Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Refine a Device That Can Both Harvest and Store Solar Energy, and They Hope It Will One Day Bring Electricity To Rural and Underdeveloped Areas (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The problem of energy storage has led to many creative solutions, like giant batteries. For a paper published today in the journal Chem, scientists trying to improve the solar cells themselves developed an integrated battery that works in three different ways. It can work like a normal solar cell by converting sunlight to electricity immediately, explains study author Song Jin, a chemist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. It can store the solar energy, or it can simply be charged like a normal battery. It's a combination of two existing technologies: solar cells that harvest light, and a so-called flow battery. The most commonly used batteries, lithium-ion, store energy in solid materials, like various metals. Flow batteries, on the other hand, store energy in external liquid tanks. This means they are very easy to scale for large projects. Scaling up all the components of a lithium-ion battery might throw off the engineering, but for flow batteries, "you just make the tank bigger," says Timothy Cook, a University at Buffalo chemist and flow battery expert not involved in the study. "You really simplify how to make the battery grow in capacity," he adds. "We're not making flow batteries to power a cell phone, we're thinking about buildings or industrial sites.

51 comments

  1. Mars by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My first immediate thought on this is I think this will work well on our space colonies on Mars. There will be no infrastructure so we can just setup one of these modules in each colony and have always available electricity.

    1. Re:Mars by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flow batteries are pretty large and heavy things to land on Mars. You might get a bit of help using local resources (like water), but I seriously doubt that will be easy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Mars by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That won't be a problem. SpaceX Interplanetary rocket (the one after BFR) will be able to regularly delivery heavy payloads directly to the Mars surface.

    3. Re:Mars by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Sounds great, but the problem is how much it will cost. Even Space X launches cost money. Rocket fuel is expensive as is the hardware that burns it. Reuse helps, but you still have to pay the fuel bill and for refurbishing the first stages.

      Flow batteries are pretty heavy, given they are filled with liquids and the higher you drive the capacity, the bigger and heaver they are. 500W/Kg is pretty heavy for power storage, and that is for the really dangerous liquid kind. The water based stuff is 1/10th that.

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

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Mars by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. We will make the rocket fuel in space.

    5. Re:Mars by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Rocket fuel is expensive

      Umm, no. Rocket fuel is dirt cheap.

      LOX costs considerably less than gasoline. Kerosene or Methane is comparable to gasoline prices.

      Now, getting enough rocket fuel into orbit for interplanetary work is expensive....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Mars by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Rocket fuel is expensive

      Umm, no. Rocket fuel is dirt cheap.

      LOX costs considerably less than gasoline. Kerosene or Methane is comparable to gasoline prices.

      Now, getting enough rocket fuel into orbit for interplanetary work is expensive....

      LOL, It may be cheaper by the pound or gallon, but when you need more then ten million pounds of the stuff to fill the tank for another launch, it gets pretty expensive. Maybe they get a volume discount?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Mars by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      but when you need more then ten million pounds of the stuff to fill the tank for another launch, it gets pretty expensive

      Around $1.5M or so. Peanuts, when you consider all the other things.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up fatty.

  2. Non-story? by RobinH · · Score: 1

    Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Non-story? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.

      But this one is special, because it can "Bring Electricity To Rural and Underdeveloped Areas", unlike any other solar panel connected to a battery.

    2. Re:Non-story? by skids · · Score: 2

      Yeah I'm struggling to understand the advantage of integrating the storage into the panel. I suppose for some places it means noneed to find a place to put the battery bank. Maybe the total system round-trip efficiency gets a small bump... but... those seem like really minor accomplishments.

      Not as silly as the orbiting solar array death ray stuff, or even the seemingly unending quest to revive H2 cars when batteries are just going to eat their lunch, but it strikes me as a dead end pursuit unless they have positively identified some solid niche markets.

      I guess *maybe* the integrated manufacturing combined with less wiring for installers *might* come out ahead on the price tag?

    3. Re:Non-story? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.

      You know, you are right. It's not like Lead acid batteries haven't been used in remote places with Solar Cells for decades..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Non-story? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem with battery storage is efficiency, price and scale.
      I could get some solar panels, and a normal battery pack and power my home off grid however if I were to get central AC/switch from Oil heat to Electric. Then shortly my power consumption will exceed my ability to self generate. So I will need to get more expensive batteries, and more solar panel space. Which is expensive.

      If a small town has an energy storage method that can deal with growth in demand by just adding a bigger tank, or filling an already big tank more then we are in a better place for deployment.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Non-story? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.

      But this one is special, because it can "Bring Electricity To Rural and Underdeveloped Areas", unlike any other solar panel connected to a battery.

      But can it teach girls to code, and do something with, er, intersectionalities, whatever those are?

      That's what we're all wondering.

    6. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once girls can code what will men be needed for?

    7. Re:Non-story? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The problem with battery storage is efficiency, price and scale.

      No, it's efficiency and PRICE.

      If you lose half your input energy, it doesn't matter what you paid for your storage capacity, it's not worth it. If you get 90% back, it might be worth paying a lot more for your storage capacity.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semen and joke writing per Eric Cartman's vision of the future.

    9. Re:Non-story? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They'll need at least one of us to jizz into a jar. They'll probably make it into a reality TV show.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As bad as the 85% efficiency of Lead Acid batteries is , I shrug at the though of having to add 60% more solar panel to over come the optimistic 25% efficiency of the battery they are proposing.

    11. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scale is important, though scale really boils down to cost.
      At small scales batteries are almost always used. At large scales, batteries are too expensive.
      Battery efficiency is pretty decent.

    12. Re:Non-story? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm struggling to understand the advantage of integrating the storage into the panel.

      By putting the battery with the panel, on the roof, it is exposed to weather and temperature fluctuations, so it degrades faster and creates jobs for maintenance workers.

    13. Re:Non-story? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the optimistic 25% efficiency of the battery they are proposing.

      TFA is written very poorly, but I think they mean the combined efficiency of the panel + battery. So 25% of incident solar energy would end up in the battery (in the best case). That would be very good.

      If the 25% is just the battery, then that is horrible, and makes no sense at all.

    14. Re:Non-story? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.

      But that's not what this is. This is a new type of photocell system that converts solar energy directly into stored chemical energy. That is not a solar panel hooked up to a battery. And though the research is at fairly early stage, the sunlight-to-electricity-from-the-battery efficiency is 14.1% better than you would get from hooking a 16% commercial panel (this is mid-low range panel currently on the market) to a lead-acid battery. We will have to see how far this technology can be developed. It took silicon cells 60 years to become commercially viable consumer products.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    15. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and this 'battery' miraculously doesn't wear out like other batteries ?!?

      Otherwise aren't you gonna halve the lifepan of those solar panels? Never seen a battery last as long as they say cells will....

    16. Re:Non-story? by careysub · · Score: 1

      That efficiency is including the efficiency of the solar panel. If you can really get 25% efficiency in electricity out of the battery from sunlight (they are currently getting 14.1%) then that is the equivalent of a 29.5% PV cell hooked up to a lead acid battery, or a 25% PV cell hooked up to lithium ion. The best commercial cells are currently about 21.5%.

      So there is no "60% more solar panel" required if this technology pays-off. There would be less panel (unless regular PV rises to match or exceed it).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    17. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the optimistic 25% efficiency of the battery they are proposing.

      TFA is written very poorly, but I think they mean the combined efficiency of the panel + battery. So 25% of incident solar energy would end up in the battery (in the best case). That would be very good.

      If the 25% is just the battery, then that is horrible, and makes no sense at all.

      From the Chem Journal article's summary:
      "Here, we present the design principles for and the demonstration of a highly efficient integrated solar flow battery (SFB) device with a record solar-to-output electricity efficiency of 14.1%."

    18. Re:Non-story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with battery storage is efficiency, price and scale.

      No, it's efficiency and PRICE.

      If you lose half your input energy, it doesn't matter what you paid for your storage capacity, it's not worth it. If you get 90% back, it might be worth paying a lot more for your storage capacity.

      Because sunlight is so expensive?

  3. Re:"underdeveloped" "underserved" "underrepresente by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Likewise, any time you see a statement that contains a reference to "wealth creation", you know that it's some typical pile of libertarian tripe that should be ignored.

  4. What Is It? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    My first thought was, what is this "liquid"?

    How many gallons would it need to run a house?

    Is it Toxic? Corrosive? Environmentally dangerous in some way?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:What Is It? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Troll

      My first thought was, what is this "liquid"?

      It is methyl viologen di-chloride, an organic compound.

      How many gallons would it need to run a house?

      The energy density is 126 Wh/L. So if you need 10 kwhr to make it through the night, that would be about 80 liters or 20 gallons.

      Is it Toxic?

      A related compound is used as an herbicide (Paraquat).

      TFA leaves out the most important point: WTF is the point of integrating the battery and solar panel into a single device? None that I can see. Wouldn't it make far more sense to have two independent devices that can be maintained and/or replaced separately?

