Startup Building Zinc-Based Alternatives to Lithium Batteries Granted $400M Loan from the US (popsci.com) 97
Popular Science reports that America's Department of Energy "is providing a nearly $400 million loan to a startup aimed at scaling the manufacturing and deployment of a zinc-based alternative to rechargeable lithium batteries."
If realized, Eos Energy's utility- and industrial-scale zinc-bromine battery energy storage system could provide cheaper, vastly more sustainable options for the country's burgeoning renewable power infrastructure... Unlike lithium-ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries, alternatives such as the Eos Z3 design rely on zinc-based cathodes alongside a water-based electrolyte, notes MIT Technology Review. This important distinction both increases their stability, as well as makes it incredibly difficult for them to support combustion. Zinc-bromine batteries meanwhile also boast lifespans as long as 20 years, while existing lithium options only manage between 10 and 15 years. What's more, zinc is considered the world's fourth most produced metal...
The U.S. Department of Energy also notes that "over time," Eos expects to source almost all of its materials within the U.S., thus better insulating its product against the market volatility and supply chain issues. While the Department of Energy previously issued similar loans to battery recycling and geothermal energy projects, last week's announcement marks the first funding offered to a manufacturer of lithium-battery alternatives.
MIT's article notes that Eos's semi-autonomous facility in Pennsylvania already produces around 540 megawatt-hours annually — and it isn't operating at full capacity. This new loan could boost factory toward full-power. The $398-million loan funds "up to four state-of-the-art production lines," according to the announcement from the U.S. Energy Department.
It notes that the technology is "specifically designed for long-duration grid-scale stationary battery storage that can assist in meeting the energy grids' growing demand with increasing amounts of renewable energy penetration." If finalized, the project is expected to manufacture 8 GWh of storage capacity annually by 2026. That is enough to provide electricity to over 300,000 average U.S. homes instantaneously or meet the annual electricity needs of approximately 130,000 homes if fully charged and discharged daily. The project is expected to create up to 50 union contractor construction jobs and as many as 650 new operations jobs when at full operational capacity...
Critically, Eos batteries are non-flammable and do not require active cooling to operate. The batteries can achieve 100% depth of discharge...
If realized, Eos Energy's utility- and industrial-scale zinc-bromine battery energy storage system could provide cheaper, vastly more sustainable options for the country's burgeoning renewable power infrastructure... Unlike lithium-ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries, alternatives such as the Eos Z3 design rely on zinc-based cathodes alongside a water-based electrolyte, notes MIT Technology Review. This important distinction both increases their stability, as well as makes it incredibly difficult for them to support combustion. Zinc-bromine batteries meanwhile also boast lifespans as long as 20 years, while existing lithium options only manage between 10 and 15 years. What's more, zinc is considered the world's fourth most produced metal...
The U.S. Department of Energy also notes that "over time," Eos expects to source almost all of its materials within the U.S., thus better insulating its product against the market volatility and supply chain issues. While the Department of Energy previously issued similar loans to battery recycling and geothermal energy projects, last week's announcement marks the first funding offered to a manufacturer of lithium-battery alternatives.
MIT's article notes that Eos's semi-autonomous facility in Pennsylvania already produces around 540 megawatt-hours annually — and it isn't operating at full capacity. This new loan could boost factory toward full-power. The $398-million loan funds "up to four state-of-the-art production lines," according to the announcement from the U.S. Energy Department.
It notes that the technology is "specifically designed for long-duration grid-scale stationary battery storage that can assist in meeting the energy grids' growing demand with increasing amounts of renewable energy penetration." If finalized, the project is expected to manufacture 8 GWh of storage capacity annually by 2026. That is enough to provide electricity to over 300,000 average U.S. homes instantaneously or meet the annual electricity needs of approximately 130,000 homes if fully charged and discharged daily. The project is expected to create up to 50 union contractor construction jobs and as many as 650 new operations jobs when at full operational capacity...
Critically, Eos batteries are non-flammable and do not require active cooling to operate. The batteries can achieve 100% depth of discharge...
