I grew up in an electric utility family and have 30+ years working in rural electric cooperative world. My grandfather started in the business in 1928. I have heard, seen and done a lot over my lifetime. You analysis on flow batteries is spot on, especially for utility class applications. In my opinion they are the future of energy storage. Storen is field testing a home sized flow battery that good potential in that arena. Thanks for shining a light on flow batteries.
Missed your comment, I had just enough to qualify for their early battery program, but once I saw the specs I knew I couldn't make it work for me, oh well, I still have the stock.
The materials used in an iron flow battery are readily available, with no need to mine lithium and all the environmental and supply problems that involves, plus the materials are easily recyclable.
I am puzzled by the push to Small Modular Reactors for nuclear power. As I understand it, the cycle used is a helium cycle, sometimes with a second loop of steam to drive turbines. What I don’t understand is the cost effectiveness of this, since all the safety and security issues still stand for SMRs as with baseload units. The reason larger units are more cost effectiveness is because of economy of scale. Am I wrong?
I'm far from an expert in this area, but I have attended several conferences on SMRs. You are correct about the security overhead costs. However, the theory is that the threat issue is diminished since they will generally be housed in a hole. If it is located in conjunction with an existing boiling water reactor, the increase in security costs will be minimal. SMRs are attractive for three reasons (1) they can follow variable wind and solar by ramping up and down quickly - something large reactors can't do. (2) They are envisioned to be manufactured in an assembly plant, shipped to the site, and installed. Theoretically reducing construction costs. (3) These plants can be incrementally added to a site 1/2 MW increments as consumer power demand increases.
I’m not in the industry and don’t have a lot of knowledge about its operations. It seems from reading a few of your articles that if we truly wanted to reduce emissions hydro and nuclear would be our best bets for base loads (I think I’m getting this right) and then using solar/wind for additional energy production. With the estimates for increasing demand nation wide with AI etc, would this be your recommendation? (I have a feeling new hydro is hard to do at mass scale most places, so more nuclear seems to be the general answer…)
You are spot on Stephen, wind and solar have their place as supplementary energy, and I am not one who thinks they need to be wiped off the planet. Supplementary energy is generally expected to be somewhat expensive, which is a niche that fits those energy sources, especially if you pair them with batteries and use them as a “battery charger”.
They are, and used to be used 60-70 years ago. They were typically used in combination with a sychronous condenser, basically a sychronous motor with no load. The sychronous condenser provided voltage control to the system and the flywheel provided inertia. BUT they are expensive up front, they cost money to run, and they do require regular maintenance. So utilities have moved away from from them because of cost. They typically needed a pony engine or motor to get them up to speed before they were closed to power. The field was usually energized after they were already running to pull them into sync.
I agree the jury is is very much still out on SMRs. It actually sounds like you may know a little more about then than I do. Robert Bryce isn't convinced either https://substack.com/@robertbryce/note/c-79908995?r=23kggy
I grew up in an electric utility family and have 30+ years working in rural electric cooperative world. My grandfather started in the business in 1928. I have heard, seen and done a lot over my lifetime. You analysis on flow batteries is spot on, especially for utility class applications. In my opinion they are the future of energy storage. Storen is field testing a home sized flow battery that good potential in that arena. Thanks for shining a light on flow batteries.
I am a Storen stock holder, a little itty bitty stock holder, but regardless I bet with my wallet.
Me too. I bought in on the second round, I'm also a very, very, small holder. Lol
Missed your comment, I had just enough to qualify for their early battery program, but once I saw the specs I knew I couldn't make it work for me, oh well, I still have the stock.
The materials used in an iron flow battery are readily available, with no need to mine lithium and all the environmental and supply problems that involves, plus the materials are easily recyclable.
Plus, as mentioned by Kilovar, they're not going to burn or blow up or emit toxic fumes!
I am puzzled by the push to Small Modular Reactors for nuclear power. As I understand it, the cycle used is a helium cycle, sometimes with a second loop of steam to drive turbines. What I don’t understand is the cost effectiveness of this, since all the safety and security issues still stand for SMRs as with baseload units. The reason larger units are more cost effectiveness is because of economy of scale. Am I wrong?
I'm far from an expert in this area, but I have attended several conferences on SMRs. You are correct about the security overhead costs. However, the theory is that the threat issue is diminished since they will generally be housed in a hole. If it is located in conjunction with an existing boiling water reactor, the increase in security costs will be minimal. SMRs are attractive for three reasons (1) they can follow variable wind and solar by ramping up and down quickly - something large reactors can't do. (2) They are envisioned to be manufactured in an assembly plant, shipped to the site, and installed. Theoretically reducing construction costs. (3) These plants can be incrementally added to a site 1/2 MW increments as consumer power demand increases.
I’m not in the industry and don’t have a lot of knowledge about its operations. It seems from reading a few of your articles that if we truly wanted to reduce emissions hydro and nuclear would be our best bets for base loads (I think I’m getting this right) and then using solar/wind for additional energy production. With the estimates for increasing demand nation wide with AI etc, would this be your recommendation? (I have a feeling new hydro is hard to do at mass scale most places, so more nuclear seems to be the general answer…)
You are spot on Stephen, wind and solar have their place as supplementary energy, and I am not one who thinks they need to be wiped off the planet. Supplementary energy is generally expected to be somewhat expensive, which is a niche that fits those energy sources, especially if you pair them with batteries and use them as a “battery charger”.
Makes perfect sense, thank you. 😊
Are flywheels a reasonable way to provide inertia for renewables?
They are, and used to be used 60-70 years ago. They were typically used in combination with a sychronous condenser, basically a sychronous motor with no load. The sychronous condenser provided voltage control to the system and the flywheel provided inertia. BUT they are expensive up front, they cost money to run, and they do require regular maintenance. So utilities have moved away from from them because of cost. They typically needed a pony engine or motor to get them up to speed before they were closed to power. The field was usually energized after they were already running to pull them into sync.