      So they took two pre-existing ideas, did nothing to improve either, and then combined them in a way that makes no sense.

    2. Re:What Is It? by careysub · · Score: 2

      You seem to have read the article or the original paper yet failed to understand that the solar flow battery is not "two pre-existing ideas" simply combined together but a single device that stores solar energy directly as chemical energy that can be extracted as electricity later. It is not an electric device charging a separate battery. This is a new and different technology.

      Not overwhelmed by the overall conversion efficiency of 14.1%? Well, that was about where the best silicon solar cells were stuck at in 1980, after 40 years of development. They are now up to 44%, and solar cells on the market at consumer products right now hit 21.5%. If you charge a lead acid battery from that cell its efficiency is only 18.3%, and with less stellar products (many are in the 15-17% range) this device already beats them in combination with lead-acid.

      That's why you research new technologies (yes, an integrated solar flow battery is a new technology), to improve them. You don't get an optimized system right off the bat. This isn't a commercially viable system yet, but was not intended to be. But it is already in the commercially viable efficiency range.

      You need lots of research like this, attacking the problem from many different directions, to discovery what is possible, and the best solutions for different problems.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:What Is It? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      a single device that stores solar energy directly as chemical energy that can be extracted as electricity later.

      That is not what the paper says. It clearly states that the solar collector is PV, which produces electricity, not "chemicals".

      Once the energy is in the form of electricity, you can use a wire to move it anywhere. So why put the redox battery on an exposed hot roof, rather than a cool garage or closet?

      It is not an electric device charging a separate battery.

      I don't see anything in TFA or the paper which leads to this conclusion,

  5. Turns out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its just a plant!

  6. Where is the -actual- change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get me wrong here... I'm not doubting the ability of science to propel us forward... but where are the actual, usable, breakthroughs?

    Every new "discovery" is followed by the phrase "may one day lead to..." or "scientists discovered x that -might- help humans in 30 years".

    Taking off my pessimist cap now lol

  7. Re:"underdeveloped" "underserved" "underrepresente by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Right - wealth can't be created. That's why our population has exploded and yet standard of living improves. It's all a fixed pie, and we're taking smaller and smaller portions but we don't notice because... Libertarians.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  8. Re:Appoint a crying rapist to the supreme court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2021 - Moscow Donald joins his campaign manager in prison, discovers that treason really is illegal.

  9. Why not power electric cars with it? by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 1

    I imagine a remote electric 'gas station' where you would exchange the used liquid in your car's flow battery for freshly-charged liquid. The station itself could even be solar. No more sitting for an hour at a recharge station waiting for your Tesla's battery to get topped off - a recharge stop would only take as long as pumping gas does now. Used fluid would go back to the station to be recharged.

    Using a Tesla Model 3's stated average power consumption, about 2 liters of charged liquid battery per hour of driving should be enough.

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
    1. Re:Why not power electric cars with it? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      about 2 liters of charged liquid battery per hour of driving should be enough.

      No. A Telsa uses about 0.3 kwhr per mile. So at 130 whr/L you would need 2 liters per MILE not per hour.

      That is about a 1/4 the volumetric energy density of lithium batteries.

      MVCl2 flow batteries make no sense for vehicles.

    2. Re:Why not power electric cars with it? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Such things have already appeared, but using solid battery fuel - aluminum plates. It is an Israeli start-up created in 2008 called Phinergy. This is a mature technology, but I don't know how their adoption is going. The company still seems to be around.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Why not power electric cars with it? by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 1

      My bad. I read on a Tesla forum the model 3 would use between 240-300 whr per hour, when the poster on that forum should have said 'per mile'. Should have realized it wasn't that small amount of juice to push a car.

      It may still be somewhat viable though - considering that a Tesla battery weighs 530kg, the equivalent fluid by weight may be enough for 250 miles of range. There is the problem of transferring 146 gallons of fluid at a fill-up though.

      --
      I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
  10. Creative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem of energy storage has led to many creative solutions, like giant batteries.

    I'm sorry, but giant batteries seem like the least creative solutions.

    "We have to store huge amounts of energy? I know, we'll create really, really big batteries!"

  11. Already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trees.

  12. Re: Appoint a crying rapist to the supreme court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You meant to say Trump succesuily runs for a third term after the supreme court rules in favor of his right to run for a third consecutive term.

  13. Already there? by Vanyle · · Score: 1

    Isn't this already a thing? I have seen underwater storage where they pump air into the tanks and then release it to generate electricity. Also, what about just pumping water up hill?

  14. Well tell us then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which one did you patent?