Bad timing (Score:1, Offtopic)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It had better be accurate because zinc is even more problematic than lithium when it comes to toxicity...
Re: (Score:3)
It had better be accurate because zinc is even more problematic than lithium when it comes to toxicity...
Is it? Zinc oxide (combustion result) is pretty harmless stuff, and some surprisingly high doses of zinc have been used therapeutically (not resulting in the patient dying, so the zinc didn't kill them). It's not completely harmless for sure, but it's not bad.
Re: (Score:2)
It had better be accurate because zinc is even more problematic than lithium when it comes to toxicity...
Is it? Zinc oxide (combustion result) is pretty harmless stuff, and some surprisingly high doses of zinc have been used therapeutically (not resulting in the patient dying, so the zinc didn't kill them). It's not completely harmless for sure, but it's not bad.
I have to agree with you. Zinc is actually needed by humans, although it can be overused, and cause problems. Zinc is a needed component for health and is taken as a dietary supplement in many countries. Also a treatment for Anorexia, and a preventative for macular degeneration, skin care, toothpaste, and a lot of other medical uses.
Probably the worst aspects of Zinc are Zinc Chromate and the production of zinc - which creates sulfur aerosols, which create acid rain. But AFAIK all Chromates are nasty, a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Anyway dudes, this is obviously the very corrupted Biden at work here once again. How couldn't anybody have guessed?
The answers to everything are on Hunter Biden's laptop. BigFoot, the Aliens among us, the location of the holy grail and Kentucky Fried Chicken's secret coating ingredients.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway dudes, this is obviously the very corrupted Biden at work here once again. How couldn't anybody have guessed?
The answers to everything are on Hunter Biden's laptop. BigFoot, the Aliens among us, the location of the holy grail and Kentucky Fried Chicken's secret coating ingredients.
Person modding this troll has no idea what trolling is. Focus, observe, remember.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaporized zinc causes severe biological harm. It's not a big deal until then, in fact it's quite safe and stable and as you say necessary for life. But then, same for lithium!
Re: (Score:2)
"Zinc is an essential trace metal with very low toxicity in humans." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It could technically be more problematic than lithium but it doesn't seem to be particularly toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
Pennies are copper clad zinc. The standard (AA) battery is zinc-carbon, and alkaline (zinc-manganese) batteries have zinc too. If zinc was all that toxic we've have a lot more than zinc-bromide battery fires to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Try welding it in a situation where you breathe the fumes.
If lithium is so "toxic", then why... (Score:1)
...do they prescribe it to looney psychos to calm them down? huh, Huh, HUH?!?!?
Depends on application (Score:4)
Not really, this is all about economics. Zinc–bromine batteries can't hold a candle to any kind of lithium-ion battery when it comes to energy density, including the non-flammable solid-state lithium batteries. The selling point here is low-expense which means it's competing with lead-acid batteries for industrial scale energy storage.
If it were cheaper to use an extremely flammable material to store energy then industrial energy storage companies would use it. This is an economics issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad timing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just about price, but even if the new deposit slashes prices in half zinc will still be way cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
>It's not just about price, but even if the new [lithium] deposit slashes prices in half zinc will still be way cheaper.
And more wide-spread use of non-lithium will reduce the demand for lithium, which in turn keeps the prices of lithium lower as well.
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad timing (Score:4)
Doesn't TFS describe how zinc batteries are more suited & economical for particular use-case scenarios than lithium ones? How would more lithium alter those evaluations?
That is correct. Zinc-Bromine batteries are suited for power station energy storage, and not transportation use. So LI-ion batteries are not an issue as far as feedstock goes.
My thoughts on all of this is that there is already a solution for stationary energy storage, the Nickel-Iron Battery. Its main features are it is tough as nails. It doesn't have the same energy density as Li-Ion, higher self discharge lower energy energy retention, but it is plenty good enough for things like overnight energy storage for solar powered systems, even wind if people are going to install them in places where it isn't always blowing.
Regardless, yes, these zinc-Bromine batters should work okay.
I've always thought that Li based batteries were not a good idea for grid energy storage.
