
Open-Source Iron Battery Project - ZenoArrow
https://uandigive.communityfunded.net/?cfpage=project&project_id=16128
======
stcredzero
The "Allen Lab" YouTube channel is teeny-tiny, and has bare-bones
presentation, but it has some of the best actual science content -- especially
if you actually paid attention in science classes in school and are a bit
tired of the "Mr. Wizard" level gee-whiz YouTube science stuff that covers
material you already know. (That said, if you find those videos informative
and fun, then knock yourself out! Each to their own.) (His channel's name is
actually just "Peter Allen.")

~~~
j_s
>jw1224: _This seems like a good time to mention Captain Disillusion_
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15423432](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15423432)
(2017Oct)

~~~
stcredzero
It's always a good time to mention Captain Disillusion!

------
outsideoflife
I like this idea. For many off grid situations energy density and weight is
not that big of an issue compared to cost. If instead of the size of a
'Powerwall' you had to have something the size of a coal bunker or compost
bin, that wouldn't really be an issue at all if the materials were very low
cost and I could build it myself.

~~~
extrapickles
You can build nickel-iron batteries yourself, and they use reasonably easy to
source materials. The nickel is expensive though, so they can’t easily compete
with lead-acid.

~~~
jws
You can beat lead acid on lifetime. I looked into that for a remote
installation instead of a half ton of lead acid every 8 years. I elected to do
lead acid once more and then hope for a suitable lithium solution. I swear
that half ton feels heavier every 8 years.

------
ZenoArrow
This could be a good stepping stone towards creating DIY batteries that have a
useful level of power storage. Seems to tick a lot of boxes; cheap, abundant
materials, non-toxic. Whilst it's not likely to be a good fit for all cases,
it could help the growth of off-grid energy solutions, as well as being an
interesting science project.

------
jpm_sd
I wish there was a text explanation, I don't have the patience for video most
of the time. How does this technology compare to already-commercialized
nickel-iron batteries?

[0] [https://ironedison.com/](https://ironedison.com/) [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery)

~~~
philipkglass
Unfortunately, there were no details about the proposed battery chemistry in
the video either.

From memory, nickel-iron batteries have the following limitations for
stationary storage:

\- Relatively high self-discharge rate (though this isn't a big problem if
you're buffering renewable electricity on a daily basis)

\- Comparatively low energy efficiency, ~70%

\- Hydrogen evolution by water electrolysis during charging -- a potential
hazard, and one of the main loss paths driving the low efficiency

\- Electrolyte water loss from electrolytic evolution of hydrogen during
charging requires regular compensation with additional water

There have been a number of approaches to improve efficiency/suppress hydrogen
evolution in nickel-iron batteries by the addition of organosulfur compounds.
I don't think that any of those approaches are on the way to commercialization
yet, though.

~~~
nimos
Can you just store the hydrogen? Or is it just so inefficient as to be
useless?

Seems like batteries to cover 95%+ of your use case then having hydrogen
backup for for covering rare weather conditions might work well for off grid
setups.

~~~
leggomylibro
I think the main issue with hydrogen is just that it's crazy dangerous and
sort of hard to work with safely. It's highly flammable, and becomes violently
explosive when mixed with oxygen.

It's easy to make - just pass current through water - but while all batteries
are basically bombs, a key factor in their design is that they should go off
_very slowly._

~~~
rzzzt
How about burning it as it is produced?

~~~
leggomylibro
Okay, but now you just have some steam and heat floating around.

It's gonna dissipate pretty quickly, not a great way to store power for the
medium-long term. Hydrogen _separated from Oxygen_ is where the useful
potential energy difference is.

The idea behind hydrogen fuel cell batteries is that you spend your cheap
clean renewable energy to split H2O slowly when energy is available, and burn
the hydrogen when you need bursts of power. If you burn the hydrogen right
away, you're just un-doing the water-splitting reaction and you won't have
anything to use for power when the cheap clean renewable energy is not
available, like during the night for solar power.

I _think_ that the usual way to get energy back out of the hydrogen is just to
burn it and let the hot pressurized gas power a steam turbine, but don't quote
me on that. Or try it at home; scalding and flash burns are good things to
avoid.

~~~
Doxin
Could you use the steam to drive a turbine to recharge the batteries? You'd
not recover nearly everything clearly but I'd imagine it's more than nothing.

------
juliangoldsmith
If there's any way to spur adoption of renewable energy, it's this.

Once renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels, almost everyone will start
to switch.

~~~
zackmorris
Renewables are already cheaper than coal:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+solar+cheaper+than+coal...](https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+solar+cheaper+than+coal&tbm=nws)

I saw a chart a decade ago that projected when the cost of rooftop
photovoltaic panels would be be less than the install cost, and it was before
now. Looks like that happened around last year ($3 per watt for panel, $3 per
watt for install cost):

[https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-
to...](https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-
solar-on-an-average-us-house/)

With free energy all around us from the sun, the difficulty is no longer in
collection. The next big opportunities from a profit vs effort descending
perspective will be in areas that are causing friction in adopting renewables:

* legalities

* inverters (currently priced 2-10x higher than they should be for non-technical reasons)

* storage (batteries, compressed air, gravity etc)

* conversion (electrolysis and methane production)

* distribution

~~~
Zaak
Are inverters costing more because of increased demand at the current
production rate, or is there monopoly / price gouging happening?

~~~
zackmorris
I may have been off a little, grid tie inverters used to be too expensive but
it looks like they've come down a lot in the last year or two. It's currently
about $50/kW for computer power supplies and $100/kW for grid tie inverters:

[https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1000+watt+power+supply](https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1000+watt+power+supply)

[https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1000+watt+grid+tie+inve...](https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1000+watt+grid+tie+inverter)

So still a factor of 2x but there is room there for innovation. They will
likely always be more expensive due to safety considerations for line workers
etc though.

IMHO this is the component that is most likely to bring renewables to the
masses because they can convert any kind of power to the existing standard.

------
larrydag
I don't like it when people sell renewable sources of energy as "the cheapest
source of energy available". If it were actually cheap then why do you need a
community funded project? The problem with solar is storage but hardly anyone
discusses that in the total cost of energy consumption.

These projects need to be transparent up front. To achieve the "cheap"
objective you need benchmarks such as existing technology vs future
technology. For instance, i believe they should state "our goal is to achieve
$X/Kwh compared to $Y/Kwh of existing technology". That way you can see
something measurable, scientific, and objective oriented.

I like the project so don't get me wrong. I just think they've worded it all
wrong as what they are trying to achieve.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Your first question:

“If it were actually cheap then why do you need a community funded project?”

Seems a bit daft to me. They need $5000 to buy materials for their university
research. If the project is successful the energy they store will be cheap.
But doing the research and acquiring the energy are totally different things,
so even if the latter is free the former is not.

------
dragontamer
There are other cheap, abundant, and non-toxic rechargeable batteries. NiMH in
particular fits all of those, the only downside is that its (slightly) heavier
than the standard Lithium Ion.

Indeed, NiMH used to be the standard before Li-Ion took over. NiMH can pack
nearly the same energy as Lithium Ion, except do it in a safe, renewable, non-
toxic way without any exotic, potentially non-ethical materials (like Cobalt).
NiMH is still widely available as well, virtually every rechargeable AA cell
out there is NiMH.

What benefit does Iron have over NiMH?

~~~
craftyguy
I thought nickel mining was a horribly destructive and toxic process?

~~~
marcosdumay
Besides, nickel is expensive and not really healthy to have on your
environment in ionic form.

I don't see where the GP is coming from.

------
zafka
I like this! Even if this route does not work, it gets several people learning
more about the nitty gritty of batteries.

