Slashdot Mirror


Will New Battery Technologies Smash The Old Order? (telegraph.co.uk)

"The world's next energy revolution is probably no more than five or ten years away," reports The Telegraph. "Cutting-edge research into cheap and clean forms of electricity storage is moving so fast that we may never again need to build 20th Century power plants in this country..." Slashdot reader mdsolar quotes their article: The US Energy Department is funding 75 projects developing electricity storage, mobilizing teams of scientists at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the elite Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge labs in a bid for what it calls the "Holy Grail" of energy policy. 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 U,S. Energy Secretary and himself a nuclear physicist. He is now confident that the U.S. grid and power system will be completely "decarbonized" by the middle of the century.

One energy consultant predicts the energy storage market will be worth $90 billion in 2025 -- 100 times larger than it is today.

21 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Its a continuation by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Research into battery storage has been intense for 20 years. We've had promises of drastic improvements, and we have seen some significant improvements. Yes, R&D has picked up even more but improvements are more likely to be incremental than breakthrough.

    1. Re:Its a continuation by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *The world's next energy revolution is always more than five or ten years away.*

      How far "Beyond 2000" was all that stuff supposed to be?

      Tomorrow
      Tomorrow
      I love you, tomorrow
      You're always a day awaaaaaay...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Its a continuation by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I admit to having little knowledge about them, but I think flow batteries have great potential.

      The numbers are probably exaggerated, but these guys claim a range of 1000km in a car with a total of 350 liters of fluid storage. That would mean an energy density of roughly 1/7th of gasoline. That isn't stellar, but it's also far from 'useless crap'-territory. It would be fine for at least industrial energy storage (from renewable sources), it seems.

      Let me reiterate this, though: I'm far from an expert on these things.

    3. Re:Its a continuation by rbrander · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something can look incremental but actually be pretty dramatic. We're kind of spoiled by Moore's Law having a doubling time of just a few years.

      Increases in battery life have been "incremental" but also exponential - the increase has been something like 7% per year on the average, a ten-year doubling. And of course, we ate most of it with higher power consumption in most battery-powered devices: the phones, tablets and laptops. But look at how long something simpler like an iPod lasts now compared to 2001 and it's dramatic.

      Electric cars are going get much more serious after one more doubling, and while the car companies would pay billions to have it happen overnight, it's still going to happen in 10 years even with the "incremental" progress.

    4. Re:Its a continuation by David_Hart · · Score: 5, Informative

      Something can look incremental but actually be pretty dramatic. We're kind of spoiled by Moore's Law having a doubling time of just a few years.

      Increases in battery life have been "incremental" but also exponential - the increase has been something like 7% per year on the average, a ten-year doubling. And of course, we ate most of it with higher power consumption in most battery-powered devices: the phones, tablets and laptops. But look at how long something simpler like an iPod lasts now compared to 2001 and it's dramatic.

      Electric cars are going get much more serious after one more doubling, and while the car companies would pay billions to have it happen overnight, it's still going to happen in 10 years even with the "incremental" progress.

      The majority of improvement of battery life in electronic devices have been due to energy efficient circuit designs, power management (being able to put components to sleep), and shrinking of electronics (i.e. more room for a bigger battery in the same case).

    5. Re:Its a continuation by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For transport, they are impractical. They may have a role in grid scale energy, storing up excess from renewables to be used on demand.

    6. Re:Its a continuation by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see you are 'baffled' by science...controlling fluid motion in a container isn't exactly a new thing.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  2. Still... by mr_jrt · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and yet all the gains we get from battery improvements will continue to be squandered on yet more and more layers of JavaScript.

    --
    Boo.
    1. Re:Still... by Alomex · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...or JIT compilation for yet another hare brained programming language based on the JVM***

      The JVM motto: slowing down well written code since 1994.

      *** The Android Run Time (ART) compiles java to native code at download time.

  3. Re:My own prediction by Arnold+Reinhold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... Government subsidizing the development of new technologies has the universal effect of distorting competition and making any such projects fail. ...

    Like the railroads, airplanes, nuclear power, computers, the Internet, GPS, biotech, all of which had heavy US government subsidy in the beginning.

  4. Haves / Have nots? by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's the only thing that worries me. The current system requires lots and lots of public infrastructure. That keeps prices down for the poor (economies of scale and whatnot). That's not gonna last If even the upper middle class doesn't want/need that infrastructure. The folks most able to pay for it aren't going to want to. They won't be using it. But it'll mean going back to the dark ages for the lower class...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  5. Re:how much is needed? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Depends on who you are rooting for; transmission works great for the entrenched utilities, but batteries work better for off-grid and micro-grid. Long term, batteries are likely to prove better for distributed generation as well.

    From an engineering, policy, and economic perspective I prefer distributed generation and emphasis on micro-grids; it works very well for everything but city cores, but those cores should be focusing on district heating and cooling, which might make them take longer to leave carbon and nuclear fuels.

  6. Re:Waste by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many of the advanced battery technologies will have toxic chemicals. With huge production volumes, there's going to be a lot of poisonous waste materials. I suspect the environmental damage of new batteries is going to make the claimed damage of carbon seem like happy-fun-day.

    No, the current buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is a slow-motion apocalypse because it leverages the sun's vast energy output to push the entire planet away from the conditions that humans evolved to live within. No amount of run-of-the-mill poisonous chemicals could touch it. (Not that these chemicals would be released into the environment anyway. Utility storage batteries are very easy to track and regulate.)

  7. Re:how much is needed? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Germany has plenty of problems with renewable energy, but they have an excellent national grid (much like the rest of Europe). A problem is that conventional plants cannot always ramp up or down quickly enough to cope with highly variable renewable power, and having a good national grid doesn't always solve that problem. You end up buying extra power at inflated prices, or are forced to dump power and sometimes even pay for the privilege. The grid manages but the economics fail. And that is where power storage comes in: it doesn't just balance the load but also prices.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Hello "EditorDavid"; please stop quoting "mdsolar" by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As many have posted here, his lack of objectivity is annoying and unhelpful.
    Thanks.

  9. Re:Unfair to bash nuclear by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hinkley Point C secured about 10 billion pound in subsidies, nevertheless EdF tries to get out of the building contract as they doubt they will make any profit. The original estimation for the price of an EPR at this size was 3 billion pound, now we are talking about 24,5 billion pound for the construction. The whole cost of Hinkley Point during its operation is estimated at 37 billion pound. At current energy prices, the warranties given for the price of energy coming from Hinkley Point C are estimated to cost close to 30 billion pound.

    There are enough reasons to be in doubt about Hinkley Point C.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  10. If it sticks it to the utiities I am in. by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in a medium density urban area, I want to go off grid. Not out of some prepper issue, nor are my present rates particularly abusive. I just hate utilities. I hate the people who run them. I hate the regulators who regulate them. I hate that they look at my house and see a guaranteed revenue stream. I want to cut them off and I will pay extra to do so.

    I will even inconvenience myself to do so. I would happily rewire my house so that the LED lighting isn't converting from 110 but from something the batteries were happier providing. I would coat the roof in solar cells, and I would buy a little generator to fill in any gaps. The same with things like my fridge or other power grabbers, they could be 24v or even 12v if needed.

    Here is my dream day. The utility goes to the government and demands that regardless of my being hooked up or not that I still have to pay them for the lines that run past my house, and the regulator says, "NOPE".

    To me it boils down to the utilities should be a public good like roads, and schools. Not for profit should be the rule. Yet I see board members at these utilities making huge multiples of the average person's salary, let alone the heads of the companies, or the investors.

  11. Re: My own prediction by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Randroids always forget about those and pretend that something like nuclear power, which is incredibly expensive and difficult, would have ever existed without the taxpayer bankrolling it.

  12. Re:That has to be the stupidest statement ever by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's about as hot as it's been since humans arrived right now, and it's going to get much hotter. Not in evolutionary timescales, but within a couple of generations.

    Evolution would probably work in the long run, but don't forget that sometimes evolution works by wiping out almost every member of a given species leaving only a tiny handful of "fit" survivors. That hardly seems like a better choice than just switching our primary energy sources ASAP.

  13. Re:That has to be the stupidest statement ever by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So even if it gets warmer humans will do what they always have done - adapt co conditions as the change.

    Actually, quite a few civilizations have simply collapsed when faced with changing climate. What makes you think one that already has trouble keeping infrastructure running isn't going to join them?

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  14. Re:Unfair to bash nuclear by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly. Give me a CANDU 6 plant that's actually reprocessing its "waste" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. It's safe, reliable, and oodles of power coming from a small footprint. But no, instead we'll elect to dump all our R&D into new tech that uses tons of rare Earth elements, uses huge amounts of space, isn't dependable (due to weather), can't handle base load, requires lots of toxic chemicals to produce, has to be replaced every other decade, destroys ecosystems housing endangered species, and basically just fucking sucks.

    We have a solution to power requirements that doesn't cause any major issues. Replace all coal, oil, solar, and wind power with CANDU 6 power plants and reprocess the "waste" until it's so low energy that it can't hurt anyone. You'll end up with a relatively tiny amount of low-energy waste and a whole lot of fairly cheap, reliable, safe electrical power. If we made it a national priority, we could go 90% nuclear in 10 years in the US, but we'd have to wipe out a whole bunch of local government NIMBY regulations that do absolutely nothing to make anyone or any thing any safer.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."