And the research is ramping up again for Sodium Ion batteries. And there is a lot of that stuff around. That would be a likely competitor for Lithium based batteries in the future.
Re: Bad timing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These wonâ(TM)t be useful in cars they said stationary solutions so we need lithium batteries still
They'd be okay in stationary cars though! ;^)
Re: Bad timing (Score:1)
We already have very cheap (lead acid) batteries for permanent/backup storage. I know many datacenters have entire banks of (open or sealed) lead acid batteries. The lifecycle is a lot longer, recycling is a lot easier. There are many things that make for very good batteries, the question whether they are more cost effective is thus dependent on the cost of (mostly vertical) space.
Re: (Score:3)
If the deposit you're talking about is the one I'm thinking of, they might have some difficulty getting it [boston.com].
Regardless, lithium batteries are better suited to applications where weight and volume are important... which neither are in grid storage. Given the amount of grid storage we need it is nice, if not necessary, to have multiple technologies to choose from.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium isn't viable in grid storage. As in we don't have enough available to even pretend to run something like US grid for more than a few minutes. That's not today, but according to current extraction projections from people who actually do the extraction professionally, in several decades of extraction. A few minutes just for a few minutes in one nation. Currently, we measure the time storage can cover the grid in seconds, and only for limited parts of the grid. If you had to expand to entire grid, as w
Re:Bad timing (Score:4, Interesting)
We should be switching more of the stuff we currently make out of steel to aluminum anyway, especially the automobiles. Automobiles are the most aggressively recycled consumer good, and making the unit body out of aluminum means enormous energy savings by the time you have recycled it just twice. (You reach energy consumption parity by recycling it once.) Aluminum has the advantage that the recycled material has the same properties as the original alloy, so long as you separate it correctly — which can now be done cheaply with laser spectroscopy.
Re: (Score:2)
But aluminum is also a lot more expensive and more difficult to work with. Lots of cars incorporate aluminum, already. My car has an aluminum hood, engine block, head, transmission case, etc.
Would it be "better" if more panels and support structure were aluminum? Yes- it would be lighter, much more corrosion-resistant, and lead to being more fuel efficient and perform better. But at what cost. Cars are already getting insanely expensive. If, for example, it added another $10K to the sticker price, it
Re: (Score:3)
If, for example, it added another $10K to the sticker price, it might not be workable.
Amortize the savings from recycling.
I believe steel is just as recyclable as aluminum.
It is not. It gets harder when you recycle it, then you have to add stuff back in. Also the temperature you have to heat it to is much higher. It takes more energy to refine aluminum the first time, but like I said before, you reach energy parity once you've recycled it just once. And (again, again) we recycle cars very aggressively, so they are the poster children for use of aluminum.
Re: (Score:2)
>We should be switching more of the stuff we currently make out of steel to aluminum anyway
This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. These metals have fundamentally different properties and are largely unable to replace one another.
For example, aluminium rebar. Building crumbles in the first seasonal cycle, as expansion rate differential between aluminium and concrete break those two apart.
Aluminium industrial piping. Massive blowouts everywhere, as aluminium is extremely poor at handling
Re:Bad timing (Score:4)
We should be switching more of the stuff we currently make out of steel to aluminum anyway
This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.
We often have trouble hearing ourselves.
These metals have fundamentally different properties and are largely unable to replace one another.
These metals have both things in common and differences, and aluminum can replace steel in some circumstances and not in others. You can rarely use one in place of the other without design work, but you can commonly use one in place of the other.
All of your examples may be valid, and I'm not going to try to track down counterexamples; Why bother? We're talking about cars right now, and the truth is that virtually everything in an automobile but the fasteners and brake surfaces that's commonly made from ferrous materials can be replaced with aluminum, and already has been in many vehicles. The Honda NSX and Audi A8 prove that you can have aluminum vehicles with only cost drawbacks. But those cost problems only exist until you have the mass of vehicles to recycle, and at this point the R&D has been done to make even the subframes, engine mounts and such out of Aluminum and not "just" the body, every part of the engine but the crank and the running surfaces on the cams, the wheels, the trim, etc etc.
While we're on the subject, a lot of the crap we commonly make out of plastic now could have aluminum cases instead — and some of it does and is better for it, which is how we know it's not only viable but desirable. The plastic's recyclability is limited in the best cases, but the aluminum can literally be recycled forever without losing any properties but those restored through heat treatment.
Aluminum refinement is the problem area, but it continues to improve, and increasing the volume can only increase the rate of improvement. But once you've refined the metal and produced the alloy, the savings in energy alone mount rapidly.
Did I ever claim that aluminum could replace all of our uses of steel? Nope. But it can replace a lot of 'em, and once the initial energy investment is made, the savings thereafter are dramatic. And the more of it we use, the cheaper it will be to recycle as well, because material won't have to be transported as far before sufficient quantity of like alloys is available. And it does take a lot of mass out of a vehicle, and lends itself to designs which are more predictable in a crash (like the tubular members in the front of the A8.)
Re: (Score:1)
Cool. Gonna be some fun heavy duty aluminium crankshafts, connecting rods and axles. Best of luck. Just don't make anyone else buy this hilariously expensive and unreliable engine that will last maybe a 10th of a normal one.
Or you can make is so weak that it won't have those problems, and use a small moped to go everywhere. Remember, it's easy to talk smack about what others should do. Dogfood the shit you suggest. There has been at least one car I know that had an aluminium crankshaft for example. It was w
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Gonna be some fun heavy duty aluminium crankshafts, connecting rods and axles. Best of luck. Just don't make anyone else buy this hilariously expensive and unreliable engine that will last maybe a 10th of a normal one.
Forged aluminum connecting rods are common. I explicitly said you shouldn't make the crank out of aluminum. Most engines now have aluminum blocks, heads, rods, pistons, and "bearings" (the oil type) as well as front covers, oil pans, and valvetrain covers. Axle shafts are usually still steel, but drive shafts are now more and more commonly aluminum. The fasteners, cams, crank, and the gears in the oil pump are still steel, and usually practically everything else is now aluminum.
Re: (Score:1)
Forged aluminum rods are common in lawn mowers. Nowhere else in north america, outside of racing and perhaps motorcycles. Source: me. I've been welding and turning wrenches for a living for the last 30 years.
BTW with the possible exception of some heavy-duty trucks (not pickups) over 10,000 lbs, there is *zero* vehicles designed for long-term reliability available today for the individual consumer. Vehicles today are designed to separate you from your money, on an almost-subscription basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Forged aluminum rods are common in lawn mowers. Nowhere else in north america, outside of racing and perhaps motorcycles. Source: me. I've been welding and turning wrenches for a living for the last 30 years.
You can get them for most applications if you want them, especially since custom rods are not especially expensive. But you're right, they're not common standard equipment.
BTW with the possible exception of some heavy-duty trucks (not pickups) over 10,000 lbs, there is *zero* vehicles designed for long-term reliability available today for the individual consumer. Vehicles today are designed to separate you from your money, on an almost-subscription basis.
What's "designed for long-term reliability" mean to you? Because to me it means reliable within a reasonable service window, and serviceable.
We have a 1999 Blue Bird Q-Bus. It has a Cummins ISC, which as you surely know is a wet sleeve design. I could reasonably keep that thing going for a million miles with enough equipment changes. I dr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From ore, sure. Melting down aluminum scrap is a different story. There will be some oxides, sure, but mostly you'll be dealing with pure aluminum metal or aluminum alloys. Not sure it will be better than using steel in applications where we currently use steel, but we certainly don't have to start from ore every single time.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no question that there's an up front cost to aluminum, but you have to get steel nearly twice as hot as aluminum during the recycling process, and aluminum is also cheaper to heat treat for the same reason. Recycle it twice and you've saved energy compared to using steel to build a unit body.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the post was about replacing steel car parts with aluminum, so you examples sorta miss the point. Still,
Yes, aluminum rebar would not work, as it is not compatible with common concrete. However, if you want less difference in thermal expansion and less corrosion, you might not want to use steel rebar, but switch to
Re: (Score:2)
So if you want to even pretend that intermittents aren't there as a tool for reawakening revolutionary spirit in people to overthrow the existing society because of misery that unavailability of power due to penetration of intermittents into grid power generation will cause, you'll need to present something that can store at least a couple of months worth of total grid consumption. Preferably more.
They're also there as a tool to keep us locked into "fossil" fuels, whilst also making fossil fuels more expensive.
There was once a time when people said nuclear would be too cheap to meter. And suddenly oil men became environmentalists.
I often wonder why we forget, how many Machiavellian plans the rich and powerful, with many clever advisers on hand, can come up with, whilst sitting in their meetings, behind locked doors, for hours upon hours, whilst their secretaries hold their calls.
Most ordinary people
Re: (Score:3)
500 GW (ie. US power consumption) for 5 minutes requires around the battery capacity what a Tesla Megafactory produces in a year. Now Tesla batteries aren't really designed for 10C, but that's more specific to their batteries than Lithium Ion batteries in general.
It doesn't make Lithium Ion a cost effective idea for using PV in a net zero scenario, but you've still got some orders of magnitude wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Cute, but you don't measure energy capacity in gigawatts.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorant, as Pinky's Brain didn't claim energy capacity in GW, but instead referenced 500 GW for 5 min, which is approx 42 GWH, a perfectly cromulent measure of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're getting into more interesting territory, as you are at least talking about the same thing I was talking about.
Re: Bad timing (Score:2)
Expert management team (ex Solyndra) (Score:1)
(This is intended as HUMOR... consider modding +1 funny, especially if it made you laugh)
Re:Expert management team (ex Solyndra) (Score:5, Informative)
While you're trying to be funny, it's also funny how people cite that one instance of the company lying and getting caught, but not all the other companies the same program has funded and which is now earning the government a profit [csmonitor.com].
In fact, of the 24 companies given loans under the same program at that time, only Solyndra and one other company defaulted. The remaining 22 companies paid back the money [technologyreview.com], plus interest. And P.S., one of those other companies was the nearly bankrupt Tesla.
Re: Expert management team (ex Solyndra) (Score:2, Interesting)
The issue with Solyndra was:
A) Crappy product - fragile glass tubes at crazy high cost
B) They built a factory in Silicon Valley, WTF?
C) They applied for loan guarantees under Bush admin, we're rejected, and gov't analysts predicted the date Solyndra would go bankrupt
D) Solyndra execs flooded Democrat party/candidates with donations
E) Obama admin "reconsidered" the previously rejected loan guarantee application, and approved it
F) Solyndra ultimately failed, on approx the date Bush Admin analysts predicted
The
Re: Expert management team (ex Solyndra) (Score:4, Informative)
The issue with Solyndra was:
A) Crappy product - fragile glass tubes at crazy high cost
Or a new technology that could have improved and come down in cost with time.
Differentiating the two is a big issue for startups and investors even with the best of intentions.
B) They built a factory in Silicon Valley, WTF?
Yeah, WTF [wikipedia.org]?
C) They applied for loan guarantees under Bush admin, we're rejected, and gov't analysts predicted the date Solyndra would go bankrupt
D) Solyndra execs flooded Democrat party/candidates with donations
E) Obama admin "reconsidered" the previously rejected loan guarantee application, and approved it
Really??? [politifact.com]
The Energy Department issued its final rules for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.
[...]
Bush energy officials wanted to get the loan closed on their way out the door — it was listed as the first of their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009.) But the Energy Department's credit committee held things up for more analysis.
[...]
It noted Solyndra's project "appears to have merit." But the clock had run out.
That didn't keep Bush from touting the loan guarantee program on his way out of office. On Jan. 6, 2009, in remarks on conservation and the environment from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, he said, "We dedicated more than $18 billion to developing clean and efficient technologies like biofuels, advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, and clean, safe nuclear power. We're providing more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to put these technologies to use."
Ultimately, the Bush administration program didn't finalize a single loan guarantee.
So Bush didn't actually reject the Solyndra loan, they just failed to push it through before the Obama administration came in.
