Hidrogenera Atlántica. TecnologÃas de almacenamiento de energÃa.
1 like580 views
This document provides a comparative analysis of various large-scale energy storage technologies. It discusses the advantages and limitations of pumped hydro, fuel cells, compressed air energy storage, thermal energy storage, lead acid batteries, sodium sulfur batteries, nickel cadmium batteries, nickel metal hydride batteries, and lithium ion batteries. Key factors discussed for each technology include efficiency, costs, lifespan, response times, scalability, and limitations. The document aims to compare these technologies for large-scale energy storage applications.
More Related Content
Similar to Hidrogenera Atlántica. TecnologÃas de almacenamiento de energÃa. (20)
Hidrogenera Atlántica. TecnologÃas de almacenamiento de energÃa.
- 1. Grandes sistemas estáticos de almacenamiento de energÃa Prospectiva tecnológica y análisis comparativo Comparativa tecnologÃas de almacenamiento de energÃa a gran escala. Sumario Julio 2009
- 2. Energy Storage Facility Load Profile Multiple Value Streams
- 3. Pumped Hydro 1 Availability 95% efficiency around 70%. 200 plus MW scale
- 4. Pumped Hydro 3 Capex = $3000/kW. Siting permit issues. 40 year life Opex = $0.015/kWh
- 5. Pumped Hydro 4 – response rates
- 7. Fuel cells • PEM - low temperature 120 º C • Phosphoric Acid (PAFC) and Molten Carbonate (MCFC) – medium temperature • Solid Oxide (SOFC) - high temperature 1000ºC
- 8. Limitations of Fuel Cells • They reduce emissions, but do not reduce GHG unless hydrogen fuel is derived using electrochemical processes from solar or wind powered converters. This is highly inefficient • They suffer from poisoning of noble metal catalysts by CO/CO2 • Energy efficiencies are approximately 60% less than for the VRB- ESS • High costs $3000- 4500/kW* • Short cycle life – 1500cycles * MTU and UTC 2007
- 9. Compressed Air Energy Storage 1. Excess electricity is 4. The electricity produced is used to compress delivered back onto the air grid Exhaust Waste heat Air 2. Air is pumped underground and stored 3. When electricity is needed, for later use the stored air is used to run a gas-fired turbine- Compressed generator Air Ridge energy General compression in wind towers. Or in caverns salt LLC domes etc. Costs claimed around $1.8m/MW. HR= 4700btu/kWh Ramp rates around 15seconds per 50MW Requires natural gas supply 60MW or larger although tank compression on surface in smaller sizes proposed
- 10. Thermal Energy storage • Hot water resistive heating - district heating – proven - low efficiency • Molten Salt energy storage - solar concentrators –proven Expensive used in PV concentrators • Graphite block – ex nuclear industry technology - research • Ice storage – DSM approach - proven
- 11. Renewable Electricity Transport Source Energy Consumer by electrons 100% 90% by hydrogen electrolyze fuel cell renewable AC r transported packaged transferre hydrogen electricity electricity 25% store 20% gas DC D C C A d gaseous hydrogen d liquid hydrogen Ulf Bossel – October 2005
- 12. Lead Acid Battery The de-facto standard There are two types of Lead Acid Battery - Flooded or vented - Sealed: valve regulated lead acid (VRLA) and Gel types - AGM (Absorbed Glass Mat) – advantages over Gel and similar cost -Costs for UPS shallow cycle china lead acids $150/kWh -Cost for deep cycle PV – EU - $500/kWh -China $280/kWh
- 13. Problems with Lead Acid Batteries ? Cannot leave battery in a charged state for long periods due to sulphation ? If VRLA battery is not gassing when charged then there is a danger of: - Stratification of electrolyte - Reduction in battery life - Gell damage is voltage incorrect on charge Despite these problems ? Gassing when charging results in they are the standard and there is a great body - loss of electrolyte VRLA of knowledge - Explosive hydrogen formation ? Needs to be oversized for maximum cycle life ? SOC of battery hard to measure ? Charge to discharge ratio usually long – 5 to 1 : C-rates
- 14. Depth of discharge impacts on ALL non FLOW batteries – reduces life and severely limits their suitability for wind power smoothing 14
- 15. Sodium Sulphur – NAS battery • High Temperature – 350ºC Molten sodium and sulphur • 65 to 70% roundtrip efficiency (AC-AC) Small footprint • Received large Japanese subsidies over 15 years of development –strong balance sheet • Don’t handle partial cycling e.g. wind – integration for SOC 2MW 7.5 hour NAS in Japan • SOC must be calculated/ averaged so periodic off line measurements required • Overcharging is dangerous • Requires parasitic heating to maintain temperatures • 3500 cycles • Maturing product, 250MW installed
- 19. This means that in an average wind application, where about 200 to 600 partial cycles (average power swings of 50% (+-25%) occur per day averaging 0.3hours, the NAS battery with 6 usable hours of storage will experience an equivalent of 3 to 5% of full rating in partial discharges. From the energy throughput life curve below, the NAS battery will last around 100,000 cycles or about 1,000 days so 3 to 4 years. BY overrating the battery this can be extended. A VRB-ESS has NO such limitation nor overrating requirement. 19
- 20. Equivalent VRB with no life limit for this NOTE: Required for Charge and application is 50% the power rating and 35% Discharge the storage (hours) and thus 20% the cost 20
- 21. NAS versus VRB-ESS cost comparison for equivalent performance with wind • NAS is modular MW x 6 hours. Cost with PCS and controls and storage thus China and EDF around $550 to 650/kWh or US$4million • VRB-ESS can have any number of hours. IT requires 50% MW rating for same NAS and storage of only 2 hours for wind for every 6hours of NAS – because we know SOC accurately and have no cycle reduction due to deep cycles. Thus an equivalent VRB-ESS will cost US$2million • VRB-ESS will last 3 times as long and then only costs $500k to extend life another 10 years. NAS would cost 3.5Million to replace. Life cycle cost thus VRB-ESS= $2.5million versus NAS $7.5million or 3 TIMES less.
- 22. Nickel Cadmium (Ni-Cd) • Longer life than lead acid • Suffer from problems of memory effect • Disposal problems • Shortage of Cadmium • Expensive • The Golden Valley installation in Alaska 40MW for 15minutes – 4 x VRB-ESS size. 10x cost. Has perfumed well over 5 years Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) • Similar to Ni-Cd but negative electrode uses metal alloy which absorbs hydrogen • Hydride electrode has higher energy density than Ni-Cd so higher capacity for same size • More environmentally friendly than Ni-Cad – no Cadmium • Suffers memory effect • Expensive
- 23. Lithium Ion (Li Ion) • Cathode is Lithiated metal oxide • High Efficiency • High energy density – 130Wh/kg • 2000 cycles at 88% DOD • Problem in Large sizes is that special packaging for overcharge control – ($1050/kWh) is required • Battery life exhibits logarithmic improvement with respect to both average depth-of-discharge and temperature Lithium Titanate (A123), LI Phosphate (Valence), Lithium thionyl (Li-SOCl2) AMR, BYD (China)
- 24. Lithium Ion (Li Ion) continued ? Li-ion is often misused as a battery type by misinformed OEM customers. While the layman term is what is most commonly referenced when talking about lithium batteries, it is really the true chemical compounds of the anode, the cathode and the separator that make up a cell. Cobalt Oxide, Iron Phosphate and Manganese Oxide are the most commonly used cathode materials. "Poly" or lithium-ion polymer batteries are often seen as a specific type of cell while in reality the term polymer in the name describes the separator structure. Poly cells with Cobalt Oxide or Iron Phosphate cathodes are used in cells today. No matter the makeup, each of the lithium ion cell variants require careful tuning of their key parameters to maximize cycle life. ? Signifcant cost challenges faced. Supply limited to three regions – ay acceptable cost. These gave limited capacity for major markets of cars. Tibet, Bolivia, (Brines) USA and Australia (Greenbushes)
- 25. A123 Lithium
- 26. The Zebra - Battery • High Temperature battery – 270ºC 42kWh unit • Developed by Anglo American and Daimler Benz and now a Swiss company • Sodium Chloride and Nickel • Expensive but energy density high • Liquid sodium not sulphur as with NAS Metal-Air •Zinc Air •Aluminum Air High Energy Density and low cost BUT Difficult to recharge_ several groups proceeding with this Siemens and in the USA
- 27. Zinc Bromine Batteries – ZBB and Premium Power and Redflow (Australia) NetPower (China) • 2000 cycles – zinc is plated on the negative electrode during each cycle • Energy Density 33Wh/kg practical Power density 50 to 80W/kg • Bromine – environmental issues • Hard to scale • Must be deep cycled and discharged weekly to maintain life. Cannot do deep cycles on a repeated basis. Cannot handle wind balancing
- 28. Zinc Bromine 2 • ZBB sell 3.5hour 45kW systems at $1000/kWh – have many systems in field 20 to 30 or so • Premium Power have claims of $300/kWh – have had several disasters • Net Power claim they will achieve $50/kWh – have no products yet (PCS costs are nearly $70/kWh right now!!)
- 29. Flow Batteries Regenesys - Polysulphide Bromine – cross contamination of electrolytes, expensive recombination process control – targeted at very large systems due to complexity. Low cost electrolyte • Deeya – Iron-Chrome small 5 year life low cost low efficiency 1.2V couple • Vanadium Bromine – experimental Australia and UK • Squirrel (Selenium) series flow VRB prototype– • Plurion – Cerium Zinc
- 30. Squirrel series VRB Cellenium Thaliand • Reduces shunt current losses since series flow • Reduces chance of dry cell and gas evaluation due to blockages • Patent issues with Prudent • Voltage issues in series systems, expensive and pressure issues
- 31. Plurion - UK Prototype - Cerum Zinc: 10 year history – serious problems. Uses MSA so environmentally acceptable, higher cell voltage than VRB-ESS, crossover problems, membrane issues. Balancing problems.
- 32. Cellstrom VRB - Austria • 10kW 100kWh – comprises 10 x 1kW cells • Footprint larger than Prudent by 30% • Patent issues with Prudent . • Cost around 2 x Prudent
- 33. Competing technologies First time Life cycles > AC _AC Capital cost Environmental Use with Year 2009 50% depth of Roundtrip Pros/Cons $/kWh to Risk wind discharge efficiency customer Deep Cycle Gel Medium recharge rate LEAD ACID 3500 45% 1300 -1800 clean up heavy NO slow metals Sodium Sulphur Small Company NGK SOC derived 3500 68% $675 Very High footprint/charge double sizing control issues Zinc Bromine Company ZBB needs Compact / two Premium Power, 2500 60% $1,000 High rebalancing species Redpower, every week NetPower Iron Chromium Company Deeya limited life 5 Energy. Originated 1800 55% $1,200 High no membrane years small systems by SEI Lithium Ion very compact/ storage hours Companies A123, 2000 85% $6,000 High charge control limited AES challenge Vanadium REDOX Medium larger Company Prudent Excellent >100,000 times 65 - 75% $500 - $850 indefinite life footprint/SOC Energy ideal electrolyte always known 33