New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#76 2019-05-16 20:07:05

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Thanks Kbd512 for the " "Hydrino" reactor technology from Blacklight / Brilliant Light Power." content.
This seems to be about selective ionic or isotopic state element use in which you are looking to the low energy harvest from a chain reaction after input of energy happens. A form of transmutation happens as the levels of the charges change states. Its this changing of states that give you heat and energy as a result.

Offline

#77 2019-05-29 13:23:56

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

This is for Louis and Elderflower and any other members who hail from Britain ...

I put it in Louis' Power to gas topic because there didn't seem to be any better locations ...

FluxBB gave a list of posts containing the words "British" and "Innovation" but the topic titles were far afield ...

Louis ... are you familiar with this company?  It appears to have a track record of securing contracts with some well know local companies.

https://www.dispatch.com/business/20190 … adquarters

L Marks has started more than 50 innovation programs around the world. The company has worked with brands such as BMW, Lloyd’s of London and British Airways to identify business challenges and transform them into opportunities for growth.

(th)

Offline

#78 2019-06-12 19:00:54

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Reason to not go with straight hydrogen storage as A hydrogen fueling station explosion in Norway has left fuel-cell cars nowhere to charge

Ouch as Two people were sent to the hospital after the explosion due to an airbag triggered in a car nearby under the explosion pressure....

Article indicates that cause is unknown at this time...

Offline

#79 2019-06-12 20:53:55

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

I'm your pest.  Of course Europeans will be into this sort of thing.
https://www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=52919.php
Solar Panels on the Ocean > Methanol.

A bit SciFiish, but they have good intentions, and give it 50 years, if nothing better shows up.

Nuf said.

Done


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#80 2019-06-13 06:13:52

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 4,896

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Not so very different from my idea of huge solar battery tankers - 500,000 tonnes...sailing into maximum insolation areas, spreading out their 30 mile long flexi-PV floating panels over the ocean, little like trawler nets, and charging up the 500,000 tonnes of batteries with solar power...then they sail back to port in places like the UK or USA and feed the power into the grid. Assuming battery development to 400Whs per Kg that would mean each one would have 200 GwH of power to deliver. In the UK enough to keep the whole grid going for about 5 hours I would estimate. So a fleet of 6 should be able to provide electricity for 3 days.


Void wrote:

I'm your pest.  Of course Europeans will be into this sort of thing.
https://www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=52919.php
Solar Panels on the Ocean > Methanol.

A bit SciFiish, but they have good intentions, and give it 50 years, if nothing better shows up.

Nuf said.

Done


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#81 2019-06-13 07:20:10

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For Louis ...

This is just the sort of ambitious, optimistic idea I would look for from members of NewMars forum!

The solar panels don't need to be deployed from the battery ship!  They can be permanently deployed on the great number of uninhabited islands that already exist above and below the equator, and there is an abundance of sea shore with excellent insolation on, above and below the equator.

The battery ships could use the flow technology that GW Johnson has mentioned in previous posts, which would be appropriate for large ships.

The chemical mixture could be charged and then delivered to ports where it would be used directly to feed the electric grid, or it could be shipped inland.

What is needed for a project like this to succeed, is for a visionary leader with financial knowledge and skills, and the drive of a Musk or Bezos to convince investors.  As far as I can see, there is nothing in the way of technology that does not already exist.

(th)

louis wrote:

Not so very different from my idea of huge solar battery tankers - 500,000 tonnes...sailing into maximum insolation areas, spreading out their 30 mile long flexi-PV floating panels over the ocean, little like trawler nets, and charging up the 500,000 tonnes of batteries with solar power...then they sail back to port in places like the UK or USA and feed the power into the grid. Assuming battery development to 400Whs per Kg that would mean each one would have 200 GwH of power to deliver. In the UK enough to keep the whole grid going for about 5 hours I would estimate. So a fleet of 6 should be able to provide electricity for 3 days.

Edit: Thinking about this further ... the flow batteries could be charged at the permanent sites and the liquid simply piped over to the vessels for shipment.

It seems to me (without attempting math as others here are able to do) that this process would be much more efficient than making ammonia or methane from atmosphere and ocean sources would be.

