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

71–80 of 320 posts

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#71

Post by namibj »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #42
lambdaone wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Don't even really need notable heaters if you regulate your thermal vents enough.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#72

Post by namibj »

Gys wrote: post #9
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.

Lithium supply is limited. So an alternative based on abundant materials is interesting for that reason I guess?

We have 10 years of 2021 global energy production (including oil/coal/gas!) of LFP in the oceans; but yes, sodium batteries are probably cheaper.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#73

Post by namibj »

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.

Do you know how much magnesium you find with silicon and iron as olivine? It's just the silicon that we haven't yet tamed for large scale mechanical usage that makes them uneconomical to electrolyze.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#74

Post by alwa »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #57
buckle8017 wrote: post #33

So it's a compressed air facility but it's using dry CO2 because it makes the process easier and CO2 is cheap. Not a carbon sequestration thing, but will likely fool some people into thinking it is. So the question is, how much does it cost? The article is completely silent on this, as expected.

The tanks to hold liquid CO2 will likely be a lot cheaper than compressed air tanks because the required pressure is much lower. But they are going to loose a lot of energy to cooling the gas and reheating the liquid. I would be surprised if the round-trip efficiency is higher than 25%.

They claim 75% efficiency AC-AC [0], and they point out that there’s no degradation with time. What estimates are you using to arrive at the 25% figure?

[0] https://energydome.com/co2-battery/

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#75

Post by zahlman »

dmd wrote: post #51
zahlman wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it isn't going to sink enough CO2 to move the needle: > If the worst happens and the dome is punctured, 2,000 tonnes of CO2 will enter the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to the emissions of about 15 round-trip flights between New York and London on a Boeing 777. “It’s negligible compared to the emissions of a coal plant,” Spadacini says. People will also need to stay back 70 meters or more until the air clears,…

It has nothing whatsoever to do with sinking CO2.

I understand this, but it coincidentally uses CO2 and it's hard for me to understand why the technology would sound "too good to be true" without imagining such a purpose.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#76

Post by namibj »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #47
cogman10 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't use ponds, you run the desalination to as strong as practical and follow up with either electrolysis or distillation of the brine.

But once summer electricity becomes cheap enough due to solar production increasing to handle winter heating loads with the (worse) winter sun, we can afford a lot of electrowinning of "ore" which can be pretty much sea salt or generic rock at that point.

Form Energy is working on grid scale iron air batteries which use the same chemistry as would be used for (excess/spare) solar powered iron ore to iron metal refining.

AFAIK the coal powered traditional iron refining ovens are the largest individual machines humanity operates. (Because if you try to compare to large (ore/oil) ships, it's not very fair to count their passive cargo volume; and if comparing to offshore oil rigs, and including their ancillary appliances and crew berthing, you'd have to include a lot of surrounding infrastructure to the blast furnace itself.)

It will take coal becoming expensive for it's CO2 before we really stop coal fired iron blast furnaces. And before then it's hard to compete even at zero cost electricity when accounting for the duty cycle limitations of only taking curtailed summer peaks.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#78

Post by pfdietz »

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.

Except you have to trap and recycle the uncompressed CO2, hence that enormous bag to hold all that gas. Color me skeptical.

With compressed air, you just release the air back to the atmosphere.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#79

Post by newyankee »

pfdietz wrote: post #77

We don't need another few-hours storage technology. Batteries are going to clobber that. What we need is a storage technology with a duration of months. That would be truly complementary to these short term storage technologies.

Had heard a lot about flow batteries few years back. I am guessing they are slowly taking off as well, the trial and error that explains their feasibility , need and ability to pay for themselves in a market like ERCOT is the key.

This is one place where I think by 2030 a clear no of options will be established.

Re: CO2 batteries that store grid energy take off globally

#80

Post by 2thumbsup »

pfdietz wrote: post #77

We don't need another few-hours storage technology. Batteries are going to clobber that. What we need is a storage technology with a duration of months. That would be truly complementary to these short term storage technologies.

A few hours are sometimes enough to start generators when renewable energy supply decreases. Obviously, the more capacity the better, but costs will increase linearly with capacity in most cases.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - where it is feasible - is the only kind of energy storage close to "months".

Post reply on HN