Slashdot Mirror


Largest Sodium Sulfur Battery Powers a Texas Town

separsons writes "The largest sodium sulfur battery in America, nicknamed 'BOB,' can provide enough electricity to power all of Presidio, Texas. Until now, the small town relied on a single 60-year-old transmission line to connect it to the grid, so the community frequently experienced power outages. BOB, which stands for 'Big-Old Battery,' began charging earlier this week. The house-sized battery can deliver four megawatts of power for up to eight hours. Utilities are looking into similar batteries to store power from solar and wind so that renewables can come online before the country implements a smart grid system."

67 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. from the article by polar+red · · Score: 4, Informative

    the battery would cost 25M, while a second transmission line would cost 60M. o_O

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:from the article by HalifaxRage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reminds me of the boom in wireless ISPs... telco claims prohibitive costs to lay new copper or fiber to a neighbourhood, instead a WISP comes along and at a cost of a few thousand dollars puts up an AP and we're off.

      --
      bomb the us up set someone
    2. Re:from the article by Snowblindeye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the battery would cost 25M, while a second transmission line would cost 60M. o_O

      But they are building both!. The second transmission line will be done by 2012.

    3. Re:from the article by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...and how much would a gas or diesel powered generator with a 4MW capacity cost? Since the battery consists of rather dangerous chemicals (e.g. pure sodium metal), has a limited life span and has to operate at 350C (ok - that's probably less of an issue in Texas in the summer ;-) it is hard to see any environmental argument for it over a diesel generator once the heating, production and charge/discharge efficiency are factored in.

    4. Re:from the article by marvinglenn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you have a reference to the fact that the battery needs to run at 350C?

      You could start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

      It seems a bit impractical to heat a house-sized building that much, especially when you have lost power.

      Good insulation, and you don't heat the building, you heat the guts of the battery. Also, the lost energy is likely heating the battery.

      I'm guessing a 4MW generator would take a couple of minutes, maybe 10s of minutes, to spin up to capacity.

      Not the ones I've seen. (Hospital and nuke reactor backup.)

      --
      The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
    5. Re:from the article by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed. A 4MW generator is going to run $1-2M, or you could buy one rebuilt for far less. For another million, you could install enough flywheel storage to last you until the generators can be brought online. Double it for added redundancy, and you're still talking 1/3 the upfront cost of the system.

    6. Re:from the article by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The pilot studies in South Africa show that pebble bed reactors acn abe built for $800 to $1000 per kilowatt. A 4mW reactor could be built for around $4 million and they could completely disconnect themselves from the grid.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:from the article by xero314 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now they have to open supply line and contract another energy supplier (diesel is just another way of transporting energy). They already have the power line in place and are all ready contracting with the power supplied. Keeping this Battery charged will actually reduce their per kw cost, as the over all volume will go up. As for environmental, building a pipe line, or trucking in Diesel would have it's own environmental impact. Never mind that you would have to store an explosive material.

    8. Re:from the article by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder what a diesel generator would cost them? Reportedly many communities in Alaska are serviced by power generated by massive diesel generators. 4mw is what a data center consumes, right?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:from the article by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the cost of legislation for a nuke plant in the US per mW though? Diesel generators produce the same energy for half the price as nuclear in the kW range, and regulation is slim to none.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Call me old-fashioned, but I'd go 100% eco with a gerbil in a wheel or a hand crank if the demand doesn't exceed 4mW.

    11. Re:from the article by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reportedly many communities in Alaska are serviced by power generated by massive diesel generators.

      Well of course they are. Diesel is the default conservative power source for remote communities in Australia but photovoltaics are moving in. Solar power may not work as well in Alaska but wind power may do the job instead. Combine that with a BoB and you have a good reliable power supply.

    12. Re:from the article by xouumalperxe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Never mind that you would have to store an explosive material.

      Not that liquid sodium is that much better, mind you

    13. Re:from the article by vegiVamp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just go static, stick two metal rods in a lemon.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    14. Re:from the article by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean a BOL - Big Old Lemon.

