Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

--
Johnny B Good

On 11/08/16 22:23, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

Bless!

Government money and research grants have never gone to projects that
had a future.

I know, I used to work on em.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 12/08/2016 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/16 22:23, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

Bless!

Government money and research grants have never gone to projects that
had a future.

I know, I used to work on em.

And he calls harry a parasite!

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 12/08/2016 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/16 22:23, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:58:02 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They might, otherwise there'd not be any research into the technology.

Bless!

Government money and research grants have never gone to projects that
had a future.

I know, I used to work on em.

And he calls harry a parasite!

The pot calling the kettle black, as usual.

On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.
They could be used as "pumped" storage on the grid to get windymills to
work better.
100,000l tanks aren't that big.

Dealing with the waste could be a long term problem though.

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

They could be used as "pumped" storage on the grid to get windymills to
work better.
100,000l tanks aren't that big.

Dealing with the waste could be a long term problem though.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/08/16 11:28, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.


Only technology that CAN theoretically equal a tank of diesel weight
for weight is lithium air. But its fraught with practical issues. At
least a decade away I would guess.






--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Only technology that CAN theoretically equal a tank of diesel weight for
weight is lithium air. But its fraught with practical issues. At least a
decade away I would guess.

And I wonder how long it will take to recharge the battery - I bet it's
longer than the 5 minutes or so that it takes to fill up with 60 litres of
diesel and add another 700 miles of range.

When people recharge electric cars at home, how do they get the mains power
to the car? Trailing extension cable from a socket in the garage etc, or
some sort of permanent charging point that has to be installed, maybe by
digging up drive to lay cables from nearest ring main. What sort of power
(ie what is current rating of cable) is typical?

Changing the subject, what is it about laptop batteries which mean that they
can hold less and less charge as they are recharged, to the point where they
eventually will not hold any charge and the laptop can only be used on the
mains? I've had this happen to each of my laptops, and I'm very careful
about not leaving it permanently on mains. I try to charge it in the evening
when I'm around to stop charging once it's 100%, rather than leaving it on
overnight or for many days without sometimes running it off battery and then
charging from low. Happened with HP, Acer and Samsung laptops.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

--
Johnny B Good

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 00:32:49 UTC+1, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

--

They will be installed in the basement of (groups of) houses in the future.
Energy density will not be an issue in this context.

Large central fossil fuel/nuclear electricity generation will gradually disappear.
This why the future of Hinkley point os in doubt.

Just as central heating is decentralised in large buildings these days.

On 13/08/2016 00:32, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:28:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 12/08/2016 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.

Not suggesting they were, just illustrating that the energy density is
pretty low in relative terms.

Yes, very low compared to our highest energy density portable fuelling
option (setting aside the needs of rocketry) but I think it's some 2 or 3
orders of magnitude better than your typical hydro pumped storage option
in terms of land usage which is why the technology is being researched at
all.

Not just land usage, but also suitable geography. The space is not much
use without the hills and water.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:51:14 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 11/08/2016 23:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/08/2016 17:58, Capitol wrote:

Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

Nice in that they have a long life and should not lose capacity over
time. However the normal problem of energy density still exists - many
offer less than 1MJ per litre (compared to 43MJ/l for petrol)


I don't think they are intended to replace petrol.
They could be used as "pumped" storage on the grid to get windymills to
work better.

I haven't done the calculations but I think the interest stems from the
fact that they do offer a viable alternative to pumped hydro storage,
especially when you've run out of viable 'topology' to make future hydro
pumped storage worth the effort (you need large scale projects which need
suitable topology also on a large scale).

100,000l tanks aren't that big.

The PV solar or wind farms they could serve would dwarf such Organic
flow battery add-on installations. However, grid power scale batteries
require significant levels of investment, hence the ongoing research to
find the best possible solution (best bang for your buck, least impact on
and risk to the environment).


Dealing with the waste could be a long term problem though.

That's obviously a major concern in making the final choice of Organic
Flow Battery technology. There'll almost certainly be a trade off between
energy density and toxicity of the chemistry employed.

Whilst the most obvious benefit will be to the 'renewable energy'
operators (who will foot the bill for co-sited energy storage) it's also
of benefit to the conventional energy operators who are currently relying
on pumped storage stations on the grid (Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in North
Wales for example) to smooth out demand.

A few more grid storage facilities scattered around the country wouldn't
come amiss to both improve operating efficiency and provide additional
resiliency to the grid. There's every incentive to get the research done
along this particular avenue, not only to find the best solution but also
to prove that this *will* be the correct solution at the end of the day.
It might turn out that the best solution is simply to add a few more
Nukes to the grid. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On 13/08/16 00:25, Johnny B Good wrote:
Whilst the most obvious benefit will be to the 'renewable energy'
operators (who will foot the bill for co-sited energy storage) it's also
of benefit to the conventional energy operators who are currently relying
on pumped storage stations on the grid (Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in North
Wales for example) to smooth out demand.

A few more grid storage facilities scattered around the country wouldn't
come amiss to both improve operating efficiency and provide additional
resiliency to the grid. There's every incentive to get the research done
along this particular avenue, not only to find the best solution but also
to prove that this *will* be the correct solution at the end of the day.
It might turn out that the best solution is simply to add a few more
Nukes to the grid. :-)

The real facts are that adding storage and removing renewable energy
would be the best thing for the grid.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Thursday, 11 August 2016 17:58:05 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

They are the future.
This why we don't need Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from ore.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from
ore.

The only metal that is done with is iron.

On Saturday, 13 August 2016 07:54:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from
ore.

The only metal that is done with is iron.

All metals that exist in the earth as oxides need coal etc to reduce them.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 13 August 2016 07:54:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a
future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the
article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a
cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when
that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for
high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major
hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from
ore.

The only metal that is done with is iron.

All metals that exist in the earth as oxides need coal etc to reduce them.

No coal is used when turning bauxite into aluminium.
Or with any of the other metals like copper, zinc tin etc either.

On 8/13/2016 6:40 AM, harry wrote:
On Friday, 12 August 2016 13:36:23 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 8/11/2016 5:58 PM, Capitol wrote:
Read a Telegraph article today on these. Do they have a future?

I was asked this in the pub last night, but had to look up the article.
What I thought was particularly poor was the journalist's implication
that there is so much progress that we will be able to rely on them
completely in five to ten years. Picking this Harvard one as a leader
when it is clearly still at the small scale laboratory stage was a cheap
tactic.

There's been serious research into batteries since the 1970's, I
remember meeting a guy who was working on the sodium-sulphur battery
when I was on a sodium handling course at Dounreay, at a time when that
was supposed to be imminent. Obviously, I welcome research by world
class organisations and I suspect that Musk is on to something for high
end domestic. But I don't see solar panels and windmills on the roof,
plus a cellar full of batteries, taking something like a major hospital
or medium to heavy industry off the grid. Not any time soon, at least.

We are always going to need oil/coal for the production of metals from ore.

I'd have said the really important use for oil/coal was in the
production of polymers. And however good their recycling becomes, I
can't see us managing without significant production anywhere in the
forseeable future.