Trains.com

Batteries a Possible Future Blow to Coal

4461 views
47 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • 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
    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
    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 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
    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
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 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
    January 2014
  • 8,221 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
    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 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
    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
    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 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 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
    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
    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
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 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
    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
    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
    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
    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.

 

 

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