+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 9535
Total Topics: 234
Most Online Today: 11
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 6
Total: 6

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 45 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 04, 2018, 01:49:55 pm »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

Tesla Plans To Triple Energy Storage Business This Year

May 3rd, 2018 by Steve Hanley

SNIPPET:

Quote
As we remind people frequently, Tesla is not a car company that also makes batteries, it is a battery company that also makes cars. (Note Google’s description in the screenshot below.) The cars get all the media attention, but the energy storage component may ultimately be more important to its stated mission of breaking the world of its fossil fuel addiction. 


Full article with eye opening grid battery response graphics:


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/03/tesla-plans-to-triple-energy-storage-business-this-year/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 02, 2018, 06:55:19 pm »

Is Sion Power’s Licerion Lithium Battery What The Electric Aviation World Has Been Waiting For?

April 2nd, 2018 by Nicolas Zart

It sounds as if the electric aviation news industry has somewhat tapered down, giving a chance for other competing electric mobility industries to make it into the limelight. But that doesn’t mean that the electric aviation industry is sitting idly either. In fact, Sion Power just announced a “breakthrough” in its Licerion lithium battery chemistry.

Licerion Lithium Battery Takes A Shot At Electric Aviation
Sion Power Licerion rechargeable lithiumSion Power made quite a stir when it announced it was ready for the production of its patented Licerion rechargeable lithium metal battery by late 2018 in its Tucson, Arizona facility. As to what a Licerion rechargeable lithium battery is, that’s a good question. Sion Power claims that it is 60% lighter than conventional Li-ion batteries, which could seriously boost the potential of electric aviation and the company’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) products. It supposedly offers a mouthwatering 500 Wh/kg, 1,000 Wh/L, and 450 cycle battery. And the best part is that if these numbers are good enough for the electric aviation industry, they surely are even better for road-bound electric vehicle (EV) markets.


Still, we need more details. This isn’t an April 1 joke, but it’s also unclear how good the offer is and what might be missing. Individually, the Licerion cells measure 10 cm x 10 cm x 1 cm (roughly 4″ x 4″ by .3″) and offer 20 Ah for the highest energy density combination currently available. At the core, a metallic lithium thin-film anode was designed with a host of physical and chemical levels of protection to enhance the safety and the lifespan of its lithium batteries. By combining these anodes with traditional lithium-ion intercalation cathodes, the company hopes to not only reach these high-energy-density numbers but to have them manufactured by year-end.

Sion Power Licerion rechargeable lithium

Tracy Kelley, Chief Executive Officer of Sion Power, recently stated, “Over the last decade Sion Power, and our research partner BASF, have strategically focused on meticulous research and development of a next-generation lithium battery. … The result of our team’s efforts will be seen in a safe lithium metal battery that is in a class by itself. We are on track to deliver product to a select group of partners by the end of 2018.”


The Never-Ending Quest For High-Energy-Density Batteries 👨‍🔬

Over the past decade, we’ve seen a few prospective battery chemistries vie for the lucrative newly budding EV market — from lithium-air, to sulfur, to mysterious solid-state batteries. Although each has their pros and cons, the results have always been decidedly better than what the current generation of batteries could offer. Once ironing out the last technological hurdles, mass manufacturing needs to be solved and eventually begin. This is where the wheat is separated from the chaff.

With various new batteries demonstrating what seems to be excellent performance for EVs, once thing is becoming more and more clear — there isn’t a silver-bullet approach that is a perfect solution for EVs, not even a silver buckshot. On the contrary, there are and will continue to be many good approaches.

If it is to work out as dreamed and pitched, though, the Sion Power Licerion battery could be one of the first to bring commercial electric flight to the mass market. Maybe. Perhaps. We’ll see.


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/is-sion-powers-licerion-lithium-battery-what-the-electric-aviation-world-has-been-waiting-for/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 04:56:13 pm »

Like almost everything in RE :" It depends"
If they are cycling its bank say to a 10 percent depth and using it as some kind of peaker plant to replace building a NG facility or back up wind or account for brownout which is what the press releases say then they could easily see 10000 cycles or more. If the local grid is in more trouble and they regularly have to dip down to 70 percent or more then yes the 5000 cycles could happen. I'm no lithium expert and Tesla is extremely guarded about releasing real engineering data versus press releases. Also Lithium ages weirdly. Just because it does not meet its initial specs does not mean it's toast. You could reconfigure it for a less demanding application and/or cycle in new components. In that way its no different then rebuilding a generator in a multi generator grid. One of its challenges is you need to control its temperature, cell by cell voltage etc or else when it goes wrong it really really goes wrong. That adds a lot of complexity and fail points. All that is justified in cars, for stationary... We will see how it rolls out and ages.


Thank you for your well reasoned and informative answer. I will continue monitoring the situation in Australia. I believe the Australians made a sound decision in buying this massive battery system from Musk. Furthermore, I continue to believe the use of the adjective "unsuitable" by Palloy to describe the Australian battery bank sold to them by Musk is deliberately disingenuous disparaging of the value of a system that has already avoided brown-outs with its 4 second (or less) response time. Battery technology aside, the cost savings in electrical appliance repair and replacement due to the superior smoothing effect over fossil fuel peaker plants, that this battery bank has already demonstrated, constitutes a significant amount of money NOT spent. That is a plus for the Australian battery system that must be part of the cost/benefit analysis.

Thanks again for the information about that system I posted about in Puerto Rico. I'll pass that on to some people I know down there.

Blue Planet Energy Supplies Energy Storage & Training In Puerto Rico
 


March 14th, 2018 by Jake Richardson

The energy storage provider Blue Planet Energy recently deployed its Blue Ion energy storage systems to support the electrification efforts in Puerto Rico.



Image Credit: Blue Planet Energy

These deployments took place in areas where there has not been reliable electricity since September of 2017, when Hurricane Maria struck. One site is a volunteer housing facility in the Isabela municipality and the other is located in the Corozal municipality to provide electricity to a clean water pumping system. Blue Planet Energy is also providing support through training and education sessions.

Too many of Puerto Rico’s residents have not had a functioning electric grid since Hurricane Maria’s landfall in September. Our Blue Ion units will provide critical sites with reliable, safe and self-sustained power to ensure they can continue providing essential services to their communities. We’re proud to be able to lend our support to Puerto Rico and to contribute to its mission of rebuilding with stronger, cleaner and more reliable energy infrastructure,” said Henk Rogers, Blue Planet Energy CEO and founder.

A 16 kilowatt-hour (kWh) Blue Ion 2.0 battery unit was installed at the well pumping system in Corozal. The energy storage technology is working with a 7 kW solar power system in a remote neighborhood called Palos Blanco. This area was experiencing a lack of both clean water and reliable electricity, so the solar power and energy storage system is helping to produce both.

“Our mission on the ground in Puerto Rico is to coordinate with the EPA and FEMA to install safe drinking water stations and solar-powered pumping systems to service those that need it most, ” explained Mark Baker, Director of Disaster Response for Water Mission. This organization is working to address water safety in many rural communities in Puerto Rico.

Another 16 kWh Blue Ion system was deployed at the Las Dunas volunteer center. This facility supports aid workers who are installing solar power kits by providing them with housing and assistance. Up to 15 volunteers can be housed there, but the structure was without power until the new system was deployed.

“Partnering with Blue Planet Energy has helped to supply reliable power for our base operations, allowing us to meet our mission of deploying solar kits to areas hardest hit by Maria,” explained Walter Meyer-Rodriguez the Coastal Marine Resource Center project lead.

In fact, CMRC has plans to add over 100 more solar power + energy storage systems in under-served areas of Puerto Rico.

Blue Planet Energy also sponsored the Puerto Rico Solar Energy Industries Association’s inaugural Clean Energy Summit in San Juan in February to address how energy storage could help in the island’s recovery.

“Being on the ground in Puerto Rico and speaking with people from communities impacted by Hurricane Maria, we’ve seen firsthand the risk that centralized power systems pose and the hardship they can leave in the wake of a devastating weather event. The Blue Planet Energy team is thrilled to pass on the knowledge and tools for reliable, well-designed off-grid power so that Puerto Ricans can rebuild their communities,” stated Blue Planet Energy’s Vice President of Engineering Kyle Bolger.

The Blue Ion off-grid ferrous phosphate battery system has products at 8 kWh, 16 kWh, and a much larger option that can be scaled up to 450 kWh.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/14/blue-planet-energy-supplies-energy-storage-training-puerto-rico/

Agelbert COMMENT: I applaud storage techology. This will help Puerto Ricans get off the profit over planet treadmill of fossil fuel 😈 energy price gouging for good!
It really is a great product.  We are a dealer for them. The lithium iron phosphate cell has great potential...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 02:45:27 pm »

Solar Batteries: Lithium Iron Phosphate vs Lead Acid

comparing lithium ion phosphate batteries to lead acid batteries

8 Reasons Lithium is Better for Solar Energy Storage
Sometimes newer isn’t better. But in the case of solar battery technology, the newer lithium iron phosphate batteries (LiFePO4, or LFP) defeat the older lead acid varieties in almost every way.