I don't know what chemicals are involved in flow batteries, so don't know what challenges would come with attempting to ship by pipeline or ship, but would greatly appreciate any information other forum members might provide.

The ships could be powered with electric motors driven by part of the payload.  That should appeal to potential funders of green energy projects such as this one would be.

Edit 2: It didn't take long for Google to find existing large scale flow battery projects ...

Here is a link to one article:
https://www.energy-storage.news/news/ch … eds-more-m

Apparently these are all planned for land.  Louis is the first person (I know about) who is thinking of remote locations for collecting solar energy and shipping it to land locations for use.

Edit 3: https://www.viznenergy.com/

Louis, the company at the link above is located in Montana.  I'll give you the opportunity to write them with your shipment idea.

I note that (apparently) a business opportunity has opened up for rental of electrolyte for flow batteries.  This option lowers the up-front cost of building a flow battery facility.  It allows the renter to make a buck while the electrolyte is in service, and then the materials are 100% recoverable.

Edit 4: Taking up the question of energy density ... it is low, but HOW low, and does that limit its value for shipment of charged electrolyte?

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

The main disadvantages with vanadium redox technology are a relatively poor energy-to-volume ratio in comparison with standard storage batteries (although the Generation 3 formulation has doubled the energy density [11] of the system), and the aqueous electrolyte makes the battery heavy and therefore only useful for stationary applications. Another disadvantage is the relatively high toxicity of oxides of vanadium (see vanadium § Safety).

Energy density
15–25 Wh/L (54–65 kJ/L)

Flow batteries are not on this chart.  Lithium ion batteries are in the lower left corner.

Energy Density chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-06-13 11:36:59)

Offline

#82 2019-06-13 16:56:20

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Solar cell island mean you need to be able to defend them. Had to look up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
A wide range of chemistries have been tried for flow batteries.

It seems like we are making a working fluid ionic such that one is negative in charge while the other is positive. The fluid of each is isolate and are allowed to equalize along a membrane but other wise the potential power is the casings that the fluid flows through.
That said the fluid would need to be stored in a non-metalic container as well as shipped in that manner as well in the tanker.
To create flow is via pumps which are a power loss in the design. Other power losses are in the moving of the fluids from the battery and tanker as well as from the charging system.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10 … n-and-wind

Offline

#83 2019-06-13 18:41:33

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,957

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Louis or GW,

Will these flow battery ships only contain non-toxic chemicals that don't kill everything in the water, including a repair diving party, if they leak out of the ship?

Given the numerous complaints about oil tanker ship spills, this seems like a reasonable question.

The Seawise Giant was 657t at full load, so I guess this is a plausible, if potentially impractical idea.

Top 10 World's Largest Ships

From the article:

Fully laden, her displacement was 657,019 tonnes (646,642 long tons; 724,239 short tons), the heaviest ship of any kind, and with a draft of 24.6 m (81 ft), she was incapable of navigating the English Channel, the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. Overall, she was generally considered the largest ship ever built,as well as the largest self-propelled manmade object ever built.

Any ship incapable of navigating the English Channel may prove very difficult to get close enough to land for short-ish power cables back to a land-based substation.

I think something more along the lines of a series of smaller barges, towed into position and moored to the continental shelf, would be more practical.  Try to imagine that routine maintenance of these vessels will be required and a single massive ship is much more difficult to work on.  As someone who has served in the Navy that was in dry dock for repairs when I arrived, I can personally attest to the time and expense of dry dock repairs on large ships.

Did I mention that flat bottom barges are a comparably low cost way of storing liquids, such as fuels or chemicals, and that they're easier to take into and out of dry dock?  Tug boats can tow them into position, only moving them around as required.  Since we're not going to tow these things to the middle of nowhere, this would seem to make a lot more sense.  Ships also require crews, whereas barges do not.  In the Navy, we would store bunker fuel in barges or pumping stations on land, emptying and inspecting them as required by law.  I expect chemical tanks for a flow battery would have similar inspection requirements.

Why not use something like this instead of a much more expensive ship that may not even be able to transit a body of water as deep as the English Channel?:

DAMEN STAN PONTOON® B36 RANGE

Edit: Based upon the info provided by tahanson43206, it looks like the Vanadium redox reaction flow batteries are 40 cubic meters per MWh.  That means that 1GWh would require 40,000 (Edit: Apple's not-so-helpful auto-correct feature apparently removed what I wrote, but the 40,000 should be 40,000,000 cubic meters of space) cubic meters of space, equivalent to a barge with internal dimensions of (100m x 40m x 10m), or roughly the size of one of those pontoon barges.  That's 1,000 barges to store 1GWh worth of power.

A 70% efficient LNH3 fuel cell would require 36.3g/H2/kWh or 36.3kg/H2/MWh or 36,300kg/H2/GWh.  LNH3 is 105g/L or 2.892kWh/L, so 1GWh requires 345,781,466L of LNH3 or 345,781 cubic meters of space.  Therefore, 8.6 LNH3 barges would be required to store the same amount of power as 1,000 flow battery barges.

For those here who are counting-enabled, what energy storage medium is looking better for grid storage, the flow batteries or the LNH3?

Let's pose another basic math problem here:

Louis wants to store 1GWh worth of electricity to power a small coastal town because the Sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow.  His energy storage options include:

A. CH4 / Natural Gas (8.8kWh/m^3)
B. LNH3 (2.892kWh/L)
C. Vanadium redox flow batteries (25Wh/L)

Which of the following ambient temperature energy storage mediums consumes the least volume and provides the greatest specific energy (energy density)?

Hints:

1 cubic meter / 1m^3 contains 1,000 liters.

Liquid Methane / Liquefied Natural Gas will not remain liquid at ambient temperature at any reasonable pressure.  It must be kept at cryogenically cold temperatures using active refrigeration, which consumes electrical power, to remain liquid.  We actually do this on a routine basis to transport LNG via tanker ship or truck to pumping stations, but only at tremendous energy cost.

Lead-acid car batteries store about 30Wh/L.  Therefore, the "best" redox flow batteries are not quite as "energy dense" as conventional Lead-acid car batteries, though most are considerably lighter- meaning much better gravimetric energy density.

Offline

#84 2019-06-13 18:49:05

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For SpaceNut #82 ...

Good point about including site security in planning for staffing.  It is my understanding ALL land in all oceans has been claimed by one state or another over the centuries, so rent is part of the price of doing business.  however, (depending upon the nation), it may be possible to secure protection from the sovereign power in case of a dispute.  However, ordinary piracy would (most likely) be the responsibility of the company.

The science Magazine link you provided seems to be a fairly comprehensive summary of the field, given that it is several months old at this point. 

Hopefully others in the forum will assess the potential of extending Louis' idea (of shipping solar collected energy) from the ocean to customers to include flow battery technology, early though it may be.  My main concern is the disappointingly low energy density. 

However, these are early days .... according to one of the articles cited in posts above, the technology was only proven in 1986 (in Australia), so it is possible that it will attract some serious attention, and the energy density may be improved beyond what has already been accomplished.

(th)

Offline

#85 2019-06-13 19:01:36

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Currently wind power using old oil rigs would also be an option for an ocean islands which would also work in the same manner for the flow battery concepts just a difference source for the free energy to make the stored possible.

Offline

#86 2019-06-13 19:58:26

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,957

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Is there even enough Lead or Vanadium on this planet to make this work at any significant scale, meaning something that would actually matter in the grand scheme of things?

Are we spending money to do great things or spending money to please our vendors and battery technology lobbies?

Someone please show me a working 2.5kWh/L flow battery that isn't made from unobtanium.  Whenever that happens, then let's talk about batteries.  Until then, or unless the materials in these flow batteries are readily available in gigaton quantities and literally cheaper than dirt, let's spend a little time on practical alternatives.

Edit:

1 cubic meter / 1m^3 of LNG / Methane weighs .717kg.

Liquefaction of LNG requires 850kWh/kg or 609.45kWh/m^3.

The mathematically-enabled or ideologically-unmotivated amongst us will quickly spot a small mathematics problem here.

1m^3 of Methane only contains 8.8kWh.  We need 69 times more power than the Methane can provide to begin with in order to liquefy / densify it for storage purposes.  After that, we have to continue to provide input electrical power until the Methane is consumed by a fuel cell or gas turbine.

Is it apparent at all to anyone else here why this is such a bad idea?

Can anyone else connect the dots as to why it is that we generally just pump non-liquefied natural gas, via pipeline, instead of liquefying it, whenever possible?

Is Uranium, with its specific energy / energy density of about 24MWh (yes, that's 24 Million Watt-hours) per kg, or 457MWh/L, looking mighty tempting right about now?

Edit #2:

Thermodynamic and heat transfer analysis of LNG energy recovery for power production

Offline

#87 2019-06-14 13:19:17

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For kbd512 re #86 ...

Thanks for the link to the study of trying to recover the energy "invested" in cold methane for shipment.

As you point out in your message, energy is required to liquefy natural gas for shipment.  The authors appear (to me at least) to be exploring the possibility of treating the cold liquid as a heat sink (where sea water is the heat source) for the purpose of generating energy.

I scanned the article to arrive at this assessment, and will keep it in mind to read more carefully if time becomes available.

However, in the mean time, I'd like to toss out the idea for forum members to consider:

Direct production of electric  current is possible using the

There is a significant temperature difference between LNG and sea water, and the effectiveness of the thermoelectric effect is greater as the difference in temperature between source and sink increases.

There would need to be an investment to realize any potential gains from using this method, or a mechanical method, for that matter, so I can easily understand why an investor in LNG shipments would decide not to bother.

***
Would you be willing to apply your considerable talents to the question I posed earlier in this topic, regarding the potential value of storing energy in a flow battery for ocean shipment to a customer.  This was a spin off of a suggestion from Louis to use the ocean as a location to collect solar power.

A flow battery energy density is so low that I am skeptical it would be practical for shipment of energy as Louis proposed.

I noted your observations about vanadium.  Apparently China has a sufficient supply so they can invest in major flow battery installations.  Other nations may not be so lucky.

However, other metals are under study to see if they can provide similar functionality.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-06-14 20:43:16)

Offline

#88 2019-06-14 20:28:49

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Flow battery post was in the other topic...
As for disimular metal thermatic power the cold and warmth will not stay for long so what little power while its going to depend on the number of junctions will not be all that much for the energy that must go in first. The other part of the issue is line length loss which disapates the energy being made before we can get to use it.
The reason for not using methane is the carbon output from burning it and the fuel cells still are getting stuffed up in carbon soot...

Offline

#89 2019-06-14 20:55:25

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For SpaceNut ... re #88 regarding the duration of a heat difference.

If you have not had a chance to read (or glance at) the link provided by kbd512 in #86, that would explain your objection that the heat difference would not last long.

As I understand the article, the heat difference will last as long as your supply of LNG lasts, and as long as the ocean lasts, whichever expires first.

From hints I picked up in a rapid scan of the article, I get the impression the authors are (or were) planning to show how a tank of LNG that is intended for use as fuel in a large ocean going ship will have two kinds of energy available to the ship's engineering department.

The first and obvious energy is that which will become available after the LNG is heated up by exposure to sea water, so it can be burned in an engine designed for it.  The second and NOT so obvious energy (for which they have a special name which I have already forgotten).  That energy is the energy invested in cooling the LNG, which can (as I interpret the paper) be recovered by using the ocean as a heat source, and using the LNG as a heat sink.

The number of termocouples needed to deliver power for an ocean going ship would be significant, which is why in my post I entertained doubt that the power delivered would justify the expense.  However, in the absence of having any idea whatsoever what the cost might be, we are free to speculate that the authors have a useful idea worth exploring.

The same system (of recovering the energy invested in cooling LNG) would (presumably) work for a land based terminal, where (I gather) all LNG is currently delivered today.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-06-15 07:03:52)

Offline

#90 2019-06-15 11:12:41

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,643
Website

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

A thought regarding use of flow batteries for grid-scale storage:

The grid is on land.  Most of the wind farms and solar farms are on land,  or very near it.   Why put flow batteries in ships at sea,  when most of the wind and solar electricity generation is not at sea?

On land,  tank farms are cheaper to build than tanker-type ships or barges.  Land-based tank farms are less subject to damage by severe weather.  There is no fundamental limit to the size of a tank farm,  other than available land on which to site it.  And spill cleanups are easier on land than at sea.

There is a fundamental limit to how big a ship or barge you can build:  it derives from the fact that tensile strength of steel does not scale with size,  while its weight and the values of applied loads do scale with size.  Hogging and sagging over ocean swells limits ship lengths to at most around 1300 feet.

Even for offshore wind farms as in Denmark,  it would be more practical to site the tank-farm-type flow battery on shore.  Putting chemical-laden ships or barges permanently offshore is just not possible on the US Atlantic or Gulf coasts.  This is because of the very real risk of catastrophic hurricane damage,  something Denmark does not face,  stormy as the North Sea is.

I'm no expert on the flow battery technology,  so I cannot speak as to which chemicals are involved or how hazardous they are.  There seem to be multiple possible combinations,  and things look rather favorable in the lab scale experiments done to evaluate feasibility.  It's promising,  so it deserves development effort to select and scale-up the "best" combination,  something inherently defined by the imposition of  multiple real-world constraints (such as weather damage risks,  spill clean-up,  and any identifiable scaling limits) rather than just efficiency or costs.

But don't muck it up trying to implement a less-practical form at sea with pre-imposed fundamental scaling limits and risks of catastrophic hurricane damage.  That just does not seem smart at all.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-06-15 11:22:24)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#91 2019-06-15 14:31:09

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For GW Johnson re #90

There are two (primary) contributors to this idea, starting with Louis, who proposed (as I recall) collecting solar energy from ocean going vessels.

I thought it would make more sense to place solar energy collection facilities on land, and to ship the energy carrying material to where it needs to go.

However, to your specific point about flow batteries at sea .... it seems to me that this technology is worth considering for delivering power to ocean going vessels, but I acknowledge up front that the energy density is (currently) so low that it would probably not be competitive with methane or ammonia.

The fact is (to the best of my knowledge) there are regions on Earth where energy is in short supply, so importing material is a solution that has been carried out over a number of years.  The earliest example I can think of is a British expedition to explore the Arctic passage.  The ships were sail driven, but the expedition was fitted with coal burning equipment for food preparation and possibly for heating.

Thus, the potential exists for collecting solar energy near the equator (there is plenty of land along and near the equator), and delivering it to customers away from the equator. 

A number of countries are currently shipping coal to customers who need energy, and of course multiple countries are shipping oil and gas.

The issue at hand (as I see it) is that the planet could use a LOT of energy that does not increase the carbon burden in the atmosphere, and both ammonia and flow battery fluids appear to meet that test.  Methane could be a long term energy carrier if it is made from atmospheric CO2 and sea water hydrogen, because the carbon flows will balance out.

(th)

Offline

#92 2019-06-15 14:40:46

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,957

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

tahanson43206,

My thoughts on this are in agreement with what GW stated.  Vastly larger tank farms than ships or barges can be constructed on land, at a fraction of the cost.  Anything we put in the ocean is subject to rigorous engineering standards that dictate size and materials used, therefore cost.  Making and storing CH4 as LCH4, whenever it can be pumped out of the ground, makes no sense.  It uses even more energy than the previous solution, which must come from somewhere.  Similarly, using flow batteries to power ships or barges or for storing energy offshore, doesn't make any sense unless that's where the energy will be consumed.  The barges are less expensive than ships, yet more expensive than tank farms on land.  We don't put tank farms in the oceans because it makes no economic or practical sense to do so.

Batteries have the advantage of not requiring 24/7 chemical refinery operations, even though flow batteries are technically a simplistic form of chemical refinery, continually separating and combining chemicals in a reversible process to store or generate power.  The practicality of a given solution is a function of materials and fabrication cost and/or availability, maintenance schedules, staffing requirements, and total system complexity / number of moving parts.  By those metrics, the only metrics that matter as it relates to the viability of an energy storage system, flow batteries are more cost-effective to use than petrochemical plants, even if the plant is only making the simplest hydrocarbon fuel that we use.

Flow batteries for ocean-going transport remains a pipe dream, specifically because the energy density is insufficient.  Small attack submarines use Lead-acid batteries with slightly better energy density, but that provides enough electrical power for perhaps a day or two before snorkeling to recharge them with Diesel engines is required.  Crossing the Atlantic or Pacific on a single charge is entirely out of the question.

Offline

#93 2019-06-15 20:21:47

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

tahanson43206, post 89 you are correct that I had not looked at the reference in kbd512 but was looking at just the concept of ocean water in contact to a thermal node of dissimular metals with the next junction being exposed to the liquid cold of LNG.

I have looked at the document and its not quite that in the LNG is heated in a chamber to expand with its working pressure to make a turbine generator turn for power with the ocean water being used as a cooling of the heated low pressure side of the turbine being recondense before being represurized for use once more.

First power loss is the pumping of sea water to the chamber to cause expansion of the cold gas to create an increase of pressure for the turbine to turn in order to generate power. The ouput side is existing to a low pressure expansion tank where its cooled and represurised by more pumps for the sea water cooler and for the compressor.

What this does not account for is increased boiloff losses of the liquified gas, heat losses of the incoming water, generator dropping in power as it wears, storage losses for the power ect....

Offline

#94 2019-06-16 06:49:28

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For SpaceNut re post 93

Thanks for following up on the paper ...

A point that seems to be missed here is that at the present time, ALL the potential recoverable energy in LNG is LOST as waste heat to the ocean.

On top of that, there must be additional energy costs to bring the LNG into radiators where the ocean heat can be exposed to the liquid, to return it to gas.

The paper authors are merely pointing out that SOME of that total loss is recoverable.

Accordingly, while is may be worth while to note that some of the wasted energy is NOT recovered, the question is whether enough energy is recovered to justify the expense of the energy recovery method.

As you point out, the authors have suggested mechanical recovery, and I have suggested thermoelectric recovery. 

Hopefully someone will explore the original idea, to see if recovery of some of that lost energy can be justified.

As kbd512 has pointed out repeatedly, that is a LOT of energy that is lost.

(th)

Offline

#95 2019-06-16 08:41:12

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

The radiator term for what is happening is called a heat exchanger which serves a simular function of LNG warming and for its recovery recooling. When a volume of gas is released its cold in the chamber and when heat is add to that chamber its going to expand the internal pressure which then is used to turn the turbine. After going through the turbine its at low pressure once more and can be cooled for recompression which means heat must be removed to make it under pressure become liquid once more.

We are playing with the triple point.

Basic Properties of LNG
http://www.kosancrisplant.com/media/564 … nal_hq.pdf
Nice liquid boiling point on page 3

Gas liquefaction process
http://folk.ntnu.no/cadorao/courses/TEP … 202008.pdf

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/trip … _1926.html

Thermoelectric recovery would be a pellitier effect cooler...Thermoelectric cooling uses the Peltier effect to create a heat flux between the junction of two different types of materials. A Peltier cooler, heater, or thermoelectric heat pump is a solid-state active heat pump which transfers heat from one side of the device to the other, with consumption of electrical energy, depending on the direction of the current.

highp.jpg A Peltier – Thermoelectric Cooler Modules

Offline

#96 2019-06-16 11:02:56

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For those who might be interested in the discussion, here are a couple of excerpts from the paper which kbd512 brought to the attention of the forum.

What I found interesting in a second reading, is the loss at the point of liquefaction, compared to what the authors are calling “cold energy”.

For reference:

Heat values of various fuels - World Nuclear Association
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/...and.../heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx
    1.
Also referred to as energy or calorific value, heat value is a measure of a fuel's energy ... Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), 46-51 MJ/kg. Natural gas, 42-55 MJ/kg.

Assuming that I am interpreting the symbols M (above) and k (below) correctly, I conclude that (about) 3 Megajoules of energy are consumed in liquefaction of natural gas, of which less than one Megajoule is carried as “cold energy”.  Of that, the authors appear to show that less than .2 Megajoules are accessible at the point of delivery of the LNG on shore.

This comparison (if correct) would appear (to me at least) to indicate that recovery of such a small part of the energy being shipped is more trouble than it would be worth, or it would have been done by cost conscious shippers already.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 … 012012/pdf


Journal of Physics: Conference Series OPEN ACCESS Thermodynamic and heat transfer analysis of LNG energy recovery for power production To cite this article: A Franco and C Casarosa 2014 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 547 012012

Considering that, and according to the advanced liquefaction processes about 2900 kJ/kg are consumed in the liquefaction process, the larger amount, about 2070 kJ/kg is dissipated as heat, but the remaining, estimating in the order of magnitude of 830 kJ/kg, called “cold energy” are stored in the LNG.

5. Conclusions In the present paper the problem of energy production for LNG cold energy has been analyzed with the specific aim to evaluate the perspectives of simple direct expansion configurations. After a preliminary analysis of the various conventional options, a specific three pressure level configuration has been analyzed and tested. Considering an upper limit for the higher pressure (150 bar) and a boundary condition imposed by the pipeline at 80 bar, a potential of power production of about 120 kJ/kg have been estimated:

Edit: This discussion involves shipment of LNG via ocean transport.  Wikipedia has a substantial article on the subject, including comparison of three ways of dealing with boil-off of LNG during a voyage.

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

The boil-off problem helps to explain why LNG shippers are willing to pay $1,000,000 (or so) to transit the Panama Canal.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-06-16 12:33:38)

Offline

#97 2019-06-16 15:19:59

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

The cold energy as such is simular to all heat pump systems in that a difference of something warm versus the cold is used to make heat or in this case electricity.
The heat pump units use energy to be able to output heat for use instead.

Researchers introduce novel heat transport theory in quest for efficient thermoelectrics

Offline

#98 2019-06-16 20:01:50

tahanson43206
Member
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 1,052

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

For SpaceNut re #97 ...

Thanks for the link to the report of a new theory which combines quantum and wave heat transfer.

I had NO idea that Einstein had worked on refrigeration, or had a patent on an non-mechanical design.

This is a very appropriate addition to the topic Louis started 97 messages ago.

(th)

Offline

#99 2019-06-17 17:59:45

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

We have a lurker reading our topics it would seem as US State Dept issues strategy to diversify clean energy, storage supply chains

Offline

#100 2019-06-25 19:25:35

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

louis wrote:

Not so very different from my idea of huge solar battery tankers - 500,000 tonnes...sailing into maximum insolation areas, spreading out their 30 mile long flexi-PV floating panels over the ocean, little like trawler nets, and charging up the 500,000 tonnes of batteries with solar power...then they sail back to port in places like the UK or USA and feed the power into the grid. Assuming battery development to 400Whs per Kg that would mean each one would have 200 GwH of power to deliver. In the UK enough to keep the whole grid going for about 5 hours I would estimate. So a fleet of 6 should be able to provide electricity for 3 days.


Void wrote:

I'm your pest.  Of course Europeans will be into this sort of thing.
https://www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=52919.php
Solar Panels on the Ocean > Methanol.

A bit SciFiish, but they have good intentions, and give it 50 years, if nothing better shows up.

Nuf said.

Done

I knew that I remembered this

How floating solar farms could make fuel and help solve the climate crisis

"Solar methanol islands” could curb our reliance on fossil fuels that belch harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

190620-frode-solar-methanol-island-picture-ac-501p_17712bc91cdec55a498af936bd1ee138.fit-2000w.jpg

Huge solar farms floating in the ocean could be used to convert carbon dioxide in seawater into methanol, a fuel that can power airplanes, trucks and other long-haul vehicles. That’s the takeaway from provocative new research suggesting that such “solar methanol islands” could curb our reliance on fossil fuels that belch harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The floating solar farms described in the paper would consist of clusters of about 70 circular solar panel “islands” covering an area of roughly one square kilometer (0.4 square mile). Electricity produced by the panels would be used to split water molecules into hydrogen, which would then react with CO2 extracted from seawater to produce methanol.

Patterson said a single floating solar farm of the sort he envisions could produce more than 15,000 tons of methanol a year — enough to fuel a Boeing 737 airliner on more than 300 round-trip flights between New York City and Phoenix.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB