You must log in or register to comment.

Tombfyre t1_iwhltxm wrote

It'll be interesting to see if this scales well with other storage methods. Being able to store the liquid CO2 at ambient temperatures is definitely a plus.


MLS_Analyst t1_iwhuyzq wrote

Great video on this here:

Seems so much more promising than other potential solutions, like compressed air.


Tombfyre t1_iwhv9t9 wrote

Nice, I'll check that out. Yeah I was thinking this would likely be better than air storage. Seems like it might simpler, and possibly more efficient.


DukeLukeivi t1_iwjvyt1 wrote

Well that just sounds like a liquid air battery with more steps?

Liquid Air Batteries are by far the best possible solution I've seen, to support a full renewables grid and help sequester carbon.

  • They can harness and store over-peak power for months for later discharge

  • Can be constructed with standard piping and tanks already mass available

  • Sellable liquid nitrogen and oxygen created as primary course of function

  • Purifies air of other pollutants as a primary course of function

- Isolates atmospheric CO2 as a primary course of function, path to long-term sequestration.

The first two grid scale plants are going online within the next two years.

This isn't carbon negative and requires a lot of additional infrastructure to manage the CO2, which will surely leak to some extent. It seems roundly inferior overall.


Dischordance t1_iwk5ed0 wrote

To my understanding, the benefits from co2 come from being able to compress it into a liquid at room temperature leading to an efficiency advantage, and simpler, probably cheaper systems to build.

But moreover, I don't see any reason why both couldn't be viable in different situations, with liquid air near sources of waste thermal energy, etc.


DukeLukeivi t1_iwk6hma wrote

Their projected round trip efficiency is worse at the low end and break even at the high end. They share the same cheap industrial construction components.

Is just seems less valuable overall, especially as its not carbon negative. Like yeah hybrid cars help, but less valuable than full electric


Dischordance t1_iwk7mh2 wrote

The startup cost difference isn't negligible, and it could easily be used with a carbon capture project.

And I'll wait for third party tests on either's efficiency before I believe the real world numbers.

And, as someone who enjoys going offroad/off grid for longer than an electric will allow, I absolutely see the use case for hybrids.


DukeLukeivi t1_iwl3olb wrote

You don't have any numbers showing a lower start up cost, but blindly assert it must be better, while "waiting for numbers", wherein numbers projected are worse for your case - yep.

"Using it with carbon capture" is less efficient than the system which does both since much of the power your saving is then earmarked for capture, not going back to the grid.

Try another analogy: peaker planets are incandescent bulbs, your compact florescence are better to be sure but led have no mercury and last longer and use less power still.

Why are you so defensive about finding out there are even better options available?


Dischordance t1_iwltoze wrote

Because I doubt that a more complex system that requires extreme cold, and excess thermal energy and the storage of both will have both efficiency and cost advantages over a similar, less complex system that can function at ambient temperatures.

As this is a battery, it would be a one time carbon capture energy price, and then would be a form of sequestering it. It wouldn't be a constant input.

And until both are proven in the real world, where both are currently in the process of doing so. I don't think claiming one is so much better that the other has no use is warranted.

That is a better analogy than hybrids. Still don't think it's very applicable based on what I've seen.


GlockAF t1_iwn5xm1 wrote

You are underestimating the difficulty and especially the expense of dealing with cryogenic liquids, especially over the long term. Both the initial and ongoing maintenance costs of cryogenic pumps, seals, and pressure vessels is FAR more expensive than the very modest requirements for liquefying and storing CO2.

Just the fact that you can indefinitely store arbitrarily large quantities of liquefied CO2 in a room-temperature pressure vessel is a HUGE Advantage over dealing with cryogenic liquids. Bulk CO2 storage tanks and all the associated manifolds, valves, piping, and associated ancillary equipment don’t need to operate at high pressures or extreme temperatures, which means that they can be manufactured and maintained at far lower expense


EcchiOli t1_iwix8dp wrote

Thanks for the YT link. That was worth the watch


GlockAF t1_iwn3wpf wrote

The most critical part of this design is that utilizing the CO2 phase change from liquid to gaseous form and back limits overall pressure on system components to about 1200 psi, probably averaging closer to 850-900.

This means that the tanks, piping, manifolds, etc. do not have to handle high pressure like they would with a compressed air system, and can be built much more cheaply while still maintaining good safety margins.


DazedWithCoffee t1_iwkw679 wrote

I mean, compressed air is an awful energy storage method, so better than that is not an accomplishment


lughnasadh OP t1_iwhjofu wrote

Submission Statement

There are bold claims about cost, but the really interesting thing about Energy Dome is its potential speed of deployment. As it uses existing common off-the-shelf materials it can overcome many of the supply chain bottlenecks that bedevil other grid storage battery solutions.

More details are here.


palmej2 t1_iwi5tzv wrote

I remember seeing this about a year ago and thinking it was BS, but looking deeper and realizing it wasn't and had competitive efficiencies as well (not finding those details in this article though).

In addition to being a viable storage solution without as much dependence on limited materials, there are a few other potential pros: scalability as adding more storage could allow for increasing storage (and the storage I expect is relatively cheap compared to the compression/extraction equipment); potential symbiotic with sequestration installations (e.g. If the storage requirements are seasonal, it could be used to liquid extracted carbon for transport/long term sequestration, you could potentially even use the heat generated in that process for other purposes (e.g. If sequestered the heat isn't needed for subsequent evaporation and could be used in industrial or generation applications). It could make sense to put these on retired coal plants where they are already discussing use of thermal batteries to make power for more cross utilization of similar systems. Even if the systems need to be different, the spring workforce would benefit from economies of scale related to the worker skill sets (and the abandoned coal storage would be suitable for the larger footprints)


klone_free t1_iwj6x3d wrote

Looks like a closed loop extractor setup like you'd use in biomass extraction


ZalmoxisRemembers t1_iwhtsmd wrote

Amazing stuff. Battery + renewables tech are some of the most exciting things to keep an eye on these days.


Thatingles t1_iwi30rv wrote

Outstanding. Now let's see the round trip $/KwH comparison over it's lifetime.

(I'm not dismissing this tech but the cost/KwH is really really important).


compounding t1_iwiuwdc wrote

At this scale, they are claiming/aiming for a levelized (all in 30y lifetime) cost of ~$50\MWh, which would be substantially better than the best existing options.


doesnothingtohirt t1_iwhlnmm wrote

That’s sounds super inefficient. How much energy does the whole process use? Does it use as much as it can store?


lughnasadh OP t1_iwhp5iw wrote

>>That’s sounds super inefficient.

They claim the opposite.

In a research paper here they speak of an RTE (Radiative Transfer Efficiency) of 77%, and say the system's simplicity contributes to its efficiency, as it has only only two thermodynamic transformations: one compression and one expansion.


MashimaroG4 t1_iwhy3xr wrote

77% isn't great for batteries (For example Tesla's Powerwalls are 90% round trip efficient (you get 90% useable A/C power for the 100% you put in (includes all the AC->DC->AC steps, plus battery losses)

Of course if these are 40% cheaper, than that's what really matters for some power sources. Especially as we super saturate with solar and other.


Thatingles t1_iwi386b wrote

cost per KwH is really the king for grid scale storage.


wolfgang784 t1_iwibi08 wrote

We don't necessarily need 1 single type of battery for the entirety of the world to focus on, though.

Perhaps this replaces a large number of lithium battery uses, but if it doesn't make sense for bigger things like an electric car then we can still use the old tech. If it's made how they claim, it should be drastically better environmentally even if only a portion of the world's lithium ion battery uses are met.


Dischordance t1_iwj19zb wrote

The fact these don't need the exotic elements to function, coupled with not needing major tech breakthroughs makes these incredibly viable.


palmej2 t1_iwi8qxf wrote


I would point out that my understanding is the Powerwall neglects transmission and other losses to consumers. These would likely be more proximal to where the power comes in and thus big picture may be more competitive than 77% vs 90% (though grid scale would likely have that in common and the price basis you mentioned would still drive choice). Also batteries degrade and would likely have more significant maintenance/replacement costs. I know Powerwall can do larger installations, but believe they are more suited for end user demand whereas this is more grid scale.


Sp3llbind3r t1_iwikl08 wrote

Yeah, but if you can store solar or wind power that nobody can use at that moment it‘s not a 23% loss but a 77% win. If that power replaces fossil fuel power you would have to produce at night or in winter, it would be a huge win.


palmej2 t1_iwipxcx wrote

Yes, agree. But for a system such as this I think that would be common against all alternatives, the difference might be that the CO2 could allow for more capacity, or a reduced initial cost (making it more widely feasible) and potentially having additional future scalability benefits.


MashimaroG4 t1_iwik9pj wrote

True, they make a "megapack" or something that is being installed grid scale. I own two powerwalls and Solar (bought before Elon went off the deepend, but I think the economics are still about the best for Tesla Solar). So my generation is on the roof (I never charge from the grid, except for an impending storm). My current reading match up about with the spec sheet (for Month to date in Nov : 287kWhr in and 250kWhr out (and battery 87% charged as of noon, it normally charges to 100% by about 1pm if I'm not doing a lot of high energy items at home)


waylandsmith t1_iwiyrdv wrote

Oh, RTE means "Round Trip Efficiency". The paper's abstract doesn't make clear if this is a theoretical number from their numerical model (aka best case), or measured efficiency (real world). And ya, 77% is terrible compared to batteries, but possibly still useful in cases where you have so much overproduction at zero cost (really only solar) that it's still useful to throw out 1/4 of the energy.


UniversalMomentum t1_iwhnpc6 wrote

You have to be careful with efficiencies though the only important metric is really cost usually because I mean keep in mind like a solar panel is only 20% efficient but it's super cheap so who cares.


JackIsBackWithCrack t1_iwhxxyo wrote

Efficiency is very important for batteries.


WhileNotLurking t1_iwiazyj wrote

It's important in context as well.

If I have the same energy source and in storage and retrieval I lose 50% then yes that's horrible.

But if I'm grounding wind and solar in the day because I just make so much that I don't need it. And at night burn coal because the sun goes away. Storing energy, even at a 50% loss is a huge win.


Josvan135 t1_iwjx1o6 wrote

Efficiency is important as it relates to cost.

A battery that's 98% efficient at a cost of $350 per kWh is less cost-effective at scale than a battery that has 70% efficiency at a cost of $50 per kWh.

You also have to consider real world factors unrelated to direct efficiency such as scalability, supply chain, and complexity of manufacturing.

An extremely efficient battery that requires the most advanced manufacturing facilities in the world, using materials from a dozen different mines spread across 3 continents, is going to be much more difficult to scale than an average efficiency energy storage solution that uses (relative to industrial projects) ubiquitous off the shelf components.

In our current situation perfect is very much the enemy of good enough.


Yrrebnot t1_iwkdki1 wrote

Also efficiency is largely irrelevant if system cost is low and we are talking about storing renewable energy. Pumped hydro is considered viable and it’s far less efficient than 70% but it uses already existing technology and can use existing infrastructure as well (pumping water uphill into a reservoir to later be put through an already existing hydro plant for example).


AmiAlter t1_iwibez6 wrote

Right but of the battery is 70% then you are actually only getting 70% of 20% not even including the wasted power that the user has. Every step is a chance for more and more to be lost so we want to minimize that loss as much as possible.


drgrieve t1_iwid6ks wrote

Just to be contraion, but when the spot price of electricity is negative (which happens often in Australia) it actually pays to be inefficient.


AmiAlter t1_iwido3s wrote

Wait they pay you to waste electricity in Australia sometimes?


drgrieve t1_iwjvhdv wrote

Yes. The coal plants fight wind and solar for the right to not turn off and make it up for when the sun goes down. However they can't pay rooftop to turn off, so they are month by month losing the war. In Aus we install 200MW every month of rooftop. If everyone had rooftop as cheap as us they could do the same.


Krizz-Toff t1_iwi7aw8 wrote

if this is true and it does in fact work, its a game changer, even if its not as capable as rare earth material batteries.


waylandsmith t1_iwjbow5 wrote

What batteries use rare earth metals?


orberto t1_iwlfs51 wrote

I believe that would be lithium.


waylandsmith t1_iwm2x0o wrote

You should read up on what rare earth metals are. Lithium isn't one of them. They're on the opposite side of the product table. It's not even "rare" in the conventional sense. It ranks between lead and cobalt in abundance in the Earth's crust. Finally, it takes up only about 2.5% of the weight of a typical EV battery. Yes, we're currently in short supply during the rapid run-up in the EV market but it's also nearly perfectly recyclable, meaning eventually exhausted EV batteries will become a major source of lithium in new ones. That is, unless we move to another battery chemistry by then!


orberto t1_iwm3ie9 wrote

Coolio. Thanks for reading up so I don't have to! What is the answer to the original question then?


izybit t1_iwi0kke wrote

Lithium batteries don't have "rare minerals" either.


space_raccoon_ t1_iwiove0 wrote

Mining metals is not something we should continue to do. Technology moving us away from metals is good


izybit t1_iwixsqn wrote

Is this a joke or something? Humanity literally cannot exist without mining "metals".

You can move mining to space but that doesn't change the need for them.


space_raccoon_ t1_iwizrv6 wrote

Humanity literally can exist without mining, and did for a very long time. Mining is horrible for the environment, not that you care


izybit t1_iwjcebx wrote

Humanity's history is literally defined by the metals we could mine and use.

Before metals we were, very literally, banging stones together.


Angustony t1_iwmm3og wrote

So it turned out to be a good idea to move on from the stone age? It didn't stop us using stone completely, but it did allow us to progress.

Same thing going on here.


striderwhite t1_iwjerdt wrote

Everything is bad for the environment, even reddit, but here you are..


[deleted] t1_iwr5rbr wrote

about the dumbest shit i've ever read. thanks for the laugh


Mrogoth_bauglir t1_ix2fl71 wrote

Yes we can exist without mining. Hope you're willing to give up every comfort, amenity and convenience you have. You want us to live like cavemen without any material and scrounging just to stay alive, no thanks mate.


modsarefascists42 t1_iwl7c3i wrote

This might just be the stupidest comment I've seen in weeks. Congratulations.

We literally named the ages of human progress by the metals we were able to use. Bronze age, iron age, then silver and gold for mythical ones.


occupyOneillrings t1_iwku1qp wrote

75% round trip efficiency is surprisingly good, similar to pumped hydro.


FuturologyBot t1_iwhor7j wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

Submission Statement

There are bold claims about cost, but the really interesting thing about Energy Dome is its potential speed of deployment. As it uses existing common off-the-shelf materials it can overcome many of the supply chain bottlenecks that bedevil other grid storage battery solutions.

More details are here.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


Relevant-Pop-3771 t1_iwiczp7 wrote

No audio on this video. Also, if a big Lithium battery has a fire, it's not going to be another Lake Nyos tragedy (1986, Cameroon, 1,700 dead, CO2 suffocation).


lughnasadh OP t1_iwimkph wrote

> Lake Nyos tragedy

The size of Energy Dome's C02 bladders are miniscule in comparison to the amount of C02 released at Lake Nygos.

That tragedy released 1.2 cubic kilometer of gas. Here's a 1 cubic kilometer cube for scale; it dwarves the whole of Lower Manhattan.


Ludwigofthepotatoppl t1_iwiuusk wrote

They call it an energy dome but it’s not even red, much less shaped like a stepped cone.


Aggravating-Bottle78 t1_iwjz8ja wrote

I wonder how this compares to Highview Power from the UK which uses liquid air. And already has some working installations.


TrollingTrolls t1_iwnrcva wrote

MWh is nothing. That thing looks $$$ for putting out only 200 MWh. BUT, it looks really cheap to run.


OliverSparrow t1_iwuqpch wrote

Likely to have very poor efficiency by reason of the thermodynamics of Carnot engines. Delta T is low, efficiency =1−T^C T^Hor 1 - Delta T. CO2 has latent heat of 353.4 kJ/kg, not as bad as water (2256 kJ/kg) but not as good as R22 refrigerant (232) or heptane o hexane (mid 300s). You aren't going to release the storage fluid, so its constituent doesn't much matter.


ElectrikDonuts t1_iwk880y wrote

CO2 batteries? Wouldn’t you just charge the fuck out of these, through away the key, and celebrate the end of climate change?