Submitted by lughnasadh t3_yw53j1 in Futurology
Reply to comment by doesnothingtohirt in Italian startup Energy Dome claims its CO2 grid storage batteries are cheaper than lithium-ion, and need no rare minerals, being made from just off-the-shelf steel components, water & CO2. It's opening its first 200 MWh facility in Sardinia in 2023 by lughnasadh
>>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.
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.
cost per KwH is really the king for grid scale storage.
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.
The fact these don't need the exotic elements to function, coupled with not needing major tech breakthroughs makes these incredibly viable.
Agreed.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments