Trains.com

Batteries a Possible Future Blow to Coal

4435 views
47 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Batteries a Possible Future Blow to Coal
Posted by Victrola1 on Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:23 AM

You can track what they are doing at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). There are plans for hydrogen bromide, or zinc-air batteries, or storage in molten glass, or next-generation flywheels, many claiming "drastic improvements" that can slash storage costs by 80pc to 90pc and reach the magical figure of $100 per kilowatt hour in relatively short order.

“Storage is a huge deal,” says Ernest Moniz, the US Energy Secretary and himself a nuclear physicist. He is now confident that the US grid and power system will be completely "decarbonised" by the middle of the century.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/10/holy-grail-of-energy-policy-in-sight-as-battery-technology-smash/

It looks like electric storage technology may be another reason not to burn coal.

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:44 AM
Uh, one problem
It stores electricity it doesn't create it. Without coal be prepared in the near future for brown outs and power shut downs as demand exceeds electricity production
  • Member since
    April 2011
  • 649 posts
Posted by LensCapOn on Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:52 AM

ndbprr
Uh, one problem
It stores electricity it doesn't create it. Without coal be prepared in the near future for brown outs and power shut downs as demand exceeds electricity production
 

The storage is to be used in conjunction with solar/wind power. Thatway, so still have power when the Sun doesn't shine. (and the wind doesn't blow)

 

How this would work in practice is another matter.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:24 PM

Further, Brookhaven and industrial partners are also working on an advanced superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) system, which can store energy in the magnetic field of a coil made of superconducting wire. The project could have a significant impact on how electricity is stored and delivered in the future.

Developing affordable, large-scale energy storage systems would be a game-changing advance for the U.S. electrical grid. In particular, energy storage will be crucial in enabling the widespread use of two key renewable energy sources: wind and solar power. SMES systems use magnetic fields in superconducting coils to store energy with near-zero energy loss, and have instantaneous dynamic response and nearly infinite cycle life. 

http://www.innovation-america.org/superconductors-and-energy-storage

Meanwhile, back in the lab.....

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:30 PM

Perpetual motion machines for sale?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:56 PM

When I entered the electric generating biz almost 30 years ago there were antiquated power plants running that should have been retired before I was born. Why were they still running? Electric rates are regulated and the regulators would not allow higher rates that would have brought newer more efficient generation. Cheaper natural gas and to a much lesser extent clean air silliness have brought a slew of new plants and finally retired many a dinosaur. But the residential rates are still regulated and as such future development will still be limited. It's far from a perfect system but these are the realities my now former coworkers have to live within. All these new technologies are wonderful but meaning less without a way to pay for them.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:06 PM

Re: Perpetual motion machines-didn't GM bury them somewhere in the Midwest? ..and the formula for cold fusion disappeared as well. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,011 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:02 PM

Isn't this what Tesla has been trying to sell?

The batteries will have to be danged efficient - the data center I worked at could operate at full capacity for just two hours with the conventional batteries the system used.  And those batteries would take a big chunk out of my basement.

That's not to say that consumer-level batteries might not be what it takes to lessen the need for surge generation - something I think many coal plants are providing (I could be wrong).

In my area, solar is really taking off - and we aren't known for our excessive sunshine (except this summer - and we're praying for rain).  If you're worrying about carbon footprint, though, you have to look at what it takes to make the components of wind and solar power - and sometimes that's not so pretty.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 575 posts
Posted by alphas on Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:45 PM

Wind energy has a big problem if the industry is ever forced to adhere to the same rules that all other industries have to abide by in regards to the killing of raptors and birds.    In case you missed it, after touting that we now have grown the Bald Eagle population to 40,000 and the Golden Eagle population to 40,000 and 20,000 repectively,  the Feds are now talking about allowing the wind enegy industry to kill 4,000 Bald Eagles and 2,000 Golden Eagles before they face sanctions.     [Any industry or individual who kills one of these gets the book thrown at them.    The Feds can fine you $1,000 for just having an illegal eagle feather.]    And I haven't seen anything from the Feds at all in regards to forcing the wind energy industry to observe the laws in regards to the other raptors and all birds in general that every other industry has to deal with.  I know there are also similar questions concerning the solar industry but I haven't been following that as we only have the wind farms in central PA.    

Politics are always touchy on this board but I think its its fair to say that the incumbent president, who gave the wind industry [I believe solar too but again I haven't keep up on that] their sought after exemption from the laws and fines, and his party have benefited from significant political contributions from these two energy industries.     And, other than the Audubon Society, the Environmental organizations which are so quick to critize everything else have been mute on this issue as far as I'm aware.    

 

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:47 PM

I've seen enough hype about battery technology over the last 50 years... Big news back then were fuel cells and sodium-sulfur batteries.

Getting the cost per installed kW-hr down to $100 is only alf the battle, that battery needs to last more than 1,000 full charge/discharge cycles to pay for itself at off-peak rates. The most cost effective use for batteries would be for taking care of the peak demand on non-renewable generation that takes place late afternoon when solar power winds down. Funny thing is that makes coal a bit more attractive as what's left is base load.

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • 599 posts
Posted by azrail on Friday, August 12, 2016 2:44 PM

The problem with batteries is that they are sensitive to temperature extremes, especially lithiums

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • 599 posts
Posted by azrail on Friday, August 12, 2016 2:49 PM

Also, to create wind power you need fossil fuels, to make the materials, transport them, service them, and make the wire to collect the power. The same with solar, plus solar panels don't work very well when they are dirty, which means they require 1000s of gallons of water to keep them clean-a problem in the desert.

 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,217 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, August 12, 2016 4:18 PM

D.Carleton
Electric rates are regulated and the regulators would not allow higher rates that would have brought newer more efficient generation.

Why does newer, more efficient generation require higher rates?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, August 12, 2016 4:30 PM

Euclid
D.Carleton

Why does newer, more efficient generation require higher rates?

You don't expect monopolys to do the investing in more efficient generation and transmission equipment without passing that on to the consumer. [/sarcasm]  Maybe consumers should have recipricol switching?  (the BS that passes for deregulated electrical suppliers doesn't pass the sniff test)

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: San Francisco East Bay
  • 1,360 posts
Posted by MikeF90 on Friday, August 12, 2016 4:55 PM

BaltACD
the BS that passes for deregulated electrical suppliers doesn't pass the sniff test

You got that right. Remember the Enron fiasco!  Here in California we are still paying for this hidden tax increase.  The local regulated utilities are constantly increasing our already high rates to add more expensive new solar and wind plants to the grid, due to greeny 'save the planet' legislation.  Riiiight.   Angry

Solarvoltaic energy is getting cheaper but only if the panels remain in the shipping container. Still no sane ROI when my electric bill is $30 / month (no live-in family or electric appliances).  Adding battery backup is at least $10K of licensed electrician and other contractor work.  Roof repair needed? More electrician $cha-ching$ to remove and replace panels!

While we're on the subject of pie-in-the-sky, why is that laser fusion research at LLNL still being funded?  No way in Hades that technology will ever be productionized for utility generation use. Even if it can be and the energy is almost free, we could probably only afford one plant and the cost of running improved transmission lines everywhere would cancel out that advantage.

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • 44 posts
Posted by gp18 on Saturday, August 13, 2016 7:43 AM

Are you sure of the $100 per kilowatthour? I pay .078 cents per kilowatthour generated plus .043 cents for delivery. How about $100 per megawatthour? Then there is what is called spinning reserve, where it is required that enough power is immediately available to cover the loss of two of the biggest generators in an area at any time.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, August 13, 2016 7:58 AM

gp18

Are you sure of the $100 per kilowatthour? I pay .078 cents per kilowatthour generated plus .043 cents for delivery. How about $100 per megawatthour? Then there is what is called spinning reserve, where it is required that enough power is immediately available to cover the loss of two of the biggest generators in an area at any time.

 

Do you not mean that you pay a total of $0.121 per KWH? 0.121 cents per KWH is less than what we were paying seventy years ago. I do not remember just what it was, but we paid more than a penny/KWH then.

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • 44 posts
Posted by gp18 on Saturday, August 13, 2016 9:15 AM

Actually my last bill was for .09504 per kilowatthour and .044960 per kilowatthour for delivery. Starting next month 10 munincipalties in this area have agreed with Texas Eagle at a rate of .087 per killowatthour while delivery remains the same. My concern with this deal is when there is a major power disruption, who will be restored first? Those who buy from the delivering company, or those of us who buy elsewhere? When government get their hands in the pie, it ususally goes bad.

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:03 AM

One thing that I've observed is that as battery technology is developed and new types come into use with improved storage, recharge and discharge capabilities, the batteries themselves seem to be turning into potential hazmat issues.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,217 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:30 AM

BaltACD
 
Euclid
D.Carleton

Why does newer, more efficient generation require higher rates?

 

You don't expect monopolys to do the investing in more efficient generation and transmission equipment without passing that on to the consumer. [/sarcasm]  Maybe consumers should have recipricol switching?  (the BS that passes for deregulated electrical suppliers doesn't pass the sniff test)

 

My point was that we are not headed for more efficient generation.  We are headed for green generation, which has an added purpose besides providing power for people to use.  That added purpose is to eliminate fossil fuel generation in order to save the planet.  Saving the planet adds to the cost of generation because it requires the banning of the cheaper fossil fuel generation. 

I don't follow your point about power companies being monopolies.  It is regulation against coal and gas that will cause rates to rise.   

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:41 AM

Just an observation,  if one lives in an area where the electric grid is predominently burried, there can be fewer disruptions... The town here buys power from 'the grid' ,and re-sells it to the residents.  (They also operate a back-up generation facility) ... Have considered a personal power back-up, fueled from natural gas; Cost on that is about $2.5 K installed(?).. So far costs, and reliablilty have not been enough of an issue to have warrented that.

 The battery technologies have improved mightily, but some types, as another poster mentioned create other problems: high heat, and other issues around flamibility cause them to be banned on some air transportation. The lead-acid batteries are also equipped with their own issues, as are the 'standard' carbon based,'disposibles' batteries (AA,A, B,C, etc). 

WE also have a number of "wind Farms" around this area, most of their output seems to be purchased outside the State (Ks.), but it still must be transported overland to those purchasers.  There is one nuclear plant in the S.E. part of the State, and for the last few years there has been a 'Battle' between the State, a Provider, and the 'NIMBY'/'ENVIRO' crowd over a coal fired plant in SW Ks. Not sure where that stands now?

Possibly, IF the railroads could figure out how to get their excess generation capacity from their locomotives to "The Grid" they might have an answer?? Idea

 

 


 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, August 14, 2016 6:04 AM

There're 292 surplus UP locomotives being stored in the Arizona desert, per another thread . . .

Say 4,000 HP each average x 0.75 KW per HP = 3,000 KW = 3 MW per locomotive; 292 x 3 = 876 MW. 

Some place I read that a typical coal-fired plant is around 600 MW; the infamous Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating station in PA is 802 MW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_station#Typical_power_output 

So those locomotives could be ~1.5 coal plants or <~1 nuclear power plants.

More than I would have thought !

And, their start-to-full power time - "dispatch time" or response time - is nearly instantaneous, probably faster than any other source except hydro.

This has been done from time to time - one I recall is the ice storm in upper New York and eastern Canada in the late 1990s:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/194245.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLW_M-420#Service_as_power_generators_in_Winter_1998 

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,409992 

One problem is that the throttle setting that produces 60 hz electricity is like notch 5 or 6 - less than full rated power.  But if this was ever to be done, somebody would have to figure out a way to convert or smooth the variations in frequency to match the grid. 

Interesting mid-level technical explanation: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/electricity-generation 

Also: http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html 

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Sunday, August 14, 2016 10:29 AM

Power has to come from somewhere and you cant put windmills and Hydro everywere. Nothing beats coal for BTU.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:00 PM

Euclid
 
D.Carleton
Electric rates are regulated and the regulators would not allow higher rates that would have brought newer more efficient generation.

Why does newer, more efficient generation require higher rates?

A new power plant inherently is more efficient than say a fifty year old plant due to better design and no wear-and-tear. That's just the world of machines.

The power generation world is very much like railroading prior to Staggers; the negotiated residential rates covers the cost of generation and transmission but not much more. That's the trade off: guaranteed income for a set rate. But this also makes the ratepayer a stakeholder in the power provider so when new generation needs to be built the money comes usually from selling bonds which are backed by a rate increase. In the meantime the power plants get by with minimum investment and as-necessary maintenance.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Sunday, August 14, 2016 4:32 PM

EMD made units that were for "PEAKING" and "BLACK START" use back in the 60's. Commonwealth Edison bought these after the New York Blackout of 1965 for their Joliet, Fisk, and Waukegan, stations. They were in blocks of 5 and each consisted of a 2 MVA generator driven by a 567 diesel plus a switchgear module providing a total peak output of 11,000,000 Watts. They were the last units dispatched since their fuel and maintenance cost was about $0.20 a KW when the customer charge was about $0.08/kW. They were quick to come on line. Their primary justification was the need to be able to recover from a system blackout. Or to recover from the loss of a major generator. How do you start a fossil or nuclear plant without the energy from the network? Chicago has little hydo (too flat) and thus the diesels were a good option. But they are not economical for base load. Back then, coal generation for new units was less than $0.01 a kW at the generator. Electic utilities have the need to match the generation to the load which is lowest at night and peaks during the day and then hits it's highest peak on the hotest day of the year. And if its an extended heat spell, the peak gets higher each day. The initial cost of the diesel peakers is lower than a coal plant but the fuel cost is (was) higher. So these units only saw service on a few days of the year.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, August 14, 2016 5:00 PM

We need a chemist or chemical engineer to chime in here.  What are is the various power densities of all kinds of batteries.  That would be per cubic CM. Inch. foot. yard. meter.  Also what is the heat loss per unit of power that would need ventilation to dissapate the heat ?  

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, August 14, 2016 5:31 PM

The Safe Harbor, PA hydroelectric dam is tasked with being able to achieve  a 'black start' in the event of a widespread power outage in the Northeast.  One of those units is set up for 25 hz.  Some of us will recognize the significance of that* without looking - see:

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

http://www.liquisearch.com/amtraks_25_hz_traction_power_system/power_sources/hydroelectric_generators - 2nd para.

http://www.shwpc.com/facts_figures.html - * at bottom of page. 

http://www.pjm.com/~/media/training/nerc-certifications/gen-exam-materials/gof/20160104-black-start-definitions-procurement-process.ashx 

http://www.rtoinsider.com/pjm-black-start-replace-coal/ 

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Sunday, August 14, 2016 5:50 PM

Thanks for the continuing education Paul. The 2003 blackout left people wondering why it took so long to get everything back on line. Now I know.

Norm


  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, August 14, 2016 9:23 PM

You're welcome, Norm.

The PJM (Penna. - Jersey - Maryland) grid (started 1927) is based on providing power for the original PRR electrification (announced 1928 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad#Pennsylvania_Railroad_electrification ) which ran through each of those states (plus Delaware) from Wash, D.C. to New York City, though that relationship is rarely stated.  I believe it has the most robust infrastructure and the best performance of any such RTO Regional Transmission Organization.  To the best of my knowledge, that grid has never gone down entirely - or even mostly - in any of the major blackouts in the NorthEastern US.  That includes the first major one - New York in 1965, and then the 2003 one:

http://blackout.gmu.edu/events/tl1965.html 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJM_Interconnection#The_Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

http://pluggedin.pjm.com/2013/08/the-2003-blackouts-effect-in-perspective/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003#Unaffected_regions

See also the 1st 47 slides of this presentation (includes international blackouts):

https://www.pjm.com/~/media/training/nerc-certifications/sr-systemrestoration.ashx 

I believe that results from its heritage as a PRR progeny, which placed primary importance on reliability and efficiency. 

http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are.aspx 

http://home.engineering.iastate.edu/~jdm/ee553/PJMmarket.pdf 

Today, PJM seems to be the leader in terms of technology and innovative programs to better manage and improve all aspects of electrical transmission:

http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/emerging-technologies.aspx

- Paul North.   

P.S. - I have no financial interest or other relationship with PJM other than being an ordinary consumer of electric power through one of the utilities that is a member (PPL Electric Utilities, Inc.).  

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 27 posts
Posted by Rockeater on Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:29 AM
Clean air silliness?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy