Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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