Tech won't save us but sometimes it is a good idea.

[K-Dog]

Last year the furnace in the house kept going out.  It turns out gas furnaces from the late 80's are fossils now and parts can't be found.  I kept things going fearing the ignitor would go out.  Mostly bad electrical connections, but the blower was weak and in time was going to go.

Hacking in an ignitor from a new furnace might not be wise.  It was time for a new furnace.

But for double the price I got a heat pump and a furnace.  The system has been running for a week and the new back up furnace has not had to kick in and it has been below freezing here.  This is good.

The house is more pleasant.  The system moves air better so it feels two degrees warmer that what the old thermostat said it was for the same comfort.  I think this is because cold spots and drafts seem to be gone with the better flow.  If the system lasts as long as it should energy savings should pay for the initial cost.

The big savings is in energy used.  Heat pumps provide about three times as much heating for the same amount of energy so it is like the old gas furnace got 300% more efficient.  It is a case of your mileage may vary, but Seattle energy prices and climate make the system a good choice.  Gas is cheaper than electricity but the efficiency gain makes up for the difference and a bit more.  As the video explains near the end.

So a little more comfort and the carbon footprint of my home heating is cut in half.  The monthly bill will be reduced, but not by half.

[RE]

This is one of the better battery technologies I've read about.  Doubt we will see it implemented at any scale though.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/flow-battery-2666672335

Can Flow Batteries Finally Beat Lithium?



RE

[K-Dog]

The article is all about 'repackaging' energy without any concern about where energy comes from.

A good bean feed for the tech-head tribe working on the technology, who for their own interest point out the military benefits of the battery.  Yeah, keep them paychecks coming.

At the end of the day it is another masturbatory attempt to maintain business as usual.

But I don't have to 'go with the flow'.

[RE]

The article is all about 'repackaging' energy without any concern about where energy comes from.

True, but implicit here is that the energy to charge up these slurries of nanoparticle electrolytes will come from nukes/solar/wind/hydro.

The batteries solve the problem of needing to upgrade the grid to transmit the power, and the same infrastructure of pumping stations and tankers can be used to transport the stuff around.  If there's enough around in storage tanks, it provides the necessary backup for intermittent renewable sources.

The elements used are not in the short supply of lithium, all very common mineral salts.  Much safer since its all aqueous, it doesn't burn.

Can it provide all the energy of fossil fuels?  Not soon enough to save this civilization, but after a population knockdown, it might keep the survivors from returning to the stone age.

RE

[K-Dog]

nukes/solar/wind/hydro

All require fossil fuels for construction and maintenance.  Slice the pie as you wish, there is not enough to go around.

The Guildstones were blown up.

The stones did not fare well.  Before being blown up they were subject to much vandalism.

The message was hated with a passion.  The idea that only one in 15 now alive should be here is very disturbing to most people.  Those who do not have elevators going to their top floors disregard the message altogether and claim the world could support NINE billion with permaculture.  Truth depending on what they want it to be, and how tight their underwear is on a given day.

Remember ADULTS bought into this shit.



Human delusion is endless.  We have no time to grow up.

And there are plenty of them to make sure we do not.



They Live!

[RE]

nukes/solar/wind/hydro

All require fossil fuels for construction and maintenance.

They do now.  They wouldn't if you had heavy equipment that ran on nanoelectrolyte flow batteries.

I'm not by any means saying this technology can prevent a population crash, that is baked in the cake.  What I am saying is that with a smaller population, this technology could enable a technological society with a fairly high per capita energy consumption to run in the absence of fossil fuels and zero carbon emissions.

RE

[K-Dog]

We don't even know what nanoelectrolyte is, but we know it has to be more common than fossil fuels?

Nano nano book'em Danno.  And for five extra bucks I can get both nano and ceramic coatings at the car wash.

[RE]

We don't even know what nanoelectrolyte is

Did you bother to read the article? It explains what they are.
RE

[RE]

We don't even know what nanoelectrolyte is

Did you bother to read the article? It explains what they are.

One good way to add capacity to a flow battery is with nanofluids, which hold nanoparticles in suspension. These particles undergo redox reactions at the electrode surface similar to how the dissolved ions react in conventional flow batteries, but the nanofluids are more energy dense. Importantly, the nanofluids are engineered to remain suspended indefinitely, unlike other suspensions—for instance, sand in water. That indefinite suspension helps the particles move through the system and make contact with the electrodes. The particles can compose up to 80 percent of the liquid's weight while leaving it no more viscous than motor oil.

They do NOT need to be more common than FFs, because they aren't consumed.  The only thing consumed is the energy* they store.  Once you make them, you just keep recharging them.  They ARE the battery.

Note:  To be precise, the energy isn't consumed either.  1st Law of Thermodynamics.  Chemical energy is converted to electrical energy which is converted to mechanical energy & waste heat.  1st Law Conservation of Energy:  Energy is neither created or destroyed, just changed from one form to the other.

RE

[K-Dog]

No,  The article did not say what the chemistry was at all.  What do you mean 'did I read it'.  I am not going to comment on something I did not read.

Nano means small, very small, super small.  And that is all it means.  The article had only a link to the chemistry.

Nanoelectrofuel batteries are a new take on the reduction-oxidation (redox) flow battery, which was first proposed nearly a century and a half ago.

The link goes to Wikipaedia for more obscurity.

What would be the advantage of small particles?  This can be reasoned out.  They carry energy so how tightly can you pack tiny spheres?  The ratio of the volume of spheres, to the total space taken  up by the spheres approaches a maximum of 74%. If the spheres were filled with gasoline, which they are not, mileage is only reduced by 26%.  But that is not the case.  We do not know what kind of secret sauce is used.

The exact chemistry and materials used by flow batteries varies.  Various designs are being explored and developed to improve the efficiency and practicality of these batteries for energy storage. 

However if there was a new magic secret sauce that was going to suddenly make a technology that has been played with since the 1960's stand up and dance the article would have said so.  To the contrary the article obscures the chemistry and concentrates on NANO.  Nano reduces the energy/volume ratio.  Nano is nothing more than a packaging technology.  This article puts lipstick on a pig.

And you RE are the one with chemistry degrees?  Mine are in electronics and software design.  Between the two of us we should be good at catching the bull.  We are both smart enough.

And when it comes to NANO

Book em DANO

There is no benefit to reducing energy density by 26%.  Unless it pays your bills.

* 26% ASSumes nano particle shells have no thickness.  In reality the reduction will be much more than 26%.

And what happens if this nano particle stuff gets dumped into a stream.  Instant micro-plastic to make fish swim faster? 

[K-Dog]

I don't have to be a Luddite.  I do math. 

[TDoS]

I don't have to be a Luddite.  I do math. 

[RE]

Sigh.  I'll try to spell it out for you.  I didn't realize EE's were chemically challenged.

Normally, a battery stores its energy by the difference in electric potential between the cathode and anode, which exchange electrons in an oxidation-reduction reaction.  One gets oxidized, the other reduced, and the electrons drop down in their potential making the trip.  This is what makes your electric motors go round as they pass by the magnets in the motor.

As this process occurs in the typical battery, the cathode gets dissolved and metal gets deposited on the anode, that's how you do plating.  Fully discharged, there's nothing left of the cathode, this batt is non-rechargeable and dead.  However, transition metals have several oxidation states they can exist in, so in rechargeable batts when the metal ion moves across the electrolyte solution to the anode it changes state but your cathode doesn't dissolve away.  When you recharge, you push the electrons back up on the cathode side, and it's ready to go again.  However, repeated cycles of this wear out both ccathode and anode so you can't keep doing it.  Rechargeable batt now dead also.

Flow batts get rid of the cathode and anode and replace them with liquids which are suspensions of nanoparticles in water.  You have a tank that holds charged up nano particles and a discharge tank, sorta like the gray water in your RV waste tank.  When you go to the filling station, you empty your discharged nanoelectrolyte tank and refill your charged tank.  You drive away.

At the filling station, your discharged nanoelectrolyte suspension gets recharged, by electricity generated from a non-ff source.  Then when the next customer shows up, this charged up stuff is pumped into his tank.  The fluid itself never disappears.

The nanoparticles are only necessary in order to turn what in normal batts are solids into a liquid you can pump and exchange easily.  The tinier the particles, the greater the density you can squeeze into a given volume without making the fluid too viscous to pump and keeping the particles suspended.  Big particles sink, you can't do this with them.  The greater the density of particles, the greater the energy density you can store this way.

Hopefully this is clear to the chemically challenged doomers inhabiting this website.

RE

[Nearings Fault]

Sigh.  I'll try to spell it out for you.  I didn't realize EE's were chemically challenged.

Normally, a battery stores its energy by the difference in electric potential between the cathode and anode, which exchange electrons in an oxidation-reduction reaction.  One gets oxidized, the other reduced, and the electrons drop down in their potential making the trip.  This is what makes your electric motors go round as they pass by the magnets in the motor.

As this process occurs in the typical battery, the cathode gets dissolved and metal gets deposited on the anode, that's how you do plating.  Fully discharged, there's nothing left of the cathode, this batt is non-rechargeable and dead.  However, transition metals have several oxidation states they can exist in, so in rechargeable batts when the metal ion moves across the electrolyte solution to the anode it changes state but your cathode doesn't dissolve away.  When you recharge, you push the electrons back up on the cathode side, and it's ready to go again.  However, repeated cycles of this wear out both ccathode and anode so you can't keep doing it.  Rechargeable batt now dead also.

Flow batts get rid of the cathode and anode and replace them with liquids which are suspensions of nanoparticles in water.  You have a tank that holds charged up nano particles and a discharge tank, sorta like the gray water in your RV waste tank.  When you go to the filling station, you empty your discharged nanoelectrolyte tank and refill your charged tank.  You drive away.

At the filling station, your discharged nanoelectrolyte suspension gets recharged, by electricity generated from a non-ff source.  Then when the next customer shows up, this charged up stuff is pumped into his tank.  The fluid itself never disappears.

The nanoparticles are only necessary in order to turn what in normal batts are solids into a liquid you can pump and exchange easily.  The tinier the particles, the greater the density you can squeeze into a given volume without making the fluid too viscous to pump and keeping the particles suspended.  Big particles sink, you can't do this with them.  The greater the density of particles, the greater the energy density you can store this way.

Hopefully this is clear to the chemically challenged doomers inhabiting this website.

RE

they have been pushing flow batteries for the 20 years I have been paying attention. So far they have all been high dollar research monsters. Putting "nano" onto everything is a new buzzword for alternative energy and great for grant farming. Everything is nano this, nano that. So far absolutely nothing you can price, buy and install... Flow batteries so far have been an alternative energy equivalent to fusion power; always 10 years away. Even if they make it work lithium is getting cheaper all the time and the newer ones are using half the lithium and no cobalt. It's hard for a new tech to break through when retail lithium is down as low as $300 a kW Hr for a 3000-10000 cycle battery. There are some low tech stars out there though. I like the sand battery myself or the utility switched hot water heaters and heat pumps. Great potential for storage there. All of these storage techs are going to grow up real fast in the next 10 years. The West is getting desperate for new ways to make and store power and balance loads without putting in a huge power plant. I know here I can install 10 kWHrs of lithium and buy at 4 cents a kWHr and use it during the day when it's 12 cents... 8 cents per kW differential so 0.80 cents a day or $292 a year... 10 year lifespan at least so $2920 of savings... As soon as that number hits a profit level you will not need to build any utility scale storage the home consumer will build and finance it themselves .. that is the future I see ..
Cheers... NF

[RE]

they have been pushing flow batteries for the 20 years I have been paying attention. So far they have all been high dollar research monsters. Putting "nano" onto everything is a new buzzword for alternative energy and great for grant farming. Everything is nano this, nano that. So far absolutely nothing you can price, buy and install... Flow batteries so far have been an alternative energy equivalent to fusion power; always 10 years away. Even if they make it work lithium is getting cheaper all the time and the newer ones are using half the lithium and no cobalt. It's hard for a new tech to break through when retail lithium is down as low as $300 a kW Hr for a 3000-10000 cycle battery. There are some low tech stars out there though. I like the sand battery myself or the utility switched hot water heaters and heat pumps. Great potential for storage there. All of these storage techs are going to grow up real fast in the next 10 years. The West is getting desperate for new ways to make and store power and balance loads without putting in a huge power plant. I know here I can install 10 kWHrs of lithium and buy at 4 cents a kWHr and use it during the day when it's 12 cents... 8 cents per kW differential so 0.80 cents a day or $292 a year... 10 year lifespan at least so $2920 of savings... As soon as that number hits a profit level you will not need to build any utility scale storage the home consumer will build and finance it themselves .. that is the future I see ..
Cheers... NF

Lithium has supply issues and environmental issues with the mining.  The choice of metals you can use in a flow batt are much more varied and available, and easier to mine.  The key advantage though is the Liquid state, allowing it to be easily transported in a variety of volumes and pumped between storage tanks for charging and use.

I agree that "nano" is an overused buzzword, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have advantages and applications.  The whole point of this article and the fact they have startup capital is to draw attention to the fact what they have already proven to work overcomes the very problems with flow batts that you mention.  The tech isn't 10 years away, it's here now.

The author also mentions at the end the article that a lot of capital has already been invested in Li batts as the electrical energy storage solution, so even though this is clearly better technology it may not get traction because it has come too late in the race.

The other batts you mention may be better for housing applications, but none of them can work for transportation like a flow batt, AND use the current infrastructure of storage tanks and filling stations with pumps already in place with very little modification.

Cheers.

RE