    15. Re:from the article by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not the ones I've seen. (Hospital and nuke reactor backup.)

      Ever see them try to spin up a 1 MW class diesel locomotive engine in winter? Its not pretty in the best of conditions, even worse if everyone's stressed out. There's a reason they don't shut off diesel loco engines in the winter. And even in TX it does get cold on occasion.

      I was told in a tour that the nuke backup engines go full power in much less than 10s, but, they keep the coolant and engine block heated to operating temp 24x7 with electrical heaters, they have bizarre oil systems that are kept pumping 24x7 yet somehow don't hydrolock the pistons, they have onsite 24x7 maintenance crews, and still they occasionally break so they need multiple ones for true redundancy. I was told the only real delay in starting is something about needing to stabilize the airflow in the intake and exhaust before throwing a huge load on, something about air tanks, pneumatic starters. and how they vent. Obviously this was more than a decade ago, after 9/11 they absolutely JUMPED at the chance to get rid of tours. I was told that they have the cleanest engine oil in the state, actually cleaner than fresh in the can, because they pump it continuously thru filters 24x7.

      A battery is a lot simpler, if it will switch over at all, it'll do so in a couple milliseconds, and there's not much maintenance possible, so not much to schedule and pay for.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:from the article by vegiVamp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not for 4mW.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    17. Re:from the article by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The pilot studies in South Africa show that pebble bed reactors acn abe built for $800 to $1000 per kilowatt. A 4mW reactor could be built for around $4 million and they could completely disconnect themselves from the grid.

      Somehow I suspect that the costs of Pebble Bed nuclear reactors don't scale up linearly per-kilowatt.

      If that was the case, then one could get a "personal" 1kW pebble bed reactor for $1000.

      So there must be a "minimum" power value above which the price per kilowatt is close enough to the one you quoted for your argument to make some sense.

      Until you can show that 4mW is at or above that "minimum" power value your argument makes no sense.

    18. Re:from the article by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 3, Informative

      I live only about an hour from the town where this is being done, and can attest; 'Its never winter in Presidio'

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    19. Re:from the article by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ever see them try to spin up a 1 MW class diesel locomotive engine in winter? ... I was told in a tour that the nuke backup engines go full power in much less than 10s, but, they keep the coolant and engine block heated to operating temp 24x7 with electrical heaters, they have bizarre oil systems that are kept pumping 24x7 yet somehow don't hydrolock the pistons, they have onsite 24x7 maintenance crews, and still they occasionally break so they need multiple ones for true redundancy.

      I've worked with diesel generators from 1MW up to the size this town would need, that were primarily emergency generators for a nuclear plant, and they were only run for testing, drills and the occasional power loss. They needed a small (like tens of kW tops) set of heaters to keep them warm even in the coldest weather, and there were maybe two 24-7 guys whose responsibility was to go check readings once an hour on multiple generators (and in the non-nuclear world you could easily replace those two guys with some sensors, a computer, a phone line, and an on-call mechanic). I don't remember there being bizarre oil systems, and the oil didn't run 24/7, because it was very quiet when they weren't running.

      They really just weren't a big hassle in the big scheme of things. You have to do maintenance on them at regular intervals, but you have to do that to any complex machine, like, say, a town-load-sized battery + inverter installation. Disclaimer: I've never worked with a 4MW UPS, but I don't think it's going to be maintenance-free.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    20. Re:from the article by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A gas generator would make more sense as the infrastructure is already available to fuel them.

      4 - G3516 LE should do the trick, plus there isn't a single point of failure. Get 5 generators and run them all at partial load.

      What happens when BOB gets wet?

    21. Re:from the article by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm confident the technology exists to keep something dry, in 2010.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    22. Re:from the article by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of more concern to me is how exactly do you take 4 MW of DC power and turn that into sinusoidal 220 Vac RMS. Large motors with spark gaps or something similar will get you a square wave.

      A giant AC-DC inverter would work, but where are you going to find such a thing that can handle 4 MW?

      Rain should be the least of their concerns.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    23. Re:from the article by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm confident the technology exists to keep something dry, in 2010.

      I, for one, am quite happy with my "roof", as it's called.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    24. Re:from the article by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder what a diesel generator would cost them?

      Diesel generators of that size (you would want to buy 2 of them) would probably run between 1-2 million dollars. But keep in mind that they would consume about 300 gallons of #2 diesel (non-taxed) per hour. What would that cost you?

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    25. Re:from the article by gtbritishskull · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes... I think I can build a wind turbine with electricity.

    26. Re:from the article by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Call me old-fashioned, but I'd go 100% eco with a gerbil in a wheel or a hand crank if the demand doesn't exceed 4mW.

      Not to be pedantic (well, ok, in fact to be ultra-pedantic... so pedantic I find it necessary to point out how pedantic I'm being, and you can't get much more pedantic than that) there's nothing especially 'eco' about gerbils or hand cranks. 'Natural' maybe, but nature is full of incredibly wasteful processes (evolution itself, for example).

      I'd like to see us break this bizarre association people have between the industrial use of the most wasteful processes on the planet (natural ones) and ecologically friendly technology.

      So at 4 mW (yeah, I got the joke, I just decided to use it to make my incredibly pedantic point) you'd be better off from an ecological perspective going with a radioisotope generator. Salvage some 241Am out of a bunch of smoke detectors and you'd be good to go, and eco-friendly as can be.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    27. Re:from the article by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if oil runs out, the worst option for eletricity generation will be a diesel generator.

      "You think you can build a wind turbine with wind power?"

      Why not? Really, give a reason for one not being able to do that. EROEI is ok, minerals are ok once you adopt a (more expensive) process of refining that uses eletricity instead of oil, mining is ok, transportation is ok. You'll need some bio oils for lubrification, plastics and rubber, but everything quite on the realm of the possible.

    28. Re:from the article by SOdhner · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm confident the technology exists to keep something dry, in 2010.

      I, for one, am quite happy with my "roof", as it's called.

      Actually I've just been granted a patent on the 'roof' and so...

      Oh. Wrong kind of Texas story. Sorry.

    29. Re:from the article by Myrv · · Score: 2, Informative

      A giant AC-DC inverter would work, but where are you going to find such a thing that can handle 4 MW?

      Static Inverter Plant

      They're used for high voltage DC transmission systems. Actually, they're probably overkill for a 4 MW supply as many plants have been built to handle hundreds of MW each.

    30. Re:from the article by chickenarise · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only one problem with your rosy prediction of the future. It has been apparent for decades now that we need to "wean ourselves off oil" yet our oil consumption rate has only gone up.

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
  2. Haven't heard about these in years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's been a long time since I last heard about Sodium/Sulphur batteries. Twenty-plus years ago Ford Aerospace in Newport Beach, CA had a small research facility looking at this technology. The smell of sulphur was pretty strong around that building which was cleverly situated both downhill and downwind from the rest of the campus. The idea of being anywhere in the neighborhood of a bunch of hot,liquid sodium and a bunch of hot,liquid sulphur somehow never seemed like a good idea to me.

  3. Re:Four megawatts of power for up to eight hours? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A watt is a unit of power not energy, that'd be 115 gigajoules (or 32 MWh if you're lazy)

  4. Game of telephone by Rufus211 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's amazing the game of telephone that happens when blogs steal news stories from blogs that steal news stories from blogs.

    Inhabitat: "Electric Transmission Texas ponied up $25 million to build the battery, and will add $60 million to build a second transmission line by 2012."

    PopSci: "Electric Transmission Texas helped put the battery project together for around $25 million. But the utility has also agreed to build a second 60-mile transmission line to Presidio for about $44 million by 2012."

    NPR: "The other solution for this town would be to build a second line, and that line would cost somewhere in the range of $40 to $50 million. And so a battery project in the $25 million range looks pretty attractive."

    They all agree the battery costs $25mill, 2/3 agree that the 2nd transmission line will be built in 2012, and none of them agree on the price of the 2nd line.

    1. Re:Game of telephone by alienzed · · Score: 2, Funny

      How dare they...

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    2. Re:Game of telephone by Mateorabi · · Score: 3, Funny

      But they all agreed on Purple Monkey Dishwasher.

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    3. Re:Game of telephone by SpzToid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to detract at all from your point, however there's something worth pointing out I learned while listening to NPR.

      This particular city has a contract with a Mexican power company, to provide backup power during the all-too frequent times the lone cable to the US power is broken. However 'some time' is required to switch the city from US to the Mexican power grid. The purpose of this battery is to make the switch from US to Mexican power seamless to the end-user. Therefore, 8hrs is plenty of time for the battery power to last.

      Perhaps the battery buys the town time in more ways than one. Now the town is less reliant on someone building out that spare US transmission line for awhile longer. And I'm sure that price varies on which year the 2ns US power line is built.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    4. Re:Game of telephone by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      They all agree the battery costs $25mill, 2/3 agree that the 2nd transmission line will be built in 2012, and none of them agree on the price of the 2nd line.

      You don't work in IT do you? If you did you'd realise that sounds like any typical project plan.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Game of telephone by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, they just used the Vista file copy dialog to calculate the price.

    6. Re:Game of telephone by todrules · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't work in IT do you? If you did you'd realise that sounds like any typical project plan.

      No it doesn't. They all agreed on the delivery date.

    7. Re:Game of telephone by ls671 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > And I'm sure that price varies on which year the 2ns US power line is built.

      You are right, I have read another blog post saying the new line would have cost 35,000$ in 1905. At least, that blog post specified the year. What were the others thinking when not specifying the year ? ;-))

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  5. Energy not Power by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    so it holds 32MW

    No - it can hold 32MWh (=115.2GJ). Batteries hold energy not power. Since power is energy per unit time you have to multiply it by a time to get energy.

  6. Leaky battery by iliketrash · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The house-sized battery can hold four megawatts of power for up to eight hours."

    "Power" is not "held." Power is delivered. Energy is held. The unit of energy is joule.

    1. Re:Leaky battery by nuckfuts · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't recall ever seeing a battery rated in Joules. Small batteries are rated in both volts and mAh. The voltage times the amperage tells you how much power it can put out. The power times the duration tells you how much energy it can deliver.

      Rather than stating that the battery can "hold 4 megawatts of power for up to 8 hours", the article should perhaps have stated that the battery can "deliver four megawatts of power for up to 8 hours", as is stated in the /. summary. From this you could derive that it holds about 115 GJ.

      For comparison, I have a laptop battery in front of me rated at 11.1V, 7800mAh. It would take approx. 369,600 of these batteries to store 115 GJ.

  7. Re:That Stinks. by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Talk about shooting the rope that's tied to a balloon that hits the hamster cage, that turns the treadmill, that throws the basketball onto the lightswitch to turn on the light!!!

    In Dwarf Fortress, you turn the switch, that opens the door, that lets the goblin in, who steps in the pressure plate, that connects the windmill, that pumps the magma, that runs under the water, that evaporates, passes through the grates, incinerates the goblin, who releases the pressure plate, closes the door and resets the trap.

    Or that's what the engineer described before flooding half the fortress and turning the other half into a convoluted basalt sculpture.

  8. NPR Link by VTI9600 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story originally came from an NPR interview. Here is a link.

  9. BUB by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    BUB might be a better nickname. Big Unexploded Battery.

    I'm sure it's safely enclosed and all the safety aspects have been taken into account, but it will be an impressive boom when it does go off, assuming the size of the boom goes up proportionally with the size of the battery (I had a tiny watch battery blow my little remote control car apart...)

    1. Re:BUB by Terrasque · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reminds me a bit of a story I heard once from one of my teachers.

      There are some small power control stations around, and this was about one of those. This particular one was high up in a mountain, and a capacitor was in need of change. Size a bit smaller than a garage.

      So a person put the new capacitor in his backpack (yep, one of the rather big ones..), got up there (took a few hours), cut the power, removed the old one and popped in the new one. Put on the power, everything looked ok and he went back down.

