All of our energy storage problems are solved...

[kristopher]

Without delay let me say :sarcasm: with an !!

At first I thought this was from the Onion, but now I'm just wondering WTF is the story that led to the creation of such a masterpiece of ignorance.

Ceramatec Develops 24-hour Solar Energy Storage Battery
Salt Lake City-based Cerametec, Inc. is in development of a battery that solar energy users outside the grid could use to store energy from their solar panels for most of a day, and its size and configuration – almost fitting in the palm of a hand, without lead and sulfur – promises safer, more manageable energy storage.

The battery runs on a sodium-sulfur mix, which is reportedly more energy intensive than typical lead-acid batteries, and has a 92-percent charge/discharge rating, allowing grid-tied solar energy users to store energy from their solar panels during off-peak hours (typically midnight to 7 a.m.) and use them when kilowatt-hour electricity costs soar during the day.

It would potentially allow non-solar users to do the same, providing the batteries don’t catch on to the extent that their use tips the on-peak/off-peak paradigm and draws the wrath of utility companies nationwide, most of whom have carefully calculated peak loads with plant operations.

Ceramatec has also reportedly found a way to make the battery run at less than 200 degrees Fahrenheit, thanks to a ceramic membrane between the sodium and sulfur which inhibits positive sodium ions, leaving the electrons to create a high-energy current. Of course, the sodium compound is corrosive, so it’s probably not something you would give your kids.

The batteries, which can be ramped to store up to 20 kilowatt-hours of electricity and are attached to a disk, will be ready for market testing in 2011, and will sell for about $2,000.

The size alone is a radical departure from the 12-volt, deep-cycle (RV, marine and golf cart) batteries currently on sale for alternative energy storage, which measure about 25 inches by 40 inches (and roughly 10 inches deep), weigh 50 pounds, and cost about $2,500.

At 20 kilowatt hours – most of an average household’s electricity use per day – they look very promising. American households typically use about 33 kilowatt hours a day, or 1,000 kilowatt hours a month, so the battery’s storage capacity could easily take an energy-conscious household through a typical day, with some caveats (no dishwasher or combined TV/computer operations, for example).

Off-grid households relying on alternative energies like solar typically use deep-cycle batteries, wired in tandem, to store energy for periods when the sun doesn’t shine. This gives them a distinct advantage over the grid-tied, who either have to wait out a power failure or rent a generator. Batteries also help loads to run at a constant voltage, while still allowing solar panels or wind turbines to charge as much as possible.

On the negative side, existing deep-cycle batteries are large, full of lethal components like lead and sulfuric acid, heavy, and require regular maintenance. They are also the first part of a solar electric system to wear out.

Newer models, adapted to alternative energy storage, may have a useful lifetime of up to 20 years, and offer 2,100 cycles (complete discharge to recharge), or 4,000 cycles to half-capacity, but they are still large, heavy and dangerous, and may not last as long as the solar panels they serve. In fact, battery failure is often the largest contributing factor in a solar array’s failure to deliver according to its rated capacity.

If Ceramatec’s battery delivers as promised, it would be an ideal, and less cumbersome, solution to solar energy storage, though most users will likely want a lifetime rating (beyond the 92-percent charge/discharge tag) when asked to fork over two grand.

http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/8070901-ceramatec-develops-24-hour-solar-energy-storage-battery.aspx

[rucky]

1. I feel stupid for asking, but..

what's wrong with this invention?

[Indydem]

2. Ok, I don't get it? Why is it ignorant? Sounds like a leap forward.

[Journeyman]

4. Deleted 'cause I don't think I read the article properly. . .

[krispos42]

3. Must be them new starlight-absorbing photovoltaic panels

:eyes:

[Sal Minella]

5. Could Kristopher (or somebody) tell me where "ignorance" figures

into a device that can store energy like this?

It doesn't put money into the pockets of the coal and oil companies, but IMO that doesn't make it evil.....

[TheWraith]

14. Solar panels don't store energy between midnight and 7 AM.

Unless you're talking about Baghdad time.

[Sal Minella]

15. I store milk in the refrigerator overnight.

Frequently, I have put the milk in there during the afternoon.
I store the milk until I need it.

You are reading "store" as "charge" I think.

[TheWraith]

16. No, I'm not. Read the second paragraph in context.

And solar panels don't store energy at ANY time, ever. Batteries do, but they're not talking about batteries. They're talking about solar panels producing cheap energy in the middle of the night, then using it in the daytime when peak pricing is in effect.

[Sal Minella]

18. The batteries store energy during off-peak hours. It's right there.

That's what it says -- the batteries store energy during off-peak hours.

I can't imagine how you think anybody is saying that solar panels store energy???

I have no idea why you're having so much trouble with this -- I think you guys who are stalwarts of W.A.S.T.E. (Wind-And-Solar Teabaggers Enclave) just make up any excuse to go into conniptions and try to convince people wind and solar should be done away with entirely in the interests of Big Oil and Big Coal.

Edit: See eomer's post, #17, for clarity of expression which my posts lack.

[kristopher]

20. The writer is an idiot.

He predicated his piece on the extremely confused premise that solar panels are going to produce electricity at night. He did this not once, but twice when he provided the contra-point of a non-solar grid tied system.
He also creates the illusion that this remarkable "palm sized" device will store 20kWh. Now I know that the intent is to bring out the fact that this particular technology is available in a small unit that can be made larger, but the lay reader is left with the impression that the choice in technologies amounts to either a palm sized unit or a 50 pound battery - both of which are incorrect as they relate to the amount of storage being discussed - in fact the lead acid battery is probably closer to 1200lbs with the NaS coming in at about 1/4 that. (If you think I'm in error about the impression, see post #7 this thread)

The bottom line is that there are a lot of different batteries out there that are better positioned (for a variety of reasons) for the specific application the OP is recommending. The NaS has seen some success in Japan when used on the scale of batteries of 80 tons meeting multi-megawatt load balancing demands, but it isn't a technology that is generally considered for home level load shifting in a distributed grid.

If the article has something to say about a new breakthrough that changes the picture significantly, the idiot author totally failed to communicate what that something is. One thing I know for sure, the featured company certainly haasn't figured out a way to make the sun shine at night.

Now, as to the accusation that I'm somehow a tool of fossil fuel interests, go fuck yourself. Just because you're fool enough or uninformed enough to think that every announcement that is cast in term of helping the shift to renewables is somehow a profound insight or major development doesn't mean that everyone is similarly handicapped. I'd suggest you go to my journal and then take a moment to make an apology.

[teranchala]

25. Well done, sir.

I'm discovering that there are scientifically ignorant Democrats as well as republicans.
You're helping to eliminate that problem :D

[wtmusic]

6. A 25x40x10 lead acid battery that weighs 50 lbs?? Costs $2500??

:silly:

[bkkyosemite]

7. Well sounds like two of them would give the household enough power to run everything.

[silverweb]

10. Exactly.

Like a solar or wind installation, it would pay for itself over time.

The cost of the batteries would likely come down quite a bit in time, as well. They're very pricey now, but so is pretty much every new invention before it catches on.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Now THAT is epic.

That's grade A science reporting, right there. It's Awesome. It's Classic. Clearly, Nate Lew has a bright future ahead of him.

Especially around 2AM.

For those still hunting, read the second paragraph again...



Recc'd, bookmarked, and printed out for framing.

[orwell]

9. I thought we were going to generate electricity...

...during off peak hours by burning all the old people that have been terminated as a result of the new Obama death panels.

You mean to tell me that Sarah Palin lied to me?

[silverweb]

11. ...

:spray:

[orwell]

12. ...

:toast:

[silverweb]

19. hehe...

[kristopher]

13. FYI on sodium sulfur (NaS) batteries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

These batteries are not new, and although the featured technology seems to have good operating characteristics for a NaS battery, it isn't anything very special at all.

[eomer]

17. It's poorly worded, not stupid.

What they mean is that solar users who are grid tied would have all the components needed to enable them to take cheaper power from the grid during off-peak hours, store it in the batteries, and then use it during the next day in place of more expensive daytime power from the grid.

The efficiency of the battery would be key to pulling this off. If you lose too great a percentage in the process of pulling power off the grid, storing it, and then using later, then the scheme will not save any money. So the invention of the battery with greater efficiency makes this feasible (they say) when it wasn't before.

People who don't have a grid-tied solar system could also take advantage of this scheme without buying any solar panels. They just need the batteries and the battery charger and inverter.

[NNadir]

21. It's no less garbage than the last 55 years of "solar will save us" rhetoric.

On the other hand, I note that NOT ONE "solar will save us" anti-nuke handwaver has ever before objected to the toxicity issue of solar cells, although such toxicity is often considered in the scientific literature.

So if we have a "solar will save us" fantasy kiddie even mentioning the toxicity problem, that is something new.

However, it doesn't matter, since solar has been failing to become a significant form of energy for more than half a century, and will undoubtedly continue to do the same for quite some time to come.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. I think you've gone way overboard in your criticism

It seems to me that the problem is more with your reading than with the author's writing. The article is about storage batteries that could be used to store power generated by solar panels, for use at night. (Not about solar panels that work at night.)

However, once again, when possible, look for primary sources:
http://www.ceramatec.com/techareas/techa_advancedb.php

Ceramatec is presently developing high-energy density primary and secondary batteries based on Lithium and Alkaline battery chemistries. These batteries can potentially meet the cost, performance and safety criteria for a variety of battery applications.

Rechargeable Li battery technology based on nanostructured manganese oxide cathode materials is one such innovative battery technology being developed at Ceramatec that has the potential to meet these three criteria. It is anticipated that Ceramatec’s Li-MnO₂ battery technology can outperform state-of-the-art lithium-ion and Ni-MH batteries.

Batteries based on solid-state ceramic oxide composite electrolytes provide the benefit of operation at temperatures up to 550° C, without issues associated with sealing and packaging of such batteries systems. We are presently developing an all solid-state “LiAl-solid electrolyte-FeS₂” battery system based on co-pressed and laminated electrode-electrolyte structures. The Li ion conductivity of the solid electrolytes developed at Ceramatec approaches 10^-1 S/cm at 400° C, and are chemically compatible with the selected electrode materials. These batteries are being developed as primary as well as secondary battery systems.

Zn-Air batteries are an attractive alternative to fuel-cells. Ceramatec can fabricate low-cost, light-weight and compact primary Zn-Air button-cell batteries with high power and energy densities that can compete with Li batteries and Fuel-cells in all the three criteria.

[kristopher]

23. And I think you fail to criticize when it's justified.

See post 20

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. I believe you misunderstand what he's writing about

The author may also be the victim of an editor. (I've had some of my own stuff worked on by editors, to the point where it's just plain wrong.)

In any case, non solar, grid power users might (in theory) charge up these batteries during off-peak hours, and then use the stored energy during peak hours to lower their electric bills.

[kristopher]

27. I understand precisely what he *trying* to write about, ypa.

But apparently YOU don't. The article is about a supposed innovation in battery technology. The idea of load shifting is the application for this supposed new technology.

In your zeal to criticize me, your previous post linked to the wrong technology at the website of the company; the idiot was talking about NaS batteries, not lithium or NiMH. Now you are flat out misrepresenting the core of the article in a misguided effort to, I suppose, further defend the efforts of this moron for some unknown reason.

If you like accepting such garbage that's your business, but that doesn't mean that I have to share you values. I think the guy deserves to be ridiculed. Accepting such tripe is the foundation of mediocrity. Could that be why you're so comfortable with it?

BTW: I'd really enjoy reading at the company website about this new NaS battery they've developed if you run across it...

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. The point of my linking to the web site was to show that this is the sort of technology they develop

As for the author of the article. Having read it over a few times, it just looks like a case of poor editing.

I believe the author knew what he was writing about.

I really don't know what you're getting so upset about.

[kristopher]

29. Why was that relevant?

I an very sure that no one ever questioned whether the company developed advanced batteries or not. This is a perfect example of your habitual practice of posting material that is totally unrelated to the actual discussion and using it as cover for editorial comment that you don't have the balls to just come out and say directly.

For what it's worth, I believe I've tracked down the original press piece on this technology, and I've read a couple of much shorter articles (one from PopMech) that also have it pretty screwed up - not as bad as our friend above with his confusion about solar, but almost.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/article_b0372fd8-3f3c-11de-ac77-001cc4c002e0.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. I guess you just like arguing

I don't.

[kristopher]

31. HA!

Still waiting to hear the relevancy of that post to the subject.

[Fledermaus]

32. It often bites the hand that feeds it.

:shrug:

[Sal Minella]

26. OOooopsie.

=======================
"It seems to me that the problem is more with your reading than with the author's writing."
=======================
You gonna get called bad names now.

[jjhudak]

33. Not so fast.......

  My background is experimental solid state physics and I
would be concerned over some of the conclusions folks are
coming to. The article is exceedingly brief, seems to contain
errors and has minimal content.  The human mind rushes to fill
in the blanks with the result of producing erroneous
conclusions with regard to cost, size and weight of a final
product.
   The article clearly says the battery would have to be
scaled up to power a house.  This means that not only the size
of the prototype unit cell would have to increase, but, since
the output voltage of a single cell is only 2 volts, many
units would have to be ganged to produce the necessary voltage
and energy storage capacity (Watt Hrs). For example, a single
auto battery consists of 6 lead acid cells ( 2.1 volts each)
connected in series to produce the familiar 12 volt car
battery.
  In addition, the article could be implying that the future
cost per cell would be $2,000, not the cost of the entire bank
of cells that may even require a minimum of 60 unit cells.
Furthermore, there is no estimate for the cost of fuel needed
to continuously maintain the high operating temperature. Size
and weight considerations are other issues that are missing
from the article.  These factors would certainly alter the
perceived practicality and economics of this approach.
  According to the 1983 patent cited below, the main
contributions of Ceramatec seem to be a possible reduction in
operating temperature and a reduction battery degradation over
time.
  Here are some helpful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery
http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies/nas_batteries/
http://environmentengineering.blogspot.com/2008/03/sodium-sulfur-nas-battery-possesses.html
http://www.ceramatec.com/index.php
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,407,912.PN.&OS=PN/4,407,912&RS=PN/4,407,912
Cheers!