Live data from Hacker News

Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

lowtechmagazine.com

181–190 of 238 posts

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's a bit easier to manage/less likely to cascade. What gives you that impression? Seems to me that it explodes if you contain it, and if you don't contain it, it can spout jets of thermal energy at virtually any angle. With flywheels you need to arrest it in bulk heavy objects that don't tend to sustain fire. That seems a lot simpler to me. The bigger problems with flywheels are cost of manufacture and (dependi…

What gives you that impression? Insulation is cheap, effective, and very compact. And it's easy to transfer heat quickly, also (either via injecting lots of cold extinguisher or flush lots of hot oxidizing gas)? Cool, thanks for the update on flywheels. I ... am not trying to create a false dilemna, here. Fuel cells for stranded methane deposits are great. Flywheels have outstanding responsiveness and energy density.…

Batteries don't like insulation, in fact preferring active cooling.

Which is itself a good thermal-runaway damper, to speak to the second sentence of your second paragraph.

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#182

I was quite excited by compressed air storage when Lightsail came into the picture almost 5-7 years ago. Sadly, they could not make the economics work and ended up pivoting into a company that sells carbon fibre tanks for high-pressure storage. As someone who follows the energy space closely, Lithium ion batteries now have so much momentum and $$$ pumped into them via R&D work, it's going to be hard for competing ene…

Just yesterday I was talking to my friend regarding this. The key idea is, humans are really good at driving the price down to bare material cost via agressive production line automation. For e.g. without all the automation including subpart a single phone with all the technology would easily cost upwards of billion. So comparing ANY technology regarding their future prospects, we can easily deduct that which ever ca…

> are really good at driving the price down to bare material cost via aggressive production line automation

I've noticed this with steel products and plastics.

Brings up one advantage batteries have, they are small. That you need to make a trillion of them works directly towards the cost being a small percentage over material and energy inputs.

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#183
post #80

I was quite excited by compressed air storage when Lightsail came into the picture almost 5-7 years ago. Sadly, they could not make the economics work and ended up pivoting into a company that sells carbon fibre tanks for high-pressure storage. As someone who follows the energy space closely, Lithium ion batteries now have so much momentum and $$$ pumped into them via R&D work, it's going to be hard for competing ene…

I suspect large-scale fixed installations are more likely to end up using some kind of flow battery: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/its-big-and-... The big advantage there is independent scaling: peak discharge is tied to the total membrane area / pumping capability while capacity is tied to the amount of reactants that can be stored.

I'm pretty excited about the potential benefits of flow batteries. Hopefully they can get the tech to work economically for grid storage.

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#184

I'm surprised no one is talking about how scary it is that you are basically making a high powered bomb at your house any time you have one of these. Anyone that has watched Mystbusters understands the incredible destructive power stored in compressed air. I'll stick with batteries, thanks.

Physics is physics matter how you cut it. A compressed air tank is arguably less of a bomb than the battery under your feet in a Tesla and the cleanup is much better. Compressed air tank failures do not result in instant fire. Most failures take the form of leaks. Catastrophic failures of properly designed pressure vessels operating at their intended pressure are basically nonexistent because a damaged pressure vesse…

Lithium batteries in a Tesla (and just about everything else consumer-grade) are designed to burn rather than explode - they can produce an impressive jet of flame, but this is contained and safely vented from the battery vessel. Just like gasoline-powered cars, they catch fire, but don't (usually) go boom. They are also capable of failing in a controlled manner - lithium-polymer cells are contained in sealed pouches which expand during failure as the gas pressure rises. So long as the pouch is not breached, the battery is a very low fire risk, and is akin to a leak in an air-powered system - a low-energy release that does not harm people around it.

Compressed air, however, does explode out of any weakness in its fittings, often with no warning. Catastrophic failure of a weak joint, coupled with a pressure difference of several atmospheres, can turn any ejected fittings into artillery shells. There's plenty of videos of air compressor explosions on YouTube. Yes, this is considerably rarer than a lithium battery fire, but don't forget that lithium batteries are relatively new to the scene. Compressed air has been in use for hundreds of years and the dangers, despite being understood, are still present. A lot of them stem from human overconfidence, and the attitude of 'eh, one more bar can't hurt, can it?' Even a small workshop compressor operating at less than 10 bars can cause life-changing injuries to anyone present should it fail. I'd argue cleanup from these types of failures are much, much messier than lithium fires.

The comparison to lithium batteries is pretty accurate because unlike gasoline, a spark is not necessary to start the fire. However, a lithium battery fire can generally be spotted by temperature rises before it becomes dangerous. Failure of a pressure vessel is much harder to predict. Just a tiny manufacturing defect in a square-centimetre of a pressure vessel can create a weak spot that'll be the first place to fail as it comes under operating pressure, or cycled repeatedly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in off-the-grid living and had not considered compressed air as a power source until reading this, but I do feel the article skips over the safety aspect of compressed air. There's a reason many of the fittings are only sold to industries - used improperly by amateurs, the pressures they're discussing could be fatal if something goes wrong. My advice to anyone reading this article is to fully understand the dangers of compressed air before building something like this.

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also flywheels don't give off noxious fumes during failure.

For now. If you want to use one for long term energy storage, though, you're going to need to invent some kind of room temperature superconductor and frictionless surfaces. Who knows whether those would be noxious or not.

Why? Magnetic bearings and copper work just fine...

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#186
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very useful insight. My "aha" moment came during a lecture given by DARPA at PARC about 5 years ago, outlining how wasteful current battery technology is in terms of density entirely because of safety requirements. They had at the time over a dozen different research projects on ways to improve density by changing how safety is achieved. It is only a matter of time until some of them get to market, and in fa…

There’s a kind of Moore’s law in batteries, but the multiplier looks more like inflation than 2x. Any tech that falls outside of the growth curve seems to run into issues with production or cost that delay it until it fits under the curve. Something cheaper and easier gets picked first. The first modern EVs had lead acid batteries. More sophisticated than your starter battery, sure, but lead acid all the same. Which…

Yeah electric motor efficiency is awesome. Back in 2005 I had a film-canister sized motor capable of 300W at 90% efficiency, and magnets and motor design have just improved since then.

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#188
post #157

When compressed air energy storage comes up, it is always worth remembering PV = nRT, the ideal gas law. And then remembering that things are not ideal.

Mechanical engineer here. The ideal gas approximation is plenty reasonable for the pressures and temperatures of interest here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressibility_factor

Re: Ditch the Batteries: Off-Grid Compressed Air Energy Storage

#189
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a fairly energetic explosion So is a lithium battery explosion. So is a gasoline explosion. So is a flour mill explosion. So is a wind turbine explosion. Energy is energy, and losing control of energy is never great, no matter where it comes from. So while I catch your meaning, it might be better to phrase it with respect to how controllable that energy is. From what I know of flywheel storage, the problem mos…

>So is a flour mill explosion Having witnesses a corn silo explosion, I was unprepared for the ferocity of that ignition. >So is a wind turbine explosion Off to YouTube...

The Hornslet collapse[1] is the one I was thinking about in particular. It is especially daunting now that I've toured a site for myself. Those things are huge!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornslet_wind-turbine_collapse

Post reply on HN