Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 320 posts

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#41

Post by to11mtm »

cogman10 wrote: post #26
_aavaa_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lithium is not that limited, current reserves are based on current exploration. More sources will be found and exploited as demand grows. And if you want an alternative, sodium batteries are already coming online.

In fact, the limiting element for Li chemistries is generally the Nickel. Pretty much everything else that goes into these chemistries is highly available. Even something like Cobalt which is touted as unavailable is only that way because the industrial uses of cobalt is basically only li batteries. It's mined by hand not because that's the best way to get it, but because that's the cheapest way to get the small amou…

> Even something like Cobalt which is touted as unavailable is only that way because the industrial uses of cobalt is basically only li batteries.

AFAIR Cobalt is also kinda toxic which is a concern.

But as far as that and

> In fact, the limiting element for Li chemistries is generally the Nickel

Isn't that part of why LiFePO was supposed to take off tho? Sure the energy density is a bit lower but theoretically they are cheaper to produce per kWh and don't have any of the toxicity/rarity issues of other lithium designs...

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#42

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

lambdaone wrote: post #35
scotty79 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also sodium batteries are coming to the market at a fraction of the cost. "We’re matching the performance of [lithium iron phosphate batteries] at roughly 30% lower total cost of ownership for the system." Mukesh Chatter, cofounder and CEO, Alsym Energy

I see this as complementary to other energy storage systems, including sodium ion batteries; each will have its own strengths and weaknesses. I expect energy storage density cost will be the critical parameter here, as this looks best suited to do diurnal storage for solar power systems near out-of-town predictable power consumers like data centers.

Maintenance of the system is my biggest question. Lot of mechanical complexity with ensuring your gas containment, compressors, turbines, etc are all up to spec. This also seems like a system where you want to install the biggest capacity containment you can afford at the onset.

All of that vs lithium/sodium where you can incrementally install batteries and let it operate without much concern. Maybe some heaters if they are installed in especially cold climates.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#43

Post by TrainedMonkey »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #2

No mention of round-trip efficiencies, and claims are that it's 30% cheaper than Li-Ion. Which might give it an advantage for a while, but as Li-Ion has become 80% cheaper in the last decade that's not something which will necessarily continue. Great if it can continue to be cheaper, of course. Fingers crossed that they can make it work at scale.

AFAIK cost here counts only the manufacturing side. While your conclusion that in the long run economies of scale will prevail, the lifetime costs are probably more than 30%. For example I expect recycling costs to be significantly worse for the Li-Ion.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#44

Post by cogman10 »

to11mtm wrote: post #41
cogman10 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, the limiting element for Li chemistries is generally the Nickel. Pretty much everything else that goes into these chemistries is highly available. Even something like Cobalt which is touted as unavailable is only that way because the industrial uses of cobalt is basically only li batteries. It's mined by hand not because that's the best way to get it, but because that's the cheapest way to get the small amou…

> Even something like Cobalt which is touted as unavailable is only that way because the industrial uses of cobalt is basically only li batteries. AFAIR Cobalt is also kinda toxic which is a concern. But as far as that and > In fact, the limiting element for Li chemistries is generally the Nickel Isn't that part of why LiFePO was supposed to take off tho? Sure the energy density is a bit lower but theoretically they…

> Isn't that part of why LiFePO was supposed to take off tho?

It's the exact reason LFPs are taking off, especially in grid storage scenarios.

The high cycle life combined with the fact that all the materials are easy to acquire and dirt cheap.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#45

Post by GeekyBear »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #2

No mention of round-trip efficiencies, and claims are that it's 30% cheaper than Li-Ion. Which might give it an advantage for a while, but as Li-Ion has become 80% cheaper in the last decade that's not something which will necessarily continue. Great if it can continue to be cheaper, of course. Fingers crossed that they can make it work at scale.

It's cheaper, doesn't involve the use of scarce resources, and is expected to have an operational lifetime that is three times longer than lithium ion storage facility.

That's a significant difference.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#47

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

cogman10 wrote: post #28
Tade0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are over 200 billion tonnes of lithium in seawater, it's just the least economical out of all sources of this element. There are plenty more, but they're explored only when there's a price hike.

AFAIK, the brine pits are pretty economical, they just require ocean access. What I'm somewhat surprised about is that we've not seen synergies with desalination and ocean mineral extraction. IDK why the brine from a desalination plant isn't seen as a prime first step in extraction lithium, magnesium, and other precious minerals from ocean water.

likely a matter of location. desal tends to be on the coast and near cities which tends to be pretty valuable land, making giant evaporation ponds a tough sell.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#48

Post by to11mtm »

api wrote: post #39
to11mtm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know numbers but I at least remember my paintball physics; As far as the storage vessel, CO2 has much lower pressure demands than something like, say, hydrogen. On something like a paintball marker the burst disc (i.e. emergency blow off valve) for a CO2 tank is in the range of of 1500-1800PSI [0]. A compressed air tank that has a 62cubic inch, 3000PSI capacity, will have a circumference of 29cm and a length…

So… it’s a compressed air battery but with a better working fluid than air. I remember wondering about using natural gas or propane for this a long time ago. Not burning the gas but using it as a compressed gas battery. It liquifies easier than air, etc., but would be a big fire risk if there were leaks while this is not. Seems neat.

> Not burning the gas but using it as a compressed gas battery. It liquifies easier than air, etc., but would be a big fire risk if there were leaks while this is not.

FWIW Back in the day, Ammonia was used for refrigeration because it had the right properties for that process; I mention that one because while it's not a fire risk it's definitely a health risk, also it's a bit more reactive (i.e. leaks are more likely to happen)

> Seems neat.

Agreed!

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#49

Post by 1123581321 »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #25
analog31 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to liquefy, so it has a density advantage over air, and would be bad if released but not super bad.

Suffocation seems like the most relevant concern in the event of a catastrophic leak.

It is a necessary risk. Oxygen is dangerous when heat is involved, and its low critical point is harder to work with than co2.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#50

Post by SoftTalker »

tonfa wrote: post #22
creativeSlumber wrote: post #21

what happens if that large enclosure fails and the CO2 freely flows outside? That enclosure has a huge volume - area the size of several football fields, and at least 15 stories high. The article says it holds 2k tons of co2, which is ~1,000,000 cubic meters in volume. CO2 is denser than air will pool closer to the ground, and will suffocate anyone in the area. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster Edi…

> People will also need to stay back 70 meters or more until the air clears, he says.

Good luck running 70m in a CO2 dense atmosphere. And CO2 hugs the ground it does not float away. It will persist in low areas for quite a while.

Anyone in the local vicinity would need to carry emergency oxygen at all times to be able to get to a safe distance in case of rupture. Otherwise it's a death sentence, and not a particularly pleasant one as CO2 is the signal that triggers the feeling of suffocation.

Post reply on HN