F) Solyndra ultimately failed, on approx the date Bush Admin analysts predicted
The issue isn't that Solyndra lost money, the issue is we knowingly flushed millions down the toilet as payback for campaign contributions. (See above timeline)
No, the issue is that you've seemingly created an extremely misleading summary of events.
Re: Expert management team (ex Solyndra) (Score:1)
We didn't have to fund Solyndra to fund the other 23 companies under that program, they could have respected the prescient analysis tge Bush admin did when they assessed and rejected the application from Solyndra (BTW, Bush Admin analysts even correctly calculated when Solyndra would fail if funded!)
Re: (Score:2)
> they could have respected the prescient analysis tge Bush admin did when they assessed and rejected the application from Solyndra
Hmm.. https://www.politifact.com/fac... [slashdot.org]">nope. Solyndra was essentially pre-approved for their loan [scribd.com] in 2007, even if the funding wasn't available until 2009.
So if the DoE reviewed and approved Solyndra's proposal in 2007... under which administration would that review have been?
Good go trying to make this about partisan politics, though.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem... that first link should have been:
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
So much for previews.
=Smidge=
Hold up... (Score:2)
That's not fair! You're using facts in an internet argument! Where is the specious logic and anecdotal evidence?! I demand anecdotes!
Re: (Score:2)
What about Edison's nickel iron batteries? (Score:2)
Not sexy enough for start ups as his patents already expired 50 years ago?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Horrible energy and power densities. Yes, these aren't as important for static storage compared to mobile, but when it gets that bad the cost of buildings to store them in takes over.
Re: (Score:2)
Horrible energy and power densities. Yes, these aren't as important for static storage compared to mobile, but when it gets that bad the cost of buildings to store them in takes over.
You need to talk to the New York and London subway systems. I think the subway cars are mobile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]–iron_battery
The daily charging of the batteries makes them a better storage source than you might think, they are also tough as nails and use cheap components. Energy retention and density aren't as big an issue in a system that is pretty much a predictable cycle.
Makes good sense (Score:1)
Right now, China has almost a monopoly on the world market for reusable batteries of all kinds. The best chance for countries like the US to catch up is technological advances that can leap frog China in the world market. This is an urgent strategic imperative, as are other actions to reduce the West's reliance on China in potential economic warfare down the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed.
And the more we can reduce our demand for lithium, especially for large projects, the more the limited lithium will remain available for all the things we still must have it for- things that need to be light and portable. All while reducing potential conflict. The potential safety aspects of non-lithium are just a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
Some statistics I should have included in my original post:
Sorry about the formatting. Slashdot these days does not properly support blockqotes
Has anyone been able to find actual specs? (Score:3)
I've been over their website. I can find that their basic battery is the Z3 and that it is supposed to last 6000 cycles at least with 88% capacity after 20 years. What I can't find are basics like weight, physical dimensions and capacity for the individual modules. Not to mention that there's no real indication of price either. There's a lot of marketing speak, and they are really enthusiastic about their large rack solutions, containerized solutions and their giant hangar solutions, but they don't seem to think the home market is even a thing. It looks like regular people can't really buy these. When they can, it will probably only be through middle men that mark them up like crazy and package them in some "solution" or another that negates any possible cost savings over lithium.
I admit that's a somewhat bleak view, but it does seem like way too many new technologies are kept too closely held by the companies that develop them. Sometimes it seems like they might have more success if they just wanted to sell stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
> they don't seem to think the home market is even a thing.
They're also starting up, chasing the big easy targets first makes sense. I still don't get it, because while a neighbourhood UPS that also manages line conditioning would be nice I really don't see power companies caring when their existing infrastructure keeps the money rolling in without any new infrastructure costs.
But if you could have something the size of a garden shed that could power your home for a couple of days, I'm pretty sure the r
Re: (Score:2)
Good posting, and I agree with it.
Home energy backup is already met for those without on-site renewables using generators that are a fraction of the cost and size. Of course, they are also loud, often smelly, and require some maintenance.... and fuel coming from somewhere (typically natural gas, gasoline, or diesel). But they also can potentially supply power indefinitely. Not just X hours.
And if these newer batteries are much safer and cheaper, it will open up even more opportunities. Right now, the th
Re: (Score:2)
> Right now, the thought of mounting a lot of lithium to my garage wall is a bit scary.
Especially since regular use will eventually short them out from dendrite formation, and they burn at 2000c which is well beyond the melting temperature of any material you're likely to house them in. Li-ion isn't a great technology for batteries you should expect some consumers will have in place and neglect for 20 years. In a car you'd typically expect that performance issues would have them replaced long before th
Re: (Score:2)
An ejection system would be a pretty fancy solution. I think a better solution might be some sort of basement lined with refractory bricks and with a chimney. Or just use non-flammable batteries, like the ones in this article.
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively, you'd build a blast furnace around your battery pack, though you'd probably avoid feeding it fresh air.
But the ejection system is WAYYY more fun.
Re: (Score:1)
I think I'd want a Li-ion home power system to have an eject button - have the whole thing roll out into the middle of my driveway where it's less likely to burn down everything around it.
Could be problematic, living on a hill. "Eject the warp core"
Re: (Score:2)
>Could be problematic, living on a hill.
I have one correction for you:
"Could be problematic, living downhill from someone with this system". On the hill you'd be just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also starting up, chasing the big easy targets first makes sense. I still don't get it, because while a neighbourhood UPS that also manages line conditioning would be nice I really don't see power companies caring when their existing infrastructure keeps the money rolling in without any new infrastructure costs.
Exactly, I just don't see the power companies making that kind of infrastructure investment when there's no real consequences to them if they don't. Meanwhile, there's a definite home market out there with people who want their home power to be uninterruptible and are looking for a safe solution that won't cost an arm and a leg. Even if they're not trying to be off-grid or maximize use of renewable power, they may simply want their power to stay on even if there's a power outage. I think there's a definite
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While there's nothing wrong with that idea, it's probably not going to meet the required capacity, plus there are concerns about flammability, etc. The messiness of making a battery is not really comparable to the messiness of, for example, a fossil fuel powered generator. The environmental impact of all of these technologies is relative. Nothing is environmentally neutral to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do a decent comparison from wikipedia information on the battery chemistry. It's basically got less than one tenth the energy density that lithium-ion has so there's no way this is going to be useful for any mobile application. And it would appear that the cost is 3-4 times per kWh than lithium which has you wondering what the hell is so great about it. That too is listed in the wikipedia entry and it's not that impressive which makes you wonder who in Washington is getting campaign funding out o
Re: (Score:2)
That's disappointing, but not all that unexpected.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you just revealed it's yet another battery breakthrough no one will remember in a year.
There are dozens of "battery breakthroughs" we hear of every year. How many have made it and replaced batteries as we know it? None of them.
In other words, these guys have produced a battery in the lab that looks promising. Likely they'll try to go commercialize it, run out of money and sell it to whomever is willing to buy the remnants.
If it's truly revolutionary, then likely they'll attract funding and b
Re: (Score:2)
This is definitely a niche technology anyway. It wasn't expected to replace batteries as we know them. Interesting detail about Exxon Mobil and the lithium ion battery. I think we can recognize that an oil company might not have much incentive to produce batteries that might be very effective at replacing fossil fuel in cars. So, as a possible example of active suppression, that might not be the best example of a technology taking a while to get to market.
"Which means it won't catch fire"? (Score:2, Informative)
Eosâ(TM)s batteries use a water-based electrolyte (the liquid that moves charge around in a battery) instead of organic solvent, which makes them more stable and means they wonâ(TM)t catch fire, Richey says.
The one thing doesn't mean the other. They may well be the most fire-resistant batteries of all time, but lead-acid batteries with water-based electrolyte can catch fire if you deplete the electrolyte enough - the case is flammable. And the down side to water-based electrolyte is that it can cook off, especially in contexts with series-parallel arrangements of batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, because a little bit of plastic or possibly even some hydrogen burning ( if your ventilation is shite ) from a lead-acid is the same as a lithium metal fire. Right. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
So to be clear, you think burning plastic is great?
I support (as I have said here many times) the banning of NMC Li-Ion batteries, because they are a combustion hazard and also contain cobalt which is not something you really want to be breathing either. We should only allow LFP or even less flammable and less toxic lithium chemistries (if they exist) since NMC offers little reward and has massive drawbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
> a lithium metal fire
There us no metallic lithium in a rechargeable lithium battery. It's all in the form of salts and not readily available for burning. What burns in a lithium battery fire is the highly volatile electrolyte.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Prediction (Score:1)
What's the point in subsidy? (Score:2)
They seem to have a production cost deficit compared to other grid storage solutions, or they would be able to run at capacity. Building more production lines won't reduce their production costs much AFAICS. Not until they go bankrupt and default on all their loans any way, that could significantly reduce their production costs.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of a subsidy is exactly the same as that of a loan, or a grant; The government recognizes a need for X as a matter of national security and stability. X isn't going to happen any time soon because The Invisible Hand of the Free Market(tm) is busy masturbating the 0.1%, so government steps in with taxpayer money to try and make it happen.
> Building more production lines won't reduce their production costs much AFAICS
Economies of scale [wikipedia.org] are a thing. Not that I want to invite too strong a compariso
What the hell? (Score:1)
That is enough to provide electricity to over 300,000 average U.S. homes instantaneously or meet the annual electricity needs of approximately 130,000 homes if fully charged and discharged daily. The project is expected to create up to 50 union contractor construction jobs and as many as 650 new operations jobs when at full operational capacity...
Where to start?
That is enough to provide electricity to over 300,000 average U.S. homes instantaneously
What does that mean? Seriously, I have. I idea what that metric is describing, "instantaneously"?
or meet the annual electricity needs of approximately 130,000 homes if fully charged and discharged daily.
So it has the capacity to meet the needs of 130,000 homes for 24 hours? Assuming it is not being charged and drained at the same time...
The project is expected to create up to 50 union contractor construction jobs
Are all the jobs "union" or just 50 of the jobs?
and as many as 650 new operations jobs when at full operational capacity...
What the hell? It takes 650 guys to operate a battery bank? Why? How do their salaries/benefits factor into the ongoing costs of providing electricity to 130,000 homes? That's one worker for every 200 homes,
Re: (Score:2)
That is enough to provide electricity to over 300,000 average U.S. homes instantaneously...
Where to start?
That is enough to provide electricity to over 300,000 average U.S. homes instantaneously
What does that mean? Seriously, I have. I idea what that metric is describing, "instantaneously"?
Um, it means that the (maximal) combined output of all the batteries produced in one year of full operation will meet the 'instantaneous' energy demand of 300,000 average US houses.
The project is expected to create up to 50 union contractor construction jobs
Are all the jobs "union" or just 50 of the jobs?
I'd suggest it means that the 50 (temporary) jobs created to construct the additional production lines will be union jobs. Not really 'a thing' over in the UK, but ./shrug. Each to their own...
and as many as 650 new operations jobs when at full operational capacity...
What the hell? It takes 650 guys to operate a battery bank? Why? How do their salaries/benefits factor into the ongoing costs of providing electricity to 130,000 homes? That's one worker for every 200 homes, and if we put the fully-loaded of each worker at, say $90K/year (including salary, taxes, benefits, pension, etc), that's $450/house/year BEFORE factoring in the cost of the electricity, be it solar, hydro, nuclear, fossil fuel, whatever.
No, it takes 650 guys to run the factory's full set of production lines (and perhaps install the batteries they produce). Lines which will
New Battery Tech of the Week (Score:2)
See also Zinc-Bromide flow batteries. (Score:2)
Redflow - https://redflow.com/
Thier ZBM3 module, used as base component to build larger modules, is a 'small doghouse' sized unit, which stores 10kWh. eg. Their QuadPod can store 40kWh up to 12 kW. Long term, standby power, with no need for a reserved amount of power for battery conditioning. 100% power drain is possible, and encouraged.
100% depth of discharge (Score:2)
I've used Zinc-Carbon (Score:1)