Without getting too technical, here are 8 reasons lithium squashes lead if you’re looking to buy and install a solar energy system in your home or business:

1. Safe enough for Grandma to use

LFP solar batteries will not explode or catch fire. They use very stable chemical compounds. They are stable even at high temperatures. And if you’re wondering about those exploding laptops and cell phones from a few years ago, those were lithium-cobalt batteries. Not the same thing.

In contrast, lead batteries have all sorts of stuff that can go wrong without proper maintenance, like spilled or leaking acid. Which leads to reason #2.

2. No need for a “solar-sitter” while you’re on vacation

Your dog might need help while you’re gone, but your lithium iron solar battery will be just fine on its own. It needs no ongoing maintenance like voltage monitoring or refills.

In contrast, lead acid requires a lot of monitoring and upkeep. Otherwise, lots of things can go wrong, including leakage, loss of power, and a big hole in your wallet. Some varieties need more work than others, like refilling the electrolyte solution with fresh water and checking specific gravity. But all of them require more technical skill and attention. See this article for all the specialized work you have to do with lead acid solar batteries.

If you have lithium iron batteries, you avoid all that maintenance and risk.

3. This is a marathon, not a sprint. LFP lasts way longer.

Again, specific data varies by brand and type. But a typical lithium iron phosphate battery will last for 8-10 years and for thousands of cycles. The sonnenbatterie, a lithium iron phosphate solar storage battery used by Coastal Solar uses, is guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years and 10,000 cycles.

How much worse are lead acid batteries? They usually last less than 3 years, and the best ones might make it to 1000 cycles. So while lead batteries cost less up front, they won’t last nearly as long, and you’ll pay for multiple replacements before the LFP would have run out.

What’s a cycle? Think of your phone. When the battery light flashes, that means you’ve ‘discharged’ the battery. Once you ‘recharge’ it back to full power, that’s one cycle. How long a cycle lasts depends on a lot of factors, such as how far down you discharge it each time and the local temperature.

4. Solar batteries care about their weight too.

Lithium batteries generally weigh less than half of what comparable lead acid batteries weigh. This means lower shipping costs, less stress during installation, and less strain on your walls, or wherever you end up installing it.

lithium iron phosphate solar batteries beat lead acid batteries

5. Lithium is “green,” even if you’re not.

You’ll have to discard your battery eventually. The chemicals in the LFP solar batteries are non-toxic and cause no harm to the environment. They contain no rare metals or what is commonly referred to as battery acid – which is very dangerous.

Lead batteries, on the other hand, use dangerous chemicals that are harmful – to you and to the fish. So even if you maintain it properly, disposing of a lead battery is environmentally problematic. Regardless of whether you consider yourself an ‘environmentalist,’ choosing lithium over lead is an easy way to help the planet and impress your friends.

6. Versatility, thy name is lithium iron phosphate

A stable battery is a huge advantage. It means you can orient it however is most convenient, and put it wherever you want. Lithium solar batteries like the sonnenbatterie can be installed indoors or outdoors, in any room of your house, and on the walls or on the floor.

While some lead acid batteries also offer some flexibility as far as not requiring it to sit a certain way, they do not offer the range of installation options of the LFPs.

7. Holding nothing back – full discharge ⚡

Remember the cycles? Lithium batteries can be fully discharged without risk and without loss of future capacity. That means longer cycles, and fewer of them.

Lead batteries can only be about 80% discharged, or they risk being damaged – this is another thing you have to monitor.

8. Stable in the face of boredom

Do batteries get bored when they aren’t being used? With LFP solar batteries, it doesn’t matter. Their capacity barely budges even when not in use, and they have minimal self-discharge. This is a huge advantage, because if you’re gone for a while or don’t need the battery for certain times of day, it will be at full capacity when you return.

But lead batteries do self-discharge and lose a lot more capacity even when not in continuous use. So you get less out of it when you need it.

There’s another battery issue called the “memory effect.” This problem actually doesn’t occur with either lithium iron phosphate or lead acid batteries, so in our little contest, they tie on this point. But it’s still good to know that the LFP holds its own on this issue.

What’s the memory effect? It’s when your battery seems to lose capacity over time at a faster rate than it should. Over time, all batteries wear out and don’t recharge as much, but this should happen at a slow rate. But some batteries have a peculiar habit of resetting their maximum based on how much you discharge it.

For example, some phones have this problem. If you only use half the capacity and then recharge it, the battery “remembers” a lower maximum capacity as a result. Thus, it stays charged for much less time in the future.


Lithium iron phosphate solar batteries do not suffer from the memory effect.

https://coastalsolar.com/lithium-iron-phosphate-vs-lead-acid/
All battery makers how shall we put it... talk up their qualities and remain quiet on their drawbacks. I won't get into a peeing match with you on this but lithium is not the end all beat all for stationary uses... At least not yet. Here are some challenges to consider and understand I'm a believer:

1) Lithium batteries are still too new and are not recycled to any great degree. That will change as volume increases.

2)they require a sophisticated battery management system without which they are a brick

3)you either get several thousand cycles or 80-90 percent discharge rates... not both

So partial truths from above:
1)lead acid maintenance, I add water to mine twice a year, sealed versions are just that sealed and require nothing for their entire lifespan

2)recyclability: I cannot force people to recycle their batteries but in this part of the world every scrap yard will pay you money for them. Lead is recycled commercially and the cost is built into the cost of purchase. Sulphuric acid is also recycled and it is a fairly easy manufactured chemical we have been making since the industrial revolution.

3) the memory effect usually only applies to nickel chemistries. in lead acid maybe sulphating could be considered memory but that is bad charging and takes continued neglect to occur.
Again, for discussion only not to pee in your sandbox.
Cheers,  David


Sure. I'm just saying that arbitrarily trashing Lithium, like Palloy wants to do, lacks objectivity. In welcome contrast, you weigh the pros and cons objectively. I respect you for that. 

As an expert, could you inform me as to what the actual number of cycles the 129MWh set up in Australia is limited by? Do you agree with the "5,000" CORRECTION  :-[ "8,000" cycle limitation Palloy claims they have?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 02:08:44 pm »

Oops, dumb question. I didn't get it the way I wanted. The battery question on strings was for my off-grid set-up at the farm. I know you need to know the power usage to figure out how big a bank, but I was just hoping for an off-the-cuff idea about what would be typical for my 4800 watts of panel I have waiting to be installed. Just a ballpark.

I probably won't battery back up the house.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 02:07:34 pm »

I've been following this discussion. I appreciate the input from a pro. David, please comment on Nickle-Iron as a PV storage choice.

And how big a bank do I need for my 4.8kW array with 5 hr sun? I was thinking two strings might be better than one. 48V.

I am probably going to do a grid-tie for our house in the canyon. I recently got a new roof (composition shingles). Any advice on the best racking attachment choices to avoid leaks?

The nickel Iron is a great chemistry but it shines best in charge discharge settings. For a grid connected system with battery backup its overkill. With an eye on doom it is worth considering though. at least twice the price of lead calcium which is the most common for data centres, elevators, hospitals etc all long life low usage batteries. Call me old fashion but I would probably suggest two strings of the less costly chemistry for redundancy. How much you store is always tricky. when we do net metered with battery backup we size the bank smaller say one day due to the fact the solar arrays for net metered systems are so large. In your case the scenario would be a grid connected inverter with the ability to sell back to the grid like the Radian:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeS-wGtlpLc from outback. Schneider and sunny boy have their versions. It charges up your battery first then feeds surplus to the grid. You then install a critical loads panel for what matters in your house just like for a backup generator. if power goes out you use the daytime hours to supplement you battery capacity by running everything that uses a lot of power during the day since the battery bank will be topped up within hours and the rest wasted. In your climate you might need to have smaller split air conditioners that can be run on solar you would run them full out while the sun is up and coast at night. Whole house units are real hogs on start up. The nice thing is even if you can't do grid tie you can grid zero  with the same setup which uses the grid to back up but feeds nothing back to it. That scenario is for when your utility is being difficult; utility push back to solar is real and growing. For mounts I like the flat plates with mastic and a drip cover. Usually you screw into a rafter and seal which can get messy if you miss but the flat plates allow you to go on the sheathing directly.  We use this one here: http://hespv.ca/fr-talon  but most suppliers have something similar.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:37:15 pm »

Some deliberately erroneous info on the Musk Australian battery bank, that he SOLD them (he did NOT "give" them) has been posted by (not so) closet fossil fueler Palloy. The 109 MW.h figure for the battery bank quoted by Palloy is also erroneous.

Quote
At roughly five PowerPacks per MWh of energy generation, South Australia's Tesla battery setup will comprise several hundred PowerPack towers -- each containing 16 individual battery pods that balance charge. The 129MWh of batteries to be installed at Hornsdale is roughly equivalent to the capacity installed into Tesla's new electric cars during five days of Model S and Model X production at its plant in Fremont, California.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/all-the-details-on-teslas-giant-australian-batteryt/

Quote
December 28, 2017 Less than a month after Tesla unveiled a new backup power system in South Australia, the world’s largest lithium-ion battery is already being put to the test. And it appears to be far exceeding expectations: In the past three weeks alone, the Hornsdale Power Reserve has smoothed out at least two major energy outages, responding even more quickly than the coal-fired backups that were supposed to provide emergency power.

Tesla’s battery last week kicked in just 0.14 seconds after one of Australia’s biggest plants, the Loy Yang facility in the neighbouring state of Victoria, suffered a sudden, unexplained drop in output, according to the International Business Times. And the week before that, another failure at Loy Yang prompted the Hornsdale battery to respond in as little as four seconds — or less, according to some estimates — beating other plants to the punch. State officials have called the response time “a record,” according to local media.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/tesla-mega-battery-south-australia-outage-reaction-time-hornsdale-power-reserve-a8130986.html


I have warned Palloy several times about his penchant for taking every opportunity to attack anything that endangers the use of fossil fuels for energy.

He ignores all my warnings. I will not allow false information to be disseminated here. Consequently, I have deleted it and reposted it below with the portions of the Palloy post that are false eliminated.



Don't quote me but the 8kW version retail 14000 canadian. That is the most expensive format though the 16 kw version close to 20000 canadian.

At those prices, I'll stick to a couple of Lead-Acid Deep Cycle Marine Batts.  ::)

RE

"each have strengths and weaknesses", indeed.

... how a battery developed for EV car use can also be used for grid back-up...  Elon Musk ... South Australia MW.h ... ... batteries, ... ... batteries.

I am grateful to David B. for shedding accurate information on battery technology, including the one Musk uses,  instead of trying to use a forum to attack Musk.

Don't quote me but the 8kW version retail 14000 canadian. That is the most expensive format though the 16 kw version close to 20000 canadian.

At those prices, I'll stick to a couple of Lead-Acid Deep Cycle Marine Batts.  ::)

RE
"each have strengths and weaknesses", indeed.

It makes me wonder how a battery developed for EV car use can also be used for grid back-up, which is the opposite of a mobile situation, where Lead Iron Phosphate excels.  Elon Musk gave South Australia 109 MW.h of his batteries, as a loss-leader, knowing they would have to come back in 8,000 cycles time and buy some more unsuitable batteries.
We spitball this issue at work a lot. Lithium is great for fast instantaneous storage the kind they installed in Australia. Its also really good for peak shaving like they use it for in California. I won't claim insight into Musk's motives but building volume at a loss and keeping his companies in the news cycle to maintain share price are certainly part of it. I like lead carbon, flow batteries and even Aquion if they ever get their power density up. Lithium for mobile applications is hard to beat right now. Then you have to consider that when the cars are done with the batteries the batteries are still good for several thousand cycles at a lesser charge/discharge rate. Lots of startups in that area. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:35:32 pm »

I've been following this discussion. I appreciate the input from a pro. David, please comment on Nickle-Iron as a PV storage choice.

And how big a bank do I need for my 4.8kW array with 5 hr sun? I was thinking two strings might be better than one. 48V.

I am probably going to do a grid-tie for our house in the canyon. I recently got a new roof (composition shingles). Any advice on the best racking attachment choices to avoid leaks?

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:34:45 pm »

Well, Anchorage averages 1.5 hours of usable sun in the winter. Our problem is you get 2, 3, 4, 10 days of very little sun then 5 hours on one day. You try to size battery banks to store 2 days of usage while not destroying them. You can add extra generator time or oversizing arrays but that is the general rule. So for you: say you could make that 3kW per day we would want to store 6kW Hr while not discharging a lead acid bank more then 60-70 percent at most. For you 4 L16 6 volt 400 amp hour batteries with a 2.4 kW array. About $1600 for the battery bank good for 5-10 years depending on how you abuse it.

$1600 is more in budget, but really I don't need that much.  Beside SUN (or lack therof) we get a lot of WIND here in the valley, it comes whistling down off the mountains at least 1/2 the days where I live in the Winter.  Then in summer of course you get much more sun for much longer periods of time.  If I was really trying to go off grid and not just stay prepped for temporary outages, I think I could get away with 2kwh of storage.  I would trim my usage considerably also on days my system wasn't generating power as well.

RE
The smart human is always best for these things. Its a non linear relationship between depth of discharge and life cycle for batteries which is why we do larger banks.
Sleep time...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:33:14 pm »

Well, Anchorage averages 1.5 hours of usable sun in the winter. Our problem is you get 2, 3, 4, 10 days of very little sun then 5 hours on one day. You try to size battery banks to store 2 days of usage while not destroying them. You can add extra generator time or oversizing arrays but that is the general rule. So for you: say you could make that 3kW per day we would want to store 6kW Hr while not discharging a lead acid bank more then 60-70 percent at most. For you 4 L16 6 volt 400 amp hour batteries with a 2.4 kW array. About $1600 for the battery bank good for 5-10 years depending on how you abuse it.

$1600 is more in budget, but really I don't need that much.  Beside SUN (or lack therof) we get a lot of WIND here in the valley, it comes whistling down off the mountains at least 1/2 the days where I live in the Winter.  Then in summer of course you get much more sun for much longer periods of time.  If I was really trying to go off grid and not just stay prepped for temporary outages, I think I could get away with 2kwh of storage.  I would trim my usage considerably also on days my system wasn't generating power as well.

RE

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:32:21 pm »

for the moment that is what we recommend as well. Its still in the early adopter stage. They do have advantages due to lithiums acceptance of higher current for charging and discharging. So for an off grid scenario you can massively oversize the solar array due to cheap solar panels and get it all in with a relatively small battery bank. Lead's rate of charge/discharge is more fixed so you would have to double the bank size to equal the charge rate which lowers the cost difference. There are also some problems in our area due to Lithium's poor cold charging characteristics. I like them. I will like them more in 5 years...

Bottom line here is I just don't see the need for so much storage or power generation.  You just need to keep a few diode lights on and keep your laptop charged up and a fridge running.  How much power does that really take?

RE
Individually you are right but you rely on portions of the public grid you are not factoring in. For now most people in western world off grid homes or using between 2 and 30 kW Hrs of power per day. Both of those are outliers average probably 6-12 kW Hr
All my own observations of course.


I average 140 kwh/month, for about 5/day.  However, this is far more than I really need, I could quite easily get by on half that with no change in lifestyle at all.  I could get under 1 if I made a few small changes like doing outdoor refrigeration through the winter, etc.  WTF do I need 8kwh of storage for?

RE

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:02:58 pm »

for the moment that is what we recommend as well. Its still in the early adopter stage. They do have advantages due to lithiums acceptance of higher current for charging and discharging. So for an off grid scenario you can massively oversize the solar array due to cheap solar panels and get it all in with a relatively small battery bank. Lead's rate of charge/discharge is more fixed so you would have to double the bank size to equal the charge rate which lowers the cost difference. There are also some problems in our area due to Lithium's poor cold charging characteristics. I like them. I will like them more in 5 years...

Bottom line here is I just don't see the need for so much storage or power generation.  You just need to keep a few diode lights on and keep your laptop charged up and a fridge running.  How much power does that really take?

RE

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 01:00:41 pm »

for the moment that is what we recommend as well. Its still in the early adopter stage. They do have advantages due to lithiums acceptance of higher current for charging and discharging. So for an off grid scenario you can massively oversize the solar array due to cheap solar panels and get it all in with a relatively small battery bank. Lead's rate of charge/discharge is more fixed so you would have to double the bank size to equal the charge rate which lowers the cost difference. There are also some problems in our area due to Lithium's poor cold charging characteristics. I like them. I will like them more in 5 years...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 12:59:42 pm »

Don't quote me but the 8kW version retail 14000 canadian. That is the most expensive format though the 16 kw version close to 20000 canadian.

At those prices, I'll stick to a couple of Lead-Acid Deep Cycle Marine Batts.  ::)

RE

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 12:57:56 pm »

It really is a great product.  We are a dealer for them. The lithium iron phosphate cell has great potential...

How much do they cost?

RE



About 3 times the cost of a lead acid agm bank of the same capacity but should last 4 times longer. It's complicated though because each have strengths and weaknesses. It's a great product.

How much for the 8KwH version?

RE

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2018, 12:54:23 pm »

Blue Planet Energy Supplies Energy Storage & Training In Puerto Rico
 


March 14th, 2018 by Jake Richardson

The energy storage provider Blue Planet Energy recently deployed its Blue Ion energy storage systems to support the electrification efforts in Puerto Rico.

Image Credit: Blue Planet Energy

These deployments took place in areas where there has not been reliable electricity since September of 2017, when Hurricane Maria struck. One site is a volunteer housing facility in the Isabela municipality and the other is located in the Corozal municipality to provide electricity to a clean water pumping system. Blue Planet Energy is also providing support through training and education sessions.


Too many of Puerto Rico’s residents have not had a functioning electric grid since Hurricane Maria’s landfall in September. Our Blue Ion units will provide critical sites with reliable, safe and self-sustained power to ensure they can continue providing essential services to their communities. We’re proud to be able to lend our support to Puerto Rico and to contribute to its mission of rebuilding with stronger, cleaner and more reliable energy infrastructure,” said Henk Rogers, Blue Planet Energy CEO and founder.

A 16 kilowatt-hour (kWh) Blue Ion 2.0 battery unit was installed at the well pumping system in Corozal. The energy storage technology is working with a 7 kW solar power system in a remote neighborhood called Palos Blanco. This area was experiencing a lack of both clean water and reliable electricity, so the solar power and energy storage system is helping to produce both.

“Our mission on the ground in Puerto Rico is to coordinate with the EPA and FEMA to install safe drinking water stations and solar-powered pumping systems to service those that need it most, ” explained Mark Baker, Director of Disaster Response for Water Mission. This organization is working to address water safety in many rural communities in Puerto Rico.

Another 16 kWh Blue Ion system was deployed at the Las Dunas volunteer center. This facility supports aid workers who are installing solar power kits by providing them with housing and assistance. Up to 15 volunteers can be housed there, but the structure was without power until the new system was deployed.

“Partnering with Blue Planet Energy has helped to supply reliable power for our base operations, allowing us to meet our mission of deploying solar kits to areas hardest hit by Maria,” explained Walter Meyer-Rodriguez the Coastal Marine Resource Center project lead.

In fact, CMRC has plans to add over 100 more solar power + energy storage systems in under-served areas of Puerto Rico.

Blue Planet Energy also sponsored the Puerto Rico Solar Energy Industries Association’s inaugural Clean Energy Summit in San Juan in February to address how energy storage could help in the island’s recovery.

“Being on the ground in Puerto Rico and speaking with people from communities impacted by Hurricane Maria, we’ve seen firsthand the risk that centralized power systems pose and the hardship they can leave in the wake of a devastating weather event. The Blue Planet Energy team is thrilled to pass on the knowledge and tools for reliable, well-designed off-grid power so that Puerto Ricans can rebuild their communities,” stated Blue Planet Energy’s Vice President of Engineering Kyle Bolger.

The Blue Ion off-grid ferrous phosphate battery system has products at 8 kWh, 16 kWh, and a much larger option that can be scaled up to 450 kWh.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/14/blue-planet-energy-supplies-energy-storage-training-puerto-rico/

Agelbert COMMENT: I applaud storage techology. This will help Puerto Ricans get off the profit over planet treadmill of fossil fuel 😈 energy price gouging for good!
It really is a great product.  We are a dealer for them. The lithium iron phosphate cell has great potential...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 14, 2018, 05:50:38 pm »

Blue Planet Energy Supplies Energy Storage & Training In Puerto Rico
 


March 14th, 2018 by Jake Richardson

The energy storage provider Blue Planet Energy recently deployed its Blue Ion energy storage systems to support the electrification efforts in Puerto Rico.

Image Credit: Blue Planet Energy

These deployments took place in areas where there has not been reliable electricity since September of 2017, when Hurricane Maria struck. One site is a volunteer housing facility in the Isabela municipality and the other is located in the Corozal municipality to provide electricity to a clean water pumping system. Blue Planet Energy is also providing support through training and education sessions.


Too many of Puerto Rico’s residents have not had a functioning electric grid since Hurricane Maria’s landfall in September. Our Blue Ion units will provide critical sites with reliable, safe and self-sustained power to ensure they can continue providing essential services to their communities. We’re proud to be able to lend our support to Puerto Rico and to contribute to its mission of rebuilding with stronger, cleaner and more reliable energy infrastructure,” said Henk Rogers, Blue Planet Energy CEO and founder.

A 16 kilowatt-hour (kWh) Blue Ion 2.0 battery unit was installed at the well pumping system in Corozal. The energy storage technology is working with a 7 kW solar power system in a remote neighborhood called Palos Blanco. This area was experiencing a lack of both clean water and reliable electricity, so the solar power and energy storage system is helping to produce both.

“Our mission on the ground in Puerto Rico is to coordinate with the EPA and FEMA to install safe drinking water stations and solar-powered pumping systems to service those that need it most, ” explained Mark Baker, Director of Disaster Response for Water Mission. This organization is working to address water safety in many rural communities in Puerto Rico.

Another 16 kWh Blue Ion system was deployed at the Las Dunas volunteer center. This facility supports aid workers who are installing solar power kits by providing them with housing and assistance. Up to 15 volunteers can be housed there, but the structure was without power until the new system was deployed.

“Partnering with Blue Planet Energy has helped to supply reliable power for our base operations, allowing us to meet our mission of deploying solar kits to areas hardest hit by Maria,” explained Walter Meyer-Rodriguez the Coastal Marine Resource Center project lead.

In fact, CMRC has plans to add over 100 more solar power + energy storage systems in under-served areas of Puerto Rico.

Blue Planet Energy also sponsored the Puerto Rico Solar Energy Industries Association’s inaugural Clean Energy Summit in San Juan in February to address how energy storage could help in the island’s recovery.

“Being on the ground in Puerto Rico and speaking with people from communities impacted by Hurricane Maria, we’ve seen firsthand the risk that centralized power systems pose and the hardship they can leave in the wake of a devastating weather event. The Blue Planet Energy team is thrilled to pass on the knowledge and tools for reliable, well-designed off-grid power so that Puerto Ricans can rebuild their communities,” stated Blue Planet Energy’s Vice President of Engineering Kyle Bolger.

The Blue Ion off-grid ferrous phosphate battery system has products at 8 kWh, 16 kWh, and a much larger option that can be scaled up to 450 kWh.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/14/blue-planet-energy-supplies-energy-storage-training-puerto-rico/

Agelbert COMMENT: I applaud storage techology. This will help Puerto Ricans get off the profit over planet treadmill of fossil fuel 😈 energy price gouging for good!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 11, 2018, 12:06:32 am »

Bloomberg/Westly was trying to explain something to the public, and got it horribly garbled. You posted it as something good.  They deserve my criticism.  At least you (hopefully) won't go around saying  “In the future, people will talk about energy in terms of kilowatts per hour instead of oil per barrels.”

You don't believe in Peak Oil, I do. That's called a disagreement.  It doesn't give you the right to disparage me without pointing out the errors in Peak Oil, which you have never done and cannot do because it is real. The only person that is weakened by this error is YOU.

Conservancy is not effective, it is being steam-rollered into the ground by big business, as shown by your "biodiversity problems still outstanding" image.  "calling a halt to development isn’t an option." is where they go wrong, and when dealing with "governments and corporations to farmers and indigenous communities" with that attitude, they will always lose.


 

"Horribly garbled"? My, what ridiculous hyperbole. I understood what he was saying just fine, thank you. YOU were the one claiming a news item for the public should follow thermodynamic energy measurement rigor. That's really grasping at straws, Palloy. 👎 Stop with the Kwh thing. Anybody knows what that is all about. It just bends you out of shape to read any article that says oil is going to be replaced by renewably sourced energy from batteries, so you start a hair splitting hyperbole campaign. Same on you!

And BY THE WAY, you CAN use up X number of Kilowatts in a given second, minute or hour, AS YOU KNOW, but the Kwh measure is what they use to bill you for the electricity, so stop playing silly games with nomenclature!

And now you are attacking The Nature Conservancy and their Chief Scientist mathematician too?

You just canot take correction gracefully, can you?

And as to Peak Oil, I HAVE pointed out the MANY errors in peak oil, over and over. You just keep ignoring them! HERE are some of the most recent examples:

Quote
by Marianna Parraga (Reuters) – Mexico’s state-run Pemex [PEMX.UL] might bring partners into two heavy crude oilfields in the Gulf’s shallow waters, the company’s chief said on Tuesday, move that could help ease a lack of heavy barrels in the Atlantic basin.

After nine bidding rounds in just three years and a presidential election scheduled in July, Mexico’s oil regulator has started a campaign to convince Pemex and foreign investors that this is the moment to develop much needed extra-heavy oil reserves.