      When he got back down, the central had tried reaching him for a while, because they'd lost contact with it. So up again he went, and when he got up there, the power station was gone. There was some wood splinters here and there, and some twisted metal, maybe enough to fill a bag. But the station was gone.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  10. That's a great price! by msevior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This thing cost 25 million to make and apparently stores 192000 KWHr of energy. That is $130/KWHr. On average my home uses 17 KWHr/day so I can store my average needs for only $2210.00.

    Thats a small additional cost on the 6 KW of Peak Power worth of PV's I need to provide the 17 KWHr for my house.

    Does this thing scale down?
     

    1. Re:That's a great price! by sFurbo · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Sodium-sulphur batteries scale down horribly. They need to run hot enough for the sulphur to be molten*, and keeping large things hot is easier than keeping small things hot, as the thermal energy scale with the cube of the size, but the escaped heat scales with the square. I don't know how small they can get, though.

      *According to wikipedia, they need to run even hotter, 300-350 degree celsius

  11. Question: how much energy did it take to make it? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not based on the $25 million sticker price: that's just bullshit accounting. I'd like to know the Joules expended in the extraction, refining, shipping and construction of this thing, including the energy required by the workers, then let's compare that to the energy that it will actually store and deliver over its working life.

    Eventually, we are going to have to start asking these questions about "renewable" generation and storage, because you can only hide a net energy loss in the books for so long, until the fossil fuels that subsidise these energy sinks start to run out.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  12. Re:Energy not Power and Batter Life by uglyduckling · · Score: 5, Informative

    They can last about 2,500 complete cycles or 4,800 80% discharge cycles. (From the wikipedia article linked elsewhere). Presuming a power outage once a week requiring 80% discharge, it would last about 90 years, if the number of cycles is the only thing determining its longevity.

  13. These are available for home use already... by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look in any computer shop and you'll see NaS storage systems!

  14. Re:Energy not Power and Batter Life by bezenek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can last about 2,500 complete cycles or 4,800 80% discharge cycles. (From the wikipedia article linked elsewhere). Presuming a power outage once a week requiring 80% discharge, it would last about 90 years, if the number of cycles is the only thing determining its longevity.

    That is 10-15 years when used as a night-time backup for solar collection.

    This might be useful.

    -Todd

    --
    Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
  15. What happened to Vanadium Redox? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm curious as to why they used Sodium Sulfur rather than Vanadium Redox.

    I'm unaware of any advantages to S.S. except maybe size (which wouldn't particularly matter in a stationary installation. And the Vanadium Redox is already productized for exactly this service.

    Maybe too much patent encumberment and the guys with the V.R. patent don't have enough production capacity or are charging too much?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  16. Re:BOBs are probably safer underground by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Informative

    It runs on molten sodium. Cool is the one thing you don't ever want the battery to get.

  17. Re:BOBs are probably safer underground by zwarte+piet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wet being the other

  18. Re:Question: how much energy did it take to make i by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're saying instead of smelting metal, making concrete, and paying construction workers to build the battery, it might be more cost effective to pay that same smelting facility, concrete making plant, and construction workers to provide a few hours of power for this town every week or so?

    I doubt this project has anything to do with "renewable" but all to do with convenience of not having to lose power for a few hours every few weeks. Sure those few hours may be 10x as expensive as normal, but, eh, you don't have to adjust clocks on all those VCRs every week.

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  19. Re:Tensile strength and inertia by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 2, Informative

    I found an online calculator and apparently the energy squares with either the diameter OR the speed. The only linear input is mass.

    So let's try this: A 100-meter wide flywheel, weighing 10 metric tons, spinning at 1hz, gets you 68 kWh, or double that if you move the mass to the outside (which I presume you would for something that big). Now that's probably light for something so big, so at 100 metric tons you could get up to 1.36 MWh.

    This battery has 32 MWh.

    You would need to spin it 5 times faster (300rpm) to get that kind of energy. That's frighteningly fast for a ferris wheel. Also it would need some serious electromagnets and one hell of a support structure that's also frictionless.

    No matter how you slice it, flywheels are all about linear momentum. They're either big or they're fast and it's hard to both.

  20. Economically ridiculous solution by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's do the math here.

    The article suggests the battery can put out 4 megawatts for 8 hours. So that's 32,000 kilowatt-hours. My electricity here costs about 7 cents a kWh, so that BOB can hold almost $225 worth of electricity. At a cost of many millions, that does not sound like very economical power per kWh!

    For example, your basic Honda generator can run for two thousand hours, putting out 1,500 watts, before the little putt-putt engine needs an overhaul. So that's about 3,000 kilowatt-hours for $400. Let's assume the power fails ten times a year, so you'd wear out 10 Honda generators per failure (avg), at a cost of $4000 per, or $40,000 per year. By comparison BOB's cost of financing in itself is going to be at least $3 million a year, not to mention maintenance.

    So these poor sods are paying about 75 times as much as they should.

    ( Not to mention that generators are much more economical in larger sizes )

    1. Re:Economically ridiculous solution by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I spent a minute squinting at your maths in an effort to see things your way.

      I think you didn't figure into the generator plan the following expenses. . .

      -Initial start-up costs. Large data centers, for instance, will have a couple of huge diesel generators in the basement and they tend to start in the hundreds of thousands of dollars before all the associated costs, (cooling, air circulation, electrical infrastructure, fuel storage) kick in. Diesel back-up power for a whole town would easily be a multi-million dollar endeavor.

      -Fuel costs.

      -Your projected maintenance costs are not in sync with the real hardware required for the job. Also, you'd need to hire a technician to oversee the operation. Employees are not cheap, and I'm sure this was figured into the town's budget for their battery but left out of yours.

      It is entirely possible, given the way politics and city planners work, that poor decisions were made, but even so, towns tend to be on tight budgets and so I'm sure there were at least a few board meetings where the various alternatives were explored with the bottom line being one of the primary concerns.

      As well, clean energy is important for many people. The town also installed a field of solar cells to charge the battery between use periods. Solar cells pay for themselves after a few years and then keep on giving, whereas fossil fuel costs are ever-present and unreliable. There are also many hidden costs involved with fossil fuel; for instance, you don't have to build billions of dollars in military hardware and kill thousands of people in order to maintain an oil supply. (Of course, some people prefer the idea of society running on bombs and blood, but there's something deeply screwed up with those people.)

      Even if new types of cleaner energy cost a little bit more, (and often new technologies do cost more than tested older tech), then the populace will benefit from knowing that they're not a bunch of loud-mouth assholes. This kind of self-assurance is worth more than money. A happy population is a healthy one.

      From my own personal experience, I've noted that loud-mouth assholes tend to live petty lives, have few real friends, and die early of heart-disease. I don't see the appeal myself.

      -FL

    2. Re:Economically ridiculous solution by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that was the case you would see the whole state of Arizona covered in panels. The reality is that at current installed cost there is no ROI without govt subsidies.

      Well, to be fair, I don't know what the reality is on the large scale, (I suspect few honestly do), but I do know that on the small scale it can work out very well. --It's not a direct conversion, to be certain. I know a fellow whose entire house is wired for 12 volts DC, and all of his lighting and other electronic technology has to fit this mode. It hasn't proven to be a particularly complex issue. He and another few people I know have taken different approaches to home-building using non-traditional technologies to heat/insulate and supply power and plumbing, and it really hasn't taken very long at all to justify the initial costs. By contrast, I've lived in houses which cost in excess of $2000 per year for electricity. That adds up fast, and you get no return on investment. After five years in a house like that, you've spent $10,000 and what do you have to show for it?

      $10,000 buys a lot of insulation and solar technology. I know a guy who has these huge windows which allow IR in, but not out again, and the light from the sun is cast on this huge, indoor wall of stone which stores and slowly dispenses heat. In the middle of winter, you only need a tee-shirt in that place. And that's just rocks, treated glass and fluff in the walls. Another $6000 and you can buy enough solar electricity generation to run all your technology without the need to attach your home to some corporate meter. It really doesn't take long for this kind of technology to put itself far ahead of the guy next door who still buys electricity and/or heating fuel.

      The other thing people seem to ignore in so many of these comparisons, (as per the example with the OP) is the initial costs of installing traditional technologies. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's free, but for some reason the cost of installing normal systems seem to never be in evidence on the balance sheet. It's just, "Oh, well, Solar Cell installation costs X, and I only pay Y per kilowatt, therefore. . ."

      I think it's just a fear of having to toss out old knowledge one worked hard to obtain in favor of new solutions which drives people to behave in such an odd manner. Like how old people scowl at new fashions. Some geeks thrive on new ideas and the exploration of science. Other geeks don't like new approaches to technology if it threatens their self-esteem and sense of security in already knowing the right answers. Being wrong around here can be such a painful experience that you can understand why New Ways are to be despised. But that's only for some. Some geeks aren't scared of anything.

      Too bad you can't heat a building on orneriness!

      -FL

  21. Re:Four megawatts of power for up to eight hours? by lurcher · · Score: 2, Funny

    No good, A Hogshead is already defined as 54 imperial gallons

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogshead

  22. Large inverter to go with the battery? by giantgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am interested in how the battery becomes AC to be distributed. It must be an impressive inverter to go along with the large battery.

    Its always amazes me that so few people understand fundamental concepts about the energy that they use. The reporter probably just assumed that the battery is directly connected to the town grid.

    --
    new letter/phrase: hex-u means "www"
    1. Re:Large inverter to go with the battery? by ahaveland · · Score: 3, Informative

      One word: IGBT

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulated-gate_bipolar_transistor

      It's a lump of silicon about as big as a car battery, easily handles 5MW, and has revolutionised the connection of solar/wind/wave energy to grid.

      Equipment costing hundreds OR thousands dollars now replaces what used to cost hundreds OF thousands, so connecting the battery to the grid is probably one of the easiest and cheapest problems to solve.

  23. Re:Question: how much energy did it take to make i by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Informative
    He's saying that you're biased -- you only focused on the energy it takes to create the renewables and you never asked the question how much energy it would take to create that transmission line, or to create the fossil fuel or nuclear power plant that delivers the power conventionally. All of this stuff is known as EROEI - energy returned on energy invested. Here is a web-site that gives a range of estimates of EROEI for various power sources:

    Power Source: EROEI(actual)
    Hydro: 50, 43 and 205
    Nuclear (centrifuge): 18.1, 18.4, 14.5, 13.6 and 14.8
    Nuclear (diffusion): 6.0, 6.7, 5.8, 7.9, 5.3, 5.6 and 3.9
    Coal: 12.2, 7.4, 7.32, 3.4 and 14.2
    Gas (piped): 16
    Gas (piped a lot or liquefied): 3.4, 3.76 and 4
    Solar: 10.6
    Solar PV: 12-10, 7.5 and 3.7
    Wind: 12, 6, 34, 80 and 50

    As you can see, the estimates vary widely, there's a lot of guesswork involved in making these estimates. Overall the renewables don't fare that badly, especially wind and hydroelectricity.

    In case you were wondering, here's the CO2 emissions:

    g/kWh CO2 Japan Sweden Finland UK: SDC EU ExternE WNA
    coal 990 980 894 891 815
    gas thermal 653 1170* -
    gas combined cycle 450 472 356 362
    solar photovoltaic 59 50 95 53
    wind 37 5.5 14 6.5
    nuclear 22 6 10 - 26 16 19.7 17
    hydro 18 3 -

    So yes, even with all the intensive energy requirements for renewables, they still are better than fossil fuels. The problems with widespread use of renewables are political (i.e. Republicans and conservatives don't like them), require intensive upfront capital costs, and infrastructural (the power grid is not designed to carry power where likely wind generation sites are).

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  24. "Big-Old Battery"? No. by hotdiggity · · Score: 3, Funny
    People, this is rural Texas. You think locals are actually calling it the "Big-Old Battery"?

    It's the BIG OL' BAT'RY. You bunch of citified nerds. Have some respect for the Good-Old Boys.