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. We've been purifying, compressing, and liquefying gases for a couple of centuries now.
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. We've been purifying, compressing, and liquefying gases for a couple of centuries now.
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.