“We are looking to increase production, including heavy crude, so we might put on the table some farmouts mainly for those fields that need secondary recovery strategies,” Pemex’s CEO Carlos Trevino said during a news conference during the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.

Quote
Dominican Republic to Join Caribbean Energy 🦖 Exploration Rush

By Bloomberg on Mar 06, 2018 04:11 pm


Quote
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 03/06/18 08:42 AM EST 
   
Trump touts report US is set to become world’s top oil producer

President Trump on Tuesday celebrated a report from the International Energy Agency which claims the U.S. will become the world's leading oil producer by 2023.

AND HERE is the article that SHOULD have put to rest in your mind  any idea that peak oil will save us from Catastrophic Climate Change:


"Peak Oil will save us from Climate Change:" a meme that never went viral

By Ugo Bardi

Thursday, October 8, 2015

The idea that peak oil will save us from climate change has been occasionally popping up in the debate, but it never really gained traction for a number of good reasons. One is that, in many cases, the proponents were also climate science deniers and that made them scarcely credible. Indeed, if climate change does not exist (or if it is not caused by human activities), then how is it that you are telling us that peak oil will save us from it? Add to this that many hard line climate science deniers are also peak oil deniers (since, as well known, both concepts are part of the great conspiracy), then, it is no surprise that the meme of "peak oil will save us" never went viral.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask the question of whether we have sufficient amounts of fossil fuel to generate a truly disastrous climate change. The debate on this point goes back to the early 2000s. At the beginning, the data were uncertain and it was correctly noted that some of the IPCC scenarios overestimated what we are likely to burn in the future. But, by now, I think the fog has cleared.  It is becoming increasingly clear that fossil fuel depletion is not enough, by far, to save us from climate change.

Nevertheless, some people still cling to the old "peak oil will save us" meme. In a recent post on "Energy Matters", Roger Andrews   argues that:

All of the oil and gas reserves plus about 20% of the coal reserves could be consumed without exceeding the IPCC’s trillion-tonne carbon emissions limit. 


Now, that sounds reassuring and surely many people would understand it in the sense that we shouldn't worry at all about burning oil and gas. Unfortunately, that's just not true and Andrews' statement is both overoptimistic and misleading.

One problem is that the "2 degrees limit" is a last ditch attempt to limit the damage created by climate change, but there is no certainty that staying beyond it will be enough to prevent disaster.


Then, there is a problem with Andrew's use of the term "reserves," to be understood as "proven reserves". Proven reserves include only those resources that are known to exist and to be extractable at present; and that's surely much less than all what could be extracted in the future. The parameter that takes into account also probably existing resources is called "Ultimate Recoverable Resources" or URRs

So, let's consider a world fossil URR estimate that many people would consider as "pessimistic," the one by Jean Laherrere that I already discussed in a previous post.

It turns out that we have enough oil and gas that, together, they can produce enough CO2 to reach the 2 degrees limit; even though, maybe, not more. There follows that, if we really wanted to burn all the oil and gas known to be extractable, to stay withing the limit we would need to stop burning coal - zero burning, zilch -  starting from tomorrow!
Not an easy thing to do, considering that coal produces more than 40% of the energy that powers the world's electrical grid and, in some countries, much more than that. It is true that coal is the dirtiest of the three fossil fuels and must be phased out faster than oil and gas, but the consumption of all three must go down together, otherwise it will be impossible to remain under the limit.

In the end, we have here one more of the many illusions that surround the climate issue; one that could be dangerous it were to spread. However, in addition to the other problems described here, Andrew's post falls into the same trap of many previous attempts: it uses the data produced by climate science to try to demonstrate its main thesis, but only after having defined climate science as "Vodoo Science." No way: this is not a meme that will go viral.

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2015/04/climate-change-can-seneca-collapse-save.html


Mr. Palloy,

The only disparaging and thoroughly offensive commenter on this forum lacking the most basic level of respect and decorum, in regard to your consistent hyperbole, hair splitting and obtuse deliberate misinterpretation of the most basic phrases in the English language is YOU. From the start, you have consistently and abusively attacked absolutely everything I have written about, from ethanol to predicted wave activity to the massive level of pollution from fossil fuels that is what is REALLY destroying human civilization. The fact that you "BELIEVE" in peak oil causing a "collapse" gives you ZERO excuse to get into high dungeon because I vigorously, and with many irrefutable data points, give you no credit for rational thinking. You think I am wrong. I know you are the one that is woefully wrong. After you accused me of being "in a panic" and being "alone" in my views on this forum, both Eddie and Jdwheeler weighed in to to support my position. Eddie give both of us equal credit, but JD made it rather clear to YOU that my argument was the most important one. YET, you did not apologize for attempting to disparage my view as some " alarmist fantasy". DON'T tell me YOU are the one being offended when you routinely dish out thoroughly demeaning and offensive remarks directed at my posts and my person.

HERE is what JD wrote to YOU, which I answered since you disappeared, so you can stick it in your peak oil pipe and SMOKE IT!

The thing to panic about is Peak Oil because its impact is just about to crash the world economy and prevent any kind of industrial reboot.
You're right about the impact of Peak Oil, but Biosphere Disruption (aka Climate Change) can cause the extinction of most complex lifeforms on Earth, so it is a far bigger problem.

Also, Peak Oil is completely unavoidable, all we can do it change the timing a little one way or the other, and brace ourselves for the impact.  While Biosphere Disruption has already begun, we still have at least in theory the ability to avoid the worst effects.

Really, though, it is a false dilemma.  The good solutions for Peak Oil also happen to be the good solutions for Biosphere Disruption.  They just are bad for continuing a BAU consumerist lifestyle.


Thank you for your serious and well reasoned comment. I understand that you see this as six of one and half a dozen of the other, but there is a key issue here that negates the "peak oil will save us" meme as an excuse to keep buring fossi lfuels until they are all used up.

...

JD, if you haven't perused this detailed study by David Wasdell, I recommend it. It clearly shows the climate sensitivity (radiative forcing) is much higher than the low balled IPCC scenario model math.


...

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/harsh-realities-of-now.html
I see it more of a six-of-one, half-a-gross of the other situation... or in other words, a proper response to climate change will make peak oil irrelevant.  As David Wasdell puts it at the end of the above article,

"It is time to say NO to the dark and toxic energy of the underworld. It is time to say YES to the pure and sustainable energy of light. Photo-dynamics can out-power, out-pace and out-resource any amount of energy we can get from fossil sources. It is time to break free from our bondage to the past. It is time to embrace the freedom of the Sun. It is time to usher in the dawn of Solar Society.

The transition from fossil dependency to solar dependency is an extraordinary shift for our species. It can be compared to the introduction of photosynthesis in the evolution of plants, which could then take solar energy to transform basic chemicals into more complex molecules. Today we are able to take solar energy and transform it directly into electricity, power, heat, and light. That provides the basis for a metamorphosis. We are not caught in the death throes of civilisation, merely the demise of an inappropriate mode of civilisation. We are experiencing the birth pangs of a new form of humanity."

Now THAT is what is called respecful posting, something I have YET to see from you. It is IRRESPONSIBLE and downright SHAMEFUL that you claimed nobody supported my views and then ignored the posts supporting my views!

Palloy, you show ZERO RESPECT for me and what I post. You NEVER give me or my posts the benefit of the doubt, but jump in to snipe and dispargage without regard to manners or decorum. You REFUSE to peruse David Wasdell's detailed and methodical study. YOU are the one who cannot deal with evidence and hard facts! Therefore it is a waste of time to engage you in any discussion. Respect is a two way street. I am NOT your verbal punching bag. When, and if, you show respect for my posts, I will reciprocate. Until then I hold you and everything you write in contempt. DO NOT POST HERE if you cannot disagree respectfully with what I write. Apologize or go away!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 10, 2018, 03:02:38 pm »

Quote
“‘We’re reaching an inflection point,” said Steve Westly, founder of sustainability venture-capital firm Westly Group and former controller and chief fiscal officer for the state of California. “In the future, people will talk about energy in terms of kilowatts per hour instead of oil per barrels.”

"Kilowatts per hour" and "oil per barrels"??? - please explain.

Ask Steve Westly.  I didn't write  article but I have an idea 🤔 of what he is referring too. The unit of measure the Oil Corporations moved into general parlance was the "Barrel" (about 55 gallons of whatever) instead of just using a term relating to a gallon. The whole sneaky idea was to make everyone equate "Energy" with "Oil", as if one can only "really" get energy from a barrel of YOU KNOW WHAT  :evil4:.

You know the fossil fuelers LOVE to say the USA NEEDS umpteen million Barrels of Oil per day or week or month or year or whatever. That is OUT THE WINDOW when your source of energy is renewable AND stored in a massive utility corporation battery bank.

I know you think that isn't going to happen any time soon. Good luck with that.  ::)


I think I have an idea of what he was refering to, too:
"kilowatts per hour" is an error.  He meant "kilowatt.hours" which actually has the units of energy .
"oil per barrels" is another error.  He meant "barrels of oil", which actually has the units of energy.

I suppose Steve Westly, founder of sustainability venture-capital firm Westly Group and former controller and chief fiscal officer for the state of California, could have got it right and been misquoted by the journalist, Mark Chediak.  But you would think Bloomberg would have done a better job of checking the story than that.  Also, 45% turns into "more than half".

It's all spin anyway, not to worry.


 ::) Hey Einstein, the guy was NOT goiing into energy math thermodynamics nomenclature! He was talking about public perceptions of energy that would soon go the way of the dodo bird!

But, of course, I knew you would try to spin it as an "error" with your typical hair splitting deliberate intransigence, disguised as providing some pedantic (and defamatory as well as boring) bit of enlightenment. Get a life, Palloy. Oil is NOT "it". Please refrain from defamatory remarks about Bloomberg, it's journalists, or Steve Westly, Such unwarranted spurious remarks only further undermine your already tarnished credibility. 

Here's a Scientist Mathematician that  people who actually understand bisophere math, the Nature Conservancy, respect. As a mathematician, you could learn much from a serious study of the program he developed called "Marxan" to help in the conservation of the biodiversity in our biosphere.

The Nature Conservancy 🦋

March 10, 2018

Meet Our Chief Scientist 👨‍🔬

For The Nature Conservancy’s chief scientist, Dr. Hugh Possingham, a gift in his youth helped guide his path in the field of conservation. Learn what inspires him and share in his reflections on the Conservancy’s successes around the globe.

You grew up in South Australia. How did your childhood experiences shape your career?

As a child, my father and I would explore the bush around Adelaide. He was a keen birder, and when I was 12 he gave me the book “Competition and the Structure of Bird Communities,” written by Martin Cody, which showed me that mathematics was useful—even in ecology. This realization led to my pursuit of applied math at university.


You used mathematics to develop Marxan, the world’s most widely used conservation planning tool. Is that how you got involved with the Conservancy?

I developed a lot of relationships with Conservancy colleagues through Marxan’s application to their work, so I was very familiar with our science-based, collaborative approach and clear focus to save as much of our planet’s biodiversity as possible. It is somewhat unusual for someone like myself to leave the academic world, and I don’t think I would have accepted a position with any other conservation organization.


Which types of conservation strategies do you find most encouraging?

Much of our core work is focused on reducing habitat loss and degradation, which is essential for halting climate change and saving biodiversity. For example, with a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions caused by forest loss, there is great potential in sustainable forestry initiatives. Projects like these are especially promising because they are good for the economy, good for nature and good for mitigating climate change.


Can you give some examples of how the Conservancy tackles big conservation challenges?

We look at how to generate renewable power while improving wildlife habitat; how to use habitat restoration in cities to provide cleaner water; how to lessen the impacts of climate change by restoring natural infrastructure, like coral reefs.


Why is the Conservancy so effective?

Our organization is unique because we are global problem solvers, and we are exceptionally inclusive and collaborative in our work. We recognize that people have basic needs—food, energy, clean water, sanitation—hence calling a halt to development isn’t an option. So we align with many stakeholders—from governments and corporations to farmers and indigenous communities—and we work with them to find solutions that meet human needs and improve biodiversity

The Nature Conservancy
Attn: Treasury
4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100
Arlington, VA 22203 USA

By Phone:
(800) 628-6860

Biodiversity hot spots of 80% of biosphere's species endangered by Global Warming Pollution
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 09, 2018, 10:37:25 pm »

Quote
“‘We’re reaching an inflection point,” said Steve Westly, founder of sustainability venture-capital firm Westly Group and former controller and chief fiscal officer for the state of California. “In the future, people will talk about energy in terms of kilowatts per hour instead of oil per barrels.”

"Kilowatts per hour" and "oil per barrels"??? - please explain.

Ask Steve Westly.  I didn't write  article but I have an idea 🤔 of what he is referring too. The unit of measure the Oil Corporations moved into general parlance was the "Barrel" (about 55 gallons of whatever) instead of just using a term relating to a gallon. The whole sneaky idea was to make everyone equate "Energy" with "Oil", as if one can only "really" get energy from a barrel of YOU KNOW WHAT .

You know the fossil fuelers LOVE to say the USA NEEDS umpteen million Barrels of Oil per day or week or month or year or whatever. That is OUT THE WINDOW when your source of energy is renewable AND stored in a massive utility corporation battery bank.

I know you think that isn't going to happen any time soon. Good luck with that.  ::)



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 09, 2018, 08:43:57 pm »

The Battery ⚡ Will Kill Fossil Fuels🦕 —It's Only a Matter of Time

By Mark Chediak from Hyperdrive

March 8, 2018, 7:00 AM EST Updated on March 8, 2018, 11:16 AM EST


SNIPPET:

Three weeks ago, a U.S. agency ⁉️ sent the clearest signal yet that fossil fuels’ days are numbered.   

Full article with graphics:



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-08/the-battery-will-kill-fossil-fuels-it-s-only-a-matter-of-time
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2018, 02:31:38 pm »

 

Soft, eel-inspired device can produce up to 110 volts

LAST UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2018 AT 6:06 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI


Article with above video:

https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/eel-device-electric-22022018/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 21, 2018, 06:58:19 pm »



Puerto Rico School Ditches Grid for Solar-plus-Storage 

February 19, 2018

By Chris Martin, Bloomberg

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/02/puerto-rico-school-ditches-grid-for-solar-plus-storage.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 08, 2018, 12:20:17 pm »



Compound Could Transform Energy Storage ⚡ for Large Grids

February 7, 2018

By Bob Marcotte

energy storage

Ellen Matson, left, assistant professor of chemistry, and PhD student Lauren VanGelder at work in Matson's lab. VanGelder is lead author on a paper describing modifications to a redox flow battery that make it nearly twice as effective for electrochemical energy storage. Credit: University of Rochester | Matson Lab
         
In order to power entire communities with clean energy, such as solar and wind power, a reliable backup storage system is needed to provide energy when the sun isn’t shining and the wind doesn’t blow.

One possibility is to use any excess solar- and wind-based energy to charge solutions of chemicals that can subsequently be stored for use when sunshine and wind are scarce. At that time, the chemical solutions of opposite charge can be pumped across solid electrodes, thus creating an electron exchange that provides power to the electrical grid.

The key to this technology, called a redox flow battery , is finding chemicals that can not only “carry” sufficient charge, but also be stored without degrading for long periods, thereby maximizing power generation and minimizing the costs of replenishing the system.

University of Rochester researchers, working with colleagues at the University at Buffalo, believe they have found a promising compound that could transform the energy storage landscape.

In a paper published in Chemical Science, an open access journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry, researchers in the lab of Ellen Matson, assistant professor of chemistry, describe modifying a metal-oxide cluster, which has promising electroactive properties, so that it is nearly twice as effective as the unmodified cluster for electrochemical energy storage in a redox flow battery.

“Energy storage applications with polyoxometalates are pretty rare in the literature,” says lead author Lauren VanGelder, a third-year PhD student in Matson’s lab. “There are maybe one or two examples prior to ours, and they didn’t really maximize the potential of these systems.”

“This is really an untapped area of molecular development 💫,” adds Matson.

A redox flow battery uses excess solar- and wind-based energy to charge solutions of chemicals that can subsequently be stored for use when sunshine and wind are scarce. At that time, the chemical solutions of opposite charge can be pumped across solid electrodes, thus creating an electron exchange that provides power to the electrical grid. Credit: University of Rochester | Michael Osadciw

The cluster was first developed in the lab of German chemist Johann Spandl, and studied for its magnetic properties. Tests conducted by VanGelder showed that the compound could store charge in a redox flow battery, “but was not as stable as we had hoped.”

However, by making what Matson describes as “a simple molecular modification”— replacing the compound’s methanol-derived methoxide groups with ethanol-based ethoxide ligands—the team was able to expand the potential window during which the cluster was stable, doubling the amount of electrical energy that could be stored in the battery.

Says Matson: “What’s really cool about this work is the way we can generate the ethoxide and methoxide clusters by using methanol and ethanol. Both of these reagents are inexpensive, readily available and safe to use. The metal and oxygen atoms that compose the remainder of the cluster are earth-abundant elements. The straightforward, efficient synthesis of this system is a totally new direction in charge-carrier development that, we believe, will set a new standard in the field.”

The electrochemical testing required for this study involved equipment and techniques not previously used in the Matson lab. Hence the collaboration with Timothy Cook, assistant professor of chemistry at the University of Buffalo, and Anjula Kosswattaarachchi, a fourth-year graduate student in the Cook lab. VanGelder visited the Cook lab for training on testing equipment, and in turn helped Kosswattaarachchi with synthesizing compounds.

The two groups have applied for a National Science Foundation grant as part of an ongoing collaboration to further refine the clusters for use in commercial redox flow batteries.

Matson stressed the “crucial role” played by VanGelder, who conducted the initial testing and experiments on the clusters while Matson was on maternity leave. “As a third-year graduate student, she did an incredible job of starting this project. She’s played an important role in driving this research effort in the lab,” Matson says.

A University Furth Fund Award that Matson received last year enabled the lab to purchase electrochemical equipment needed for the study. Patrick Forrestal ’19 of the Matson lab also contributed to the study.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/02/compound-could-transform-energy-storage-for-large-grids.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 06, 2018, 03:23:48 pm »

Tesla’s giant battery in Australia is already eating away at ‘gas 🦖 cartel’s’ profits, report says

Fred Lambert

- Feb. 6th 2018 8:28 am ET

@FredericLambert

FEATURE
 
106 Comments
FacebookTwitterGooglePinterestLinkedInReddit
We already reported on how Tesla’s giant battery in Australia made around $1 million in just a few days by taking advantage of the country’s volatile energy market.

But now a new report shows how it is also eating away at the ‘gas cartel’s’ profits.

Home Solar Power


When an issue happens or maintenance is required on the power grid in Australia, the Energy Market Operator calls for FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services) which consists of large and costly gas generators🦖 kicking in to compensate for the loss of power.

These services are so costly that it can sometimes amount to up to $7 million per day – or 10 times the regular value of the energy delivered.

Electricity rates can be seen reaching $14,000 per MW during those FCAS periods.

Now Renewecomy reports that FCAS were required on January 14, but the prices didn’t skyrocket to $14,000 per MW and they instead were maintained at around $270/MW after a short spike.

The bidding of Tesla’s 100MW/ 129MWh Powerpack project in South Australia on the services is credited with escaping the price hike, which would have cost energy generator and consumers millions in costs.

The Powerpack system is able to switch from charging to discharging in a fraction of a second, which allows Neoen, the operator of the system, to quickly respond when frequency issues happen.

Ed McManus, the CEO of Meridian Australia and Powershop Australia, told Renewecomy about the situation on the Energy Insiders podcast:

Quote
“If you look at FCAS … the costs traditionally in South Australia have been high …. and our costs in the last couple of years have gone from low five-figures annually to low six-figures annually. It’s a hell of a jump,”

“That plays into the thinking of new players looking to come into South Australia to challenge the incumbents. FCAS charges are on their minds.

“It’s a little early to tell, but it looks like from preliminary data looks that the Tesla big battery is having an impact on FCAS costs, bringing them down … that is a very, very significant development for generation investment and generation competition in South Australia.

“The South Australian government deserves a big pat on the back …. they have received a fair bit of flack – people saying if the power goes out, the battery can only power state for 5 minutes – but that is kind of irrelevant.

“The battery is there to do other things … and it looks like it has been phenomenally successful in doing that.”

The government didn’t wait for a pat on the back and it instead quickly contracted Tesla for another giant energy storage project;D

We reported this weekend that Tesla will be installing Powerwalls and solar power on 50,000 homes to create the biggest virtual power plant in the world.

The project would result in 250 MW and 650 MWh of capacity, which could also be used for similar services as Tesla’s giant Powerpack installation but distributed in residential communities.

https://electrek.co/2018/02/06/tesla-giant-battery-australia-gas-cartels-profit-report/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 18, 2018, 03:27:34 pm »



Tesla’s Battery in Australia Is Surpassing Expectations

January 17, 2018

By Dylan McConnell


It’s just over one month since the Hornsdale Power Reserve was officially opened in South Australia at the Hornsdale wind farm. The excitement surrounding the project has generated acres of media interest, both locally and abroad.

The aspect that has generated the most interest is the battery’s rapid response time in smoothing out several major energy outages that have occurred since it was installed.

Following the early success of the South Australia model, Victoria has also secured an agreement to get its own Tesla battery built near the town of Stawell. Victoria’s government will be tracking the Hornsdale battery’s early performance with interest.

Generation and Consumption

Since there are losses associated with energy storage, it is a net consumer of energy. This is often described in terms of “round trip efficiency,” a measure of the energy out to the energy in. In this case, the round trip efficiency appears to be roughly 80 percent.

The figure below shows the input and output from the battery over the month. As can be seen, on several occasions the battery has generated as much as 100 MW of power, and consumed 70 MW of power. The regular operation of the battery moves between generating 30 MW and consuming 30 MW of power.

Over the full month of December, the Hornsdale power reserve generated 2.42 GWh of energy, and consumed 3.06 GWh.

As can be seen, the generation and consumption pattern is rather “noisy,” and doesn’t really appear to have a pattern at all. This is true even on a daily basis, as can be seen below. This is related to services provided by the battery.

Generation and consumption of the Hornsdale Power Reserve over the month of December 2018. Author provided [data from AEMO]


Frequency Control Ancillary Services

There are eight different Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS) markets in the National Electricity Market (NEM). These can be put into two broad categories: contingency services and regulation services.

Contingency Services

Contingency services essentially stabilize the system when something unexpected occurs. These are called credible contingencies. The tripping (isolation from the grid) of large generator is one example.

When such unexpected events occur, supply and demand are no longer balanced, and the frequency of the power system moves away from the normal operating range. This happens on a very short timescale. The contingency services ensure that the system is brought back into balance and that the frequency is returned to normal within five minutes.

In the NEM there are three separate timescales over which these contingency services should be delivered: six seconds, 60 seconds, and five minutes. As the service may have to increase or decrease the frequency, there is thus a total of six contingency markets (three that raise frequency in the timescales above, and three that reduce it).

This is usually done by rapidly increasing or decreasing output from a generator (or battery in this case), or rapidly reducing or increasing load. This response is triggered at the power station by the change in frequency.

To do this, generators (or loads) have some of their capacity “enabled” in the FCAS market. This essentially means that a proportion of its capacity is set aside, and available to respond if the frequency changes. Providers get paid for the amount of megawatts they have enabled in the FCAS market.

This is one of the services that the Hornsdale Power Reserve has been providing. The figure below shows how the Hornsdale Power Reserve responded to one incident on power outage, when one of the units at Loy Yang A tripped on December 14, 2017.

Regulation Services

The regulation services are a bit different. Similar to the contingency services, they help maintain the frequency in the normal operating range. And like contingency, regulation may have to raise or lower the frequency, and as such there are two regulation markets.

However, unlike contingency services, which essentially wait for an unexpected change in frequency, the response is governed by a control signal, sent from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).

In essence, AEMO controls the throttle, monitors the system frequency, and sends a control signal out at a four-second interval. This control signal alters the output of the generator such that the supply and demand balanced is maintained.

This is one of the main services that the battery has been providing. As can be seen, the output of the battery closely follows the amount of capacity it has enabled in the regulation market.

The Hornsdale Power Reserve responding to a drop in system frequency. Author provide [data from AEMO']


More Batteries to Come   

Not to be outdone by its neighboring state, the Victorian government has also recently secured an agreement for its own Tesla battery. This agreement, in conjunction with a wind farm near the town of Stawell, should see a battery providing similar services in Victoria.

This battery may also provide additional benefits to the grid. The project is located in a part of the transmission network that AEMO has indicated may need augmentation in the future. This project might illustrate the benefits the batteries can provide in strengthening the transmission network.

It’s still early days for the Hornsdale Power Reserve, but it’s clear that it has been busy performing essential services and doing so at impressive speeds. Importantly, it has provided regular frequency control ancillary services — not simply shifting electricity around.

With the costs and need for frequency control service increasing in recent years, the boost to supply through the Hornsdale Power Reserve is good news for consumers, and a timely addition to Australia’s energy market.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Lead image credit: CC0 Creative Commons | Pixabay

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/01/tesla-s-battery-in-australia-is-surpassing-expectations.html

Agelbert NOTE:For smoothing electrical energy demand and preventing appliance damaging frequency and voltage fluctuations, no fossil fuel or nuclear power generating plant can EVER match the lightning speed and reliability of a large battery system.

The only thing that comes close, but still takes seconds (causing brief frequency and voltage fluctuations that you don't notice but your electronics certainly do not like), instead of the lightning fast battery response of fractions of a second, is hydroelectric power because valves can quickly force torrents of water through pelton wheels powering electricity generators.

Battery systems are the Renewable Energy smoothing solution to the problem of intermittent solar, wind, tide, hydro, etc. because they provide an added guarantee of uninterrupted clean power that totally eliminates the need for alleged "baseload" coal or nuclear AND natural gas super expensive peaking power plants.

This has been known by the fossil fuelers for at least a half a century. That is why they continue to do everything they can to stop these systems from coming online. We need fossil fuel and nuclear dirty energy sources like  like a dog needs ticks.  >:(

If we survive the present Trumpism dystopic stupidity, I believe all the excess Renewable Energy harvested from facilities that are being built all over the world will eventually be stored, not just in battery systems and dams, but also in potential energy systems (massive cable suspended weights in subterranean structures up to a thousand feet long) that can kinetically power generators by gravity even faster than hydroelectric power.

Many people do not realize that, at present, a great deal of generated energy by fossil fuel and nuclear power is thrown away in what is called "shunting". As you read in the article above, a certain amount of power capacity HAS TO be kept off line so that when a demand spike shows up, the frequency and voltage do not get out of acceptable limits.

All this is because conventional polluting power sources like coal and nuclear are TOO SLOW in the ramp up and ramp down. 

Also, those peaking power plants that use natural gas are, though much quicker, still too slow to avoid the huge amounts of shunted energy thown away routinely.

Renewable Energy and battery systems have the potential to reduce shunting to a fraction of what it is today and eventually eliminate this wasteful process altogether. Fossil Fuelers and Nuke Pukes don't like to talk about shunting because, aside from the polluting piggery , Shunting is their horrendously wasteful Achilles Heel.

In the future, I envision large battery systems as mainly a smoothing technology used to coordinate all the Renewable Energy coming in and storing it when there is an excess, while providing millisecond smooth frequency and voltage instant power until the hydroelectric and/or gravity systems come online a second or three later.  The present six seconds, 60 seconds, and five minutes time scales will be relegated to the cave man days of fossil fuel and nuclear polluting energy sources.  ;D

There is no place for slow starting dirty energy generation in this truly practical and sustainable picture involving supplying clean, non-polluting power to human civilization.

The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 23, 2017, 04:33:09 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The significant thing about this EV service is that they use a new type of battery technology (solid electrolyte) that is, for all practical purposes, impervious to fire from overheating or violent penetration during a crash. Learn more about this exciting new Lithium Metal Polymer (LMP®) battery technology  below.


blueSG network of 1,000 shared electric Bluecar vehicles in Singapore


THE SERVICE

Launched in the year of 2017, BlueSG offers a new smart and affordable mobility option to all Singaporeans, complementing public transport.

BlueSG members will have access to a network of 1,000 shared electric Bluecar vehicles, 24/7, at self-service stations located in public housing, city center and commercial estates around Singapore. The service is point to point, which means there’s no need to return the car to your starting point, nor to bear the cost of maintenance or insurance of a own vehicle.
The BlueSG service will be available to anyone over 21 years of age with a valid driver’s license.

BlueSG is a subsidiary of the Bolloré Group which has launched the world’s largest and most successful car sharing, Autolib’ in Paris. . BlueSG will become the world’s second largest EV car sharing service.
 

THE PROJECT


A Request for Information (RFI) was issued in 2014 by the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (LTA) and Economic Development Board (EDB) and received proposals from 13 major consortia. Bolloré Group was selected for the quality of its proposal which complemented the public transport network, its strong track record – 6 years of successful implementation in Paris, and its commitment to Singapore.

On June 30, 2016, Singapore and the Bolloré Group signed the agreement that demonstrated the Group’s commitment to fully support Singapore’s public transport policy, through the creation of alternative and environmentally-friendly transportation solutions to the traditional car.

In December 2017, BlueSG car sharing service will officially be launched with an estimate of 30 stations and 80 Bluecars.

Under the agreement, the car-sharing programme will eventually include 500 stations equipped with 2,000 charging points. Of these, 20 per cent (or 400 charging points) will be for public use. The first fleet of Bluecars is also currently being commissioned in Singapore and will be part of the 1,000 strong EV fleet in the future.



THE BLUESG TECHNOLOGY


BlueSG is offering a one-way and all-electric car sharing service thanks to its Bluecar vehicle equipped with Lithium Metal Polymer (LMP®) batteries from Blue Solutions, a Bolloré subsidiary as BlueSG.

LMP® technology is the culmination of an ambitious research and development program started more than twenty years ago. Made of thin films of material produced using extrusion techniques perfected by the Bolloré Group, LMP® batteries offer high energy density while ensuring safety of use. They provide unrivaled autonomy and excellent performance in all weather conditions. They are dry batteries (meaning “entirely solid”), which gives them numerous advantages, particularly in terms of safety. Solid electrolytes effectively reduce local pollution risks in the event of an accident or damage to the integrity of the battery pack. The LMP® batteries contain no solvents, no rare earth metals, and no cobalt.

These batteries can fulfill the needs of many different markets and meet the two primary challenges of the energy transition: developing clean transportation and smart energy management. Blue Solutions holds the intellectual property rights allowing it to manufacture and market batteries based on LMP® technology.
 

OUR AMBITIONS IN SINGAPORE

Thanks to the LMP® technology, the Bolloré Group decided to develop mobility (car sharing and electric vehicles) and stationary applications to address the environmental concerns. The Group ambition is to go further in the development of electro mobile solutions in particular thanks to its subsidiary that opened its new office in Singapore in September 2017.

Indeed, in addition to the fleet of 100% electric cars and charging points, the Bolloré Group is also establishing a new R&D center for Asia in Singapore, and an innovation center for partners to develop, test, and implement technological innovations in the mobility, data analysis and batteries.

Finally, the Bolloré Group also aims to deploy in the city-state and in Asia other modes of public transport, such as the Bluebus and the Bluetram equipped with supercapacitors. All of these would help create over 250 jobs in the country.

https://www.bluesg.com.sg/about-us
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 24, 2017, 02:09:36 pm »

Tesla Completes World’s Largest Li-ion Battery (129 MWh) In South Australia (#NotFree)

 

November 23rd, 2017 by James Ayre

SNIPPET:



Tesla has now finished construction work on the 129 megawatt-hour (MWh) energy storage facility that it was contracted to build in South Australia, the government of the region has revealed.

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/23/tesla-completes-worlds-largest-li-ion-battery-129-mwh-energy-storage-facility-south-australia-notfree/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 22, 2017, 07:50:19 pm »


Vanadium Flow Batteries for Cost-Effective Energy Storage: An Interview with Angelo D’Anzi, CTO of StorEn Technologies

November 21st, 2017 by Sponsored Content

SNIPPET:

How can you achieve such a low cost per kWh? ???

StorEn TechnologyCost is crucial for the adoption of energy storage. Our work is about bringing evolution to the technology with the objectives to improve performance as a way to drive down costs. We developed a disruptive battery technology based on both chemical and engineering solutions, leading to a 50% cost reduction. We are targeting a price of $400/kWh with a 25 year duration with no decay.  :o 


The great breakthrough is our innovative high-power electrodes made with nanomaterials and a proprietary functionalization process. With this innovation we have doubled power density over traditional batteries, while running at low pressure.

The ability to run at low pressure means that less of the battery’s own energy is required to run the pumps, hence round-trip efficiency is increased. Additionally, duration of the battery is also increased. To support the electrochemical activity, we couple our Hi-Power Nano-Structured Carbon Electrode to our MULTIGRID™ multipoint flow distribution to deliver an increase in power in excess of 50%.

We also wanted to make a battery that was virtually maintenance-free, like a car battery, for trouble-free operations and reduced Total Costs of Ownership. We developed two proprietary systems, RESAFE™ and EQUILEVELS™. These two systems support a battery that is virtually maintenance-free by eliminating service activities.

Our battery can be monitored remotely with our built-in BMS (Battery Management System). Therefore we implement a shift from scheduled on-site inspections to a maintenance-on-demand model. For example, if one of our batteries was installed in a remote telecommunications tower for power back-up, remote monitoring can reduce or eliminate the need for periodic on-site visits, which can translate in significant cost savings.

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/21/vanadium-flow-batteries-for-cost-effective-energy-storage/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 03, 2017, 11:46:03 pm »

New Anode In Toshiba SCiB Battery Adds 200 Miles Of Range In 6 Minutes  :o  ;D

October 3rd, 2017 by Steve Hanley


Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/03/new-anode-toshiba-scib-battery-adds-200-miles-range-6-minutes/

+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
Today at 09:11:21 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
Today at 08:16:39 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
Today at 07:54:25 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
Today at 07:43:04 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
Today at 07:30:05 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
Today at 07:01:57 pm

Gravity Energy Storage - The New Stone Age by AGelbert
Today at 05:43:33 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 23, 2018, 10:18:52 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
May 22, 2018, 05:38:09 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
May 21, 2018, 07:31:22 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial