is wasted energy unless it can be used in...
I’m a little suspicious that this is more efficient than the thermal battery tech people have been working on.
Compressing air generates heat which is wasted energy unless it can be used in another way. They are saying that they capture the heat to speed up the evaporation of the liquid air they are creating, but unless they are trying to release the same amount of energy they are storing at any moment, there will be a need to store the waste heat from the compression process.
If they need to store the waste heat from compression, they need a thermal battery. If they are using a thermal battery to store the waste heat from compression, why not just go 100% into thermal energy storage? It seems like they’re just adding complexity by having two energy storage systems when they could instead go all in on thermal energy storage.
Levelised Cost of Storage (LCOS) is the metric to beat. Per the article this is "as low as" $45/MWh, thermal batteries appear to be between $100-145 per MWh and no special equipment, tech, or...
Levelised Cost of Storage (LCOS) is the metric to beat. Per the article this is "as low as" $45/MWh, thermal batteries appear to be between $100-145 per MWh and no special equipment, tech, or materials needed for liquid air. We've been purifying, compressing, and liquefying gases for a couple of centuries now.
I will additionally note that liquefaction technology is quite efficient since it is well established, and that it is not difficult to do. Any excess nitrogen liquefied beyond capacity can also be...
I will additionally note that liquefaction technology is quite efficient since it is well established, and that it is not difficult to do. Any excess nitrogen liquefied beyond capacity can also be sold for scientific instrumentation cooling, freeze drying, or similar benefit, which would lower the cost as well.
Compressed air is theoretically cheaper because air can be stored in caverns that are naturally occurring, with some tech from the gas industry that's in widespread use to store their gas in said...
Compressed air is theoretically cheaper because air can be stored in caverns that are naturally occurring, with some tech from the gas industry that's in widespread use to store their gas in said caverns (gas demand is way higher in winter than in summer, so it's cheaper to just produce some excess in summer and store it in a cavern). The cost is basically just some chemicals sprayed in to line the cavern for extra compressive strength (so you can compress the air more), plus a turbine -one that notably is only running on regular air, rather than an extremely hot solvent (water).
The point is, heat batteries are expensive because you have to pay for both the dirt and the insulation you wrap around the dirt, whereas empty space can be almost literally free.
One caveat I'd add is that for molten metal batteries like Don Sadoway's batteries, they're heat batteries that don't have (machined) moving parts or require a turbine (turbines being relatively expensive in both machining costs and maintenance costs). But if you care about the energy capacity (Wh, not W) then the turbine doesn't matter much compared to just the size of the cavern. And some of those caverns are monstrously huge.
I'd also like to say that "energy storage" will never be a "one size fits all" solution for the simple reason that different energy storage methods have different time constants. Some have a short...
I'd also like to say that "energy storage" will never be a "one size fits all" solution for the simple reason that different energy storage methods have different time constants. Some have a short time constant for responding to rapid fluctuations (i. e. flywheels). Others have very long time constants for slow fluctuations (i. e. water electrolysis). No energy storage system that aims to produce perfect power should ever rely on a single method of storage alone.
I was a little surprised at their claim that this form of energy storage is so much cheaper than lithium-ion batteries.
An overlooked technology for nearly 50 years, the first liquid air energy storage facility is finally set to power up in 2026. It's hoping to compete with grid-scale lithium batteries and hydro to store clean power, and reduce the need to fall back on fossil fuels.
The process works in three stages. First, air is taken in from the surroundings and cleaned. Second, the air is repeatedly compressed until it is at very high pressure. Third, the air is cooled until it becomes liquid, using a multi-stream heat exchanger: a device that includes multiple channels and tubes carrying substances at different temperatures, allowing heat to be transferred between them in a controlled way.
I was a little surprised at their claim that this form of energy storage is so much cheaper than lithium-ion batteries.
You probably need much less rare earth minerals for that kind of storage. It would be nice if we had alternatives to batteries in case of WWIII. Some diversity is usually a good idea even if one...
You probably need much less rare earth minerals for that kind of storage. It would be nice if we had alternatives to batteries in case of WWIII. Some diversity is usually a good idea even if one solution is best in most regards.
I’m a little suspicious that this is more efficient than the thermal battery tech people have been working on.
Compressing air generates heat which is wasted energy unless it can be used in another way. They are saying that they capture the heat to speed up the evaporation of the liquid air they are creating, but unless they are trying to release the same amount of energy they are storing at any moment, there will be a need to store the waste heat from the compression process.
If they need to store the waste heat from compression, they need a thermal battery. If they are using a thermal battery to store the waste heat from compression, why not just go 100% into thermal energy storage? It seems like they’re just adding complexity by having two energy storage systems when they could instead go all in on thermal energy storage.
Levelised Cost of Storage (LCOS) is the metric to beat. Per the article this is "as low as" $45/MWh, thermal batteries appear to be between $100-145 per MWh and no special equipment, tech, or materials needed for liquid air. We've been purifying, compressing, and liquefying gases for a couple of centuries now.
I will additionally note that liquefaction technology is quite efficient since it is well established, and that it is not difficult to do. Any excess nitrogen liquefied beyond capacity can also be sold for scientific instrumentation cooling, freeze drying, or similar benefit, which would lower the cost as well.
Compressed air is theoretically cheaper because air can be stored in caverns that are naturally occurring, with some tech from the gas industry that's in widespread use to store their gas in said caverns (gas demand is way higher in winter than in summer, so it's cheaper to just produce some excess in summer and store it in a cavern). The cost is basically just some chemicals sprayed in to line the cavern for extra compressive strength (so you can compress the air more), plus a turbine -one that notably is only running on regular air, rather than an extremely hot solvent (water).
The point is, heat batteries are expensive because you have to pay for both the dirt and the insulation you wrap around the dirt, whereas empty space can be almost literally free.
One caveat I'd add is that for molten metal batteries like Don Sadoway's batteries, they're heat batteries that don't have (machined) moving parts or require a turbine (turbines being relatively expensive in both machining costs and maintenance costs). But if you care about the energy capacity (Wh, not W) then the turbine doesn't matter much compared to just the size of the cavern. And some of those caverns are monstrously huge.
I'd also like to say that "energy storage" will never be a "one size fits all" solution for the simple reason that different energy storage methods have different time constants. Some have a short time constant for responding to rapid fluctuations (i. e. flywheels). Others have very long time constants for slow fluctuations (i. e. water electrolysis). No energy storage system that aims to produce perfect power should ever rely on a single method of storage alone.
I was a little surprised at their claim that this form of energy storage is so much cheaper than lithium-ion batteries.
You probably need much less rare earth minerals for that kind of storage. It would be nice if we had alternatives to batteries in case of WWIII. Some diversity is usually a good idea even if one solution is best in most regards.