Energy storage - how come nobody thought of this before?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

LTLFTcomposite

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
4,780
Location
Central FL
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11524958/energy-storage-rail

A variation on pumped storage - when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining trainloads of rocks moves uphill, then when the power is needed the trains move back down the hill.

Edit: A more detailed article here:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/first-of-its-kind-rail-energy-storage-project-targets-role-in-caiso-ancilla/417817/
 
It seems pretty complicated and would seem to require a lot of maintenance (read people and expense) to keep everything safe. I can't image the overall efficiency would be worth it over gravity water storage. Heck I would think something like a tall building with an "elevator" loaded with water moving up and down as peak loads came on and off would be more efficient.

Although overall I think the flywheel is the simplest with less infrastructure to support smaller peak shaving, but it would take a HUGE wheel to match moving a couple to tons of water up 500 feet and back down.
 
BrockWI said:
It seems pretty complicated and would seem to require a lot of maintenance (read people and expense) to keep everything safe. I can't image the overall efficiency would be worth it over gravity water storage. Heck I would think something like a tall building with an "elevator" loaded with water moving up and down as peak loads came on and off would be more efficient.

Although overall I think the flywheel is the simplest with less infrastructure to support smaller peak shaving, but it would take a HUGE wheel to match moving a couple to tons of water up 500 feet and back down.
Read a little closer, they point out advantages over pumped storage, not the least of which is you don't need water. Also much less impact on the land compared to building reservoir, dam, etc. Of course much of the article is from the perspective of ARES salesman, no doubt the pumped storage and flywheel salesman have their own powerpoints showing they are the preferred choice.
 
:) Yes I read that, a rail yard on a hill takes up less space and looks less intrusive than a tank sitting up 1000 feet on a hill? I am sure they could pick apart any storage medium and I am all for these types of peak shaving. I have though chemically storing power seems silly for grid scale peak demands and the kinetic or potential energy seems so much less costly and is easier to up scale, but understandably takes up more real-estate.
 
The enviromentists will probably have a heart attack at this idea but why not just pump sea water to a inland basin that is a few hundred feet above sea level to store wind and solar energy? Im not talking about a little project, but one on the scale of a Hoover Dam with mult-gigawatt power generation capacity, and you have a big lake for recreational use.
 
LKK said:
The enviromentists will probably have a heart attack at this idea but why not just pump sea water to a inland basin that is a few hundred feet above sea level to store wind and solar energy? Im not talking about a little project, but one on the scale of a Hoover Dam with mult-gigawatt power generation capacity, and you have a big lake for recreational use.


Because that makes sense, they banned that in the mid 80ies!
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11524958/energy-storage-rail

A variation on pumped storage - when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining trainloads of rocks moves uphill, then when the power is needed the trains move back down the hill.

Edit: A more detailed article here:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/first-of-its-kind-rail-energy-storage-project-targets-role-in-caiso-ancilla/417817/

Becuase frankly it is an idiotic idea on an efficiency level, so much friction losses, and just craptastical energy density
 
XeonPony said:
LKK said:
The enviromentists will probably have a heart attack at this idea but why not just pump sea water to a inland basin that is a few hundred feet above sea level to store wind and solar energy? Im not talking about a little project, but one on the scale of a Hoover Dam with mult-gigawatt power generation capacity, and you have a big lake for recreational use.


Because that makes sense, they banned that in the mid 80ies!
It's done with freshwater in Los Angeles by the DWP. Saltwater (in situ ocean water) is thankfully, importantly, and understandably corrosive... Tidal dam hydro in some areas might work too...

Low hanging fruit is efficiency, yes?
 
Roger Andrews at Energy Matters recently did some detailed analysis on ARES. Unlike many (most?) blogs, this is one where the comments are actually worth reading.

Poster "Willem Post" puts the cost at about $0.40/kWh, which he shows is comparable to Tesla batteries. To me it is almost axiomatic in the energy world that if you can achieve the same solution at the same cost, but in a distributed fashion then the distributed solution should be preferred. (FWIW, my estimate of cost of the Enphase AC Battery is that the BEST CASE cost is $0.12/kWh. In reality, the cost today will be higher than that because I used optimistic assumptions.)

But poster "TheProle" wrote the following:
TheProle commenting at Energy Matters said:
Increasing capacity could potentially be very cheap if you don’t want to draw it all down at once (i.e. to cover increasingly long periods of calm weather).

if you form trains with the locomotives separate to wagons loaded with weights, then you can have storage yards at the top and bottom of the system in which weighted wagons live for months at a time if needs be, with the locomotives returning up or down the system to collect more wagons as needed.
That is something that batteries do NOT offer: the ability to provide seasonal storage capability.

So for overnight storage, batteries almost certainly take the prize. But ARES will need to be weighed against other technologies such as hydrogen for seasonal storage. ARES has the benefits of high efficiency while hydrogen may have the benefit of low land-use cost (assuming it is stored in pipelines). Hydrogen also has the benefit of being able to be much more distributed.

Finally, "TheProle" also added this:
TheProle commenting at Energy Matters said:
All this said, as someone who has worked in connection with heavy rail and knows a bit about what would be involved, it all seems to me to be rather optimistic and fragile – I’m pretty sure it would work, but I’m also pretty sure it will cost a LOT more to maintain in working order than it’s proponents realize (railway track takes a good deal of looking after for instance)
But does his experience necessarily translate directly to fully-electric locomotives? Probably only partially. But clearly maintenance is something that needs to be considered here.

Bottom line is that I seriously doubt that ARES can compete with Li-ion batteries for "overnight" storage. But seasonal storage is still the nut that hasn't been cracked. If there is one interesting part of the Energiewende experiment, it is the seasonal storage of energy by putting hydrogen in the natural gas pipeline. This approach has the obvious benefit of being more efficient, but it has much higher land-use implications. Will either of these come into long-term use? Time will tell. (Are there other significant proposals out there for seasonal energy storage?)
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2016/07/27/americas-next-energy-source-the-water-tank/#3493e9626f70

The Department of Energy today released a report estimating that the U.S. hydroelectric capacity could increase by approximately 50% by 2050 and we wouldn’t have to dam new rivers.

Instead, the bulk of the new power capacity would come from Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH)...

And, ironically, raising the U.S. hydro capacity to 150 GW would save 30 trillion gallons of water by reducing the need to cool conventional power plants.
 
I think the author of the Forbes story is a bit confused. He makes these two correct statements:
Michael Kanellos at Forbes said:
Instead, the bulk of the new power capacity would come from Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH), i.e. pumping water into a tower or uphill reservoir and letting it rip when the grid demands it. Water is pumped in the off hours when power is cheaper and released during peak hours.
Michael Kanellos at Forbes said:
...while 36 GW would come from PSH.
But it seems that he does not realize that most pumped storage is accomplished by TWO dams. It is very doubtful that we will add 36 GW of pumped storage in the US using "towers".

On top of this, CA has just committed to remove five of their hydroelectric dams.
 
RegGuheert said:
...FWIW, my estimate of cost of the Enphase AC Battery is that the BEST CASE cost is $0.12/kWh. In reality, the cost today will be higher than that because I used optimistic assumptions...
Any recent updates in their pricing plans for final installed consumer price?

Found an old post from almost a year ago that noted a planned US$817 per kilowatt hour for volume purchases. If battery prices continue to fall at the rate they have in recent years, this will be a no brainer in a few years for those with solar and TOU/tiered plans to do peak shaving and arbitrage.
 
Back
Top