VRB Power Systems acquires capacity to produce utility scale power storage

[JohnWxy]

with even greater efficiency.

VRB Power Acquires Regenesys Electricity Storage Technology



Power storage is not an experimental technology. ITs proven, working and on top of that, it's economical. When it will be needed (perhaps in 10-15 years as wind power in the US grows.) it will be there waiting for us.

~~
VRB Power Systems Inc. has completed a transaction with RWE npower PLC, a leading integrated U.K. energy business and subsidiary of German-based parent company RWE AG, whereby VRB Power will purchase an exclusive global license to the intellectual property and acquire all the related physical assets and inventory surrounding the Regenesys electricity storage technology.

"This acquisition moves VRB Power significantly forward on two fronts," said Timothy Hennessy, CEO of VRB Power. "First, some of Regenesys' key design features and intellectual property, including the most advanced, low-cost methods of manufacturing and assembly of cell stacks in the world today, will be incorporated into our own VRB Energy Storage System and cell stack development program. This will provide VRB Power with innovative cell stack manufacturing capabilities that have been through years of development utilizing industry recognized expertise and intellectual property.
~~

"Secondly, there are significant synergies between the VRB and Regenesys technologies, both being flow batteries. The Regenesys technology will be easily integrated into VRB Power's current business plan and approach to the energy storage markets, and will allow VRB Power to expand into market segments for very large energy storage applications. The VRB technology is best suited for applications from 5 kW up to 10 MW (100 MW hours). With the addition of the Regenesys technology, VRB Power now has an effective range of products that can store energy from tens of kilowatt hours through hundreds of megawatt hours providing utility scale solutions using the ‘Electricity WarehouseT’ concept developed by Regenesys," said Hennessy.

http://www.vrbpower.com/publications/media.html

Storage: the next generation
Why build a new power plant when the technology exists to store excess
megawatts until needed?

Apr. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
ADRIANA MUGNATTO-HAMU

"Ontario is moving ahead with a natural-gas-fired generator on the Portlands, with plans
to start building this summer. Local opposition is growing louder. Meanwhile, engineer
Greg Allen of Sustainable EDGE Ltd., a Toronto engineering and design firm, has been
quietly promoting an alternative he believes is cheaper, cleaner and faster to build.
One reason natural gas is attractive to the McGuinty government is that it is a natural
complement to nuclear energy, which maintains a steady flow 24 hours a day. Naturalgas
generators can accommodate fluctuations in electrical demand, filling in the daily
peaks that nuclear reactors don't address.

The government's urgency in building the new generator is the result of warnings that
the city could face rolling blackouts in the summer of 2008 without an increase in
capacity during peak hours."

"Storage systems can store power from the existing grid as easily as they can store power
from renewable sources. This feature, Allen says, can conveniently solve Toronto's
looming energy crisis today while simultaneously preparing us for a sustainable future
tomorrow.

There is actually no shortage of electricity available to Toronto, on average. The problem
is that for parts of the day electricity is abundant and inexpensive, while at others,
particularly summer afternoons when everyone turns on their air conditioner, the
transmission lines are inadequate and available energy is very expensive.

A battery could purchase the power at the lowest price available, store it, and release it
to the city when transmission lines reach capacity at a much higher price. The battery
that will one day save solar energy for night-time delivery can also be used now to store
night-time generation for daytime delivery.

A variety of storage options are available or in development today. The one Allen
proposes is a flow battery. Flow batteries are liquid electrolyte fuel cells that have been
cost-effectively employed in power grids in Japan, Australia and the United States."
~~

What distinguishes flow batteries from other storage options is that the energy is stored
separately from the power cell in two separate tanks, each filled with electrolyte solution.

The electrolyte is rotated with pumps through power cells, where the solutions from the
two tanks are separated by a membrane that permits ionic interchange. Electrodes force
a charge from one side of the membrane to the other. As the battery gets charged, the
charge moves from one electrolyte tank to the other. As the battery is discharged, the
charge moves back. The power is determined by the size, number and configuration of
the power cells.
~~

While flow batteries are not new, the first dating back to the 19th century, interest has
grown since the 1970s, and especially recently as they have become commercially viable
for large-scale applications. They currently sell for approximately $500 per kWh of
storage capacity, with incremental storage costs in large-scale systems of only $150 per
kWh. In comparison, the cost of the 550 MW Portlands Energy Centre is projected to be
$700 million.

[greenman3610]

1. Another out of the box idea

storing energy during nights from extra capacity
"spinning reserve" from power plants that are
to difficult to power down at night.

Plug in hybrid cars can also take advantage of this
reserve power, converting it to a gasoline replacement.
Yes, coal still gets burned, but the efficiency goes
much higher if it is fully utilized. It's a step.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. It will be waiting for us...

...along with it's $15 trillion price tag. Or $3 trillion if you just want to back up wind's 20% of US energy, assuming we can wait that long.

You like discussing the costs of nuclear power. Why not discuss the costs of wind?

Of course, the price may drop: would you care to speculate? $15/KWh? $1.50/KWh, maybe? Have a go.

[JohnWxy]

5. Maybe I missed something, (something big) but I presented

my simple arithmetic here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x49639#50382

i just used VRBs costs per kilowatt hr of storage capacity and AWEA's costs per kiloWatt to install wind turbines and went from there. Maybe there's something I don't understand, but I got a different number.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. I'm hoping I got it wrong...

...not you. :)

[skids]

3. Thanks.

Been too busy to keep up on VRB. Good to see some consolidation going on.

And the cranky nuke advocates should take a step back and see how this sort of facility would ease concerns about useless baseload generation by nukes, instead of lambasting it out of sheer reflex.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Not a reflex...

The "energy from wind with VR storage" solution adds up that way: I'm just doing the sums that no-one else wants to look at, for whatever reason.

If the US did install VR batteries to handle peak load, charged off-peak by whatever means (which equals nuclear in my mind, but I'm open to suggestions) the price would be in the region of $375 Billion, which is a bit more manageable - although it would also be nice if the price of solar dropped enough to handle peak.

Bulk VR is actually cheaper than pumped hydro (which came as a pleasant surprise), and not restricted by geography, so it could indeed play a Key role in energy policy. It's not magic, or free, however: I just want to see a real solution to getting the damn CO2 out of the air, not a half-baked one.