

An overhaul of the battery will jump-start a shift to renewable energy - dctoedt
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/a-better-battery/359811/

======
dredmorbius
I'm not particularly convinced by this story. It reminds me of a similarly
unconvincing piece by Charles Mann a few months back on the prospect of
seafloor methane hydrate mining.

Battery science is hard, capacities are limited by chemistry, and the easy-to-
find electrolytes (also the cheapest and most abundant) are fairly well known.
Barring breakthroughs in allotropes (such as graphene, everyone's current
favorite carbon molecule), novel inorganic molecules, or biotech-derived
approaches, I suspect chemistry doesn't have a whole lot extra to give us.
Even reasonably abundant minerals such as lithium portent supply crunches when
scaled to, say, a century or more worth of battery EV production (though Elon
Musk speaks confidently of addressing this via recycling -- though no
recycling process is 100% efficient).

The more interesting approaches I've seen for grid-scale battery storage
involve possibly less efficient, and certainly less convenient, but cheap and
highly abundant materials such as the molten salt or liquid metal (see Donald
Sadoway's work) concepts. The chemistry works, the materials abundance is
there.

I've played with some back-of-the-envelope calculations suggesting that for
electrical energy storage, very large scale thermal storage, say enough for
two weeks of supply at the scale of the US, is plausible. The heat-substrate
facility would be approximately the size of an existing very large petroleum
storage tank farm (these exist in Oklahoma at the terminus of several oil
pipelines). See: [http://redd.it/1viied](http://redd.it/1viied)

But the really useful forms of energy storage humans have turned to are long-
chain hydrocarbons, whether created recently in nature as olive oil, beeswax,
tallow, or other biogenic oils, or in the form of petroleum, and to a lesser
extent gas and coal.

The prospect of the US Naval Research Lab's electricity-to-fuel project
utilizing seawater as a source of both hydrogen and CO2 to feed a Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis process strikes me as among the most promising prospects
I've read in a long time. It requires an external energy supply (the Navy
proposes existing nuclear reactors aboard aircraft carriers, or renewable
energy in the form of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC). Proposed at a
scale of 100,000 gallons of aviation fuel (essentially kerosene or diesel)
daily, fed by 240MW of electrical energy (roughly the scale of a carrier's
reactors), at a cost of $3-$6 per gallon of fuel produced, it's more expensive
than present fossil fuel energy sources, but, when tied to a renewable energy
source, offers the prospect of a constant-cost liquid fuel source effectively
forever.

It also seems to me that scaling this to roughly national levels of production
is at least plausible. The NRL's proposal is 1/8400th of present US petroleum
consumption, but scaling up costs and plant estimates, $8 trillion in capital,
2 TWe in energy, and a total of 10 m x 4.5 km x 4.5 km processing facility
volume, would replace the 20 million barrels of oil presently consumed daily
in the US. This compares against some $4 trillion in capital expenditures on
new conventional petroleum exploration from 2005 - 2012 with a net _reduction_
in oil supply of 2 million barrels/day.[1] And yes, the supplied electrical
energy is an _additional_ cost: this won't be cheap. But it's forever.

Round-trip efficiency isn't great: no better than the 60% efficiency of
hydrogen electrolysis, with additional energy input requirements for CO2
extraction and a _lot_ of seawater handling (8.8 billion liters/day for the
Navy's proposal, 74 trillion at national scale). But once produced, oil
doesn't suffer from the relatively rapid storage losses of most alternatives:
a few percent per hour or day for many battery, thermal, or kinetic flywheel
systems. If used for electrical generation there's another 30% generating loss
experienced, for a maximum net efficiency of 42%, but if used to provide
liquid fuels to critical uses, this could well prove highly attractive --
there are somethings it's really hard to substitute for.

The process should also be carbon neutral, though it does involve a net
transfer from present ocean to present atmospheric carbon reservoirs.

I discuss this more here: [http://redd.it/22k71x](http://redd.it/22k71x)

It's not that I don't expect _some_ improvement in battery technology, but
there's a 5x advantage in energy storage densities (MJ/kg) between the _best_
present battery storage technologies (lithium-air) and liquid hydrocarbons.
That's closer to 25x for LiON vs. oil[2]. While incremental efficiency
improvements (and better energy scavenging through, say pervasive PV surfaces)
might be useful for electronics and their Moore's Law dynamics, for devices
operating in the physical world and its constraints, batteries will continue
to be at a disadvantage in cost, capacity, complexity, and/or abundance.

________________________________

Notes:

1\. Steven Kopits presentation, February, 2014.
[http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-calendar/global-
oil-...](http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-calendar/global-oil-market-
forecasting-main-approaches-key-drivers) Also discussed and analyzed by Gail
Tverberg: [http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/03/03/steven-kopits-oil-
the-e...](http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/03/03/steven-kopits-oil-the-economy-
and-policy/)

2\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density)

~~~
tomp
Hey! I was always fascinated about energy, but am not too knowledgeable, so I
would like to ask you something about oil production: would it be
possible/efficient/economical to grow plants (e.g. algae or photosynthesizing
bacteria) instead of using CO2 extracted from the sea? I.e. build huge pools
in sunny areas, grow algae, harvest them occasionally, and extract CO2 from
them or, even better, process them, essentially speeding up the natural oil-
producing process.

~~~
mikeyouse
There are dozens of companies that are working on this (I work for one) in a
variety of media including bacteria, yeast, algae, switchgrass, etc. It's a
very hard problem made more difficult by the drop in the cost of oil from $150
-> $75 since most of these companies were funded.

A partial list of people working on it:

* Amyris

* Solazyme

* KiOR

* Algenol

* Sapphire

* Aurora

* Synthetic Genomics

* Cellana

* PetroSun

Notably, most of the companies on that list have taken hundreds of millions of
dollars from domestic and foreign oil companies hoping to create their own
supply. Maybe more notably, several of the companies on the list went public,
then lost 80-90% of their market cap. Most are pursuing other, higher value
products as a first-order business, with promises of biofuels down the road.

~~~
dredmorbius
As I commented previously: plant productivity simply doesn't scale to existing
petroleum consumption levels. Even substituting for petroleum in niche uses
(say: ocean shipping or aviation) comprising a few percent (I believe combined
these are around 5% of total petroleum use, though aggregate global stats are
hard to find), in which alternatives are unfeasible, would be a major
challenge and require the allocation of tremendous acreages of land to biofuel
production.

Remember that the transition from wood to coal occurred largely because the
world was running out of wood. Otherwise, wood had a lot to commend itself: it
was locally available (coal comes from limited locations), doesn't involve
mining dangers, and is easier to burn (some early coal proponents in the US
were accused of fraud when the "rocks" they sold wouldn't burn in existing
ovens -- anthracite coal is tough to ignite).

Where opportunistic feedstocks exist, I suspect biofuels may supply _some_
energy, but it's going to be a very small fraction of existing fossil
consumption in advanced nations.

~~~
mikeyouse
In the short term, you're likely right, in the very long term, I think
biofuels will make up the vast majority of liquid fuel (which will be helped
as most transport moves to electric).

There have been some interesting developments in biofuels lately with Algenol
peaking above >10,000 gallons/acre/year rate and demonstrating a sustained
rate north of 8,000 gallons/acre/year. There have been some murmurs of
breakthroughs in genetically modifying the photosynthesis pathway as well,
which could have a dramatic affect on per-acre productivity.

~~~
dredmorbius
Unless (or until) human populations fall markedly -- to, say, 500m - 2b, the
viability of biofuels simply doesn't add up. There's too much conflict with
both other human ag demands, and with ecological systems.

Is that algenol productivity associated with open-air production, or is that
in an artificial controlled environment with UV lighting and a highly
engineered grow space?

Even if those production rates can be sustained, you're looking at 30 million
acres for algae cultivation.

Technical details are thin, but I've found their 9kgal/acre-yr release:

[http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/03/11/algenol-
hit...](http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/03/11/algenol-
hits-9k-gallonsacre-mark-for-algae-to-ethanol-process/)

~~~
maxerickson
But 30 million acres is merely a vast amount of infrastructure. It's a big
piece of land if you consider it at once (a few hundred miles on a side), but
spread across all the places where there are people, it isn't that big an
area.

If you manage to build some of the infrastructure in the oceans, the area
doesn't even matter (that doesn't mean it would be easy, there is just lots of
room).

~~~
dredmorbius
It's a vast amount of land, no matter how you slice it.

A few hundred miles on a side is the size of many larger states in the US, and
that assumes a 100% fill factor. Add in requirements for access roads,
equipment, human habitations and support, and that's going to increase, though
I'm not sure by how much -- 10% to 30% wouldn't surprise me.

Built as a corridor, 30 million acres is 1000 miles x 47 miles -- an assembly
of grow tanks stretching 25 miles on either side of an highway running from
Chicago to Denver. Though more likely it would be situated in a desert region
(so as not to compete with existing agriculture), but where it _would_ compete
with alternative direct electrical (or electricity-to-fuel) alternatives.

Even if the area doesn't require freshwater access, it will require _water_ ,
and for that to be transported (likelihood of occupying thousands of miles of
coastline are slim) considerable distances inland, and then back out again
(waste streams and salt). All of which are both capital and operationally
intensive.

Building sea-based structures would similarly be insanely capital intensive.
You'd be better off finding a way to create an inland salt lake (say: in the
Dead Sea or Death Valley) and situate your grow-ponds there.

Marine or even simply salt-water environments are very, very harsh and hard on
structures (even concrete) and equipment.

~~~
maxerickson
Sure, it's a tremendous amount of system to decide to construct. But "15% of
Texas for liquid fuels for forever" isn't that bad a deal if you can actually
get it to work (and there is realistically a lot of low hanging fruit in
reducing US fuel consumption, present day numbers would work fine for quite a
lot more people).

You can also put some of those acres in other places, you don't have to take
them all from Texas.

~~~
dredmorbius
As a practical matter, so long as you're situating this in the US, odds are
very good that you're looking at Texas or California, possibly other Gulf
states (though there'd be competition for other ag activities there). Perhaps
building floating algae structures over Florida after it sinks under rising
oceans....

You're constrained by alternative land uses, requirements for sunlight,
avoiding freezing (even in Texas and California, desert regions see frosts),
and access to seawater.

Elsewhere in the world you could situate grow ponds in warm desert regions:
the Sahara, northern and western Australia, the Arabian peninsula (somewhat
ironically, requires more comic san(d)s), and similar areas, though these
would be among the largest.

------
spikels
It is generally hard to take James Fallows' opinions seriously. He is a great
writer but always seems to be of the wrong side of history. For example back
in the late 1980s he led the "The Japanese are Taking Over the World" scare
just before Japan went into a multi-decade decline[1]. The fact that he is now
worried about China puts my mind at ease.

He is much more credible when he simply quotes Stephen Chu. That much better
batteries would change the world is not controversial. Actually making it
happen is the tricky bit.

[1]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89may/fallows.h...](https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89may/fallows.htm)

~~~
dctoedt
> _It is generally hard to take James Fallows ' opinions seriously. _

To me it's exactly the opposite. Fallows isn't infallible, but his opinions
are always measured and carefully-considered. For probably 30 years now I've
been interested in what he's had to say about any variety of issues (except
his interest in beer, which strikes me as perhaps an affectation calculated to
present an Everyman image).

For example, Fallows moved to Japan in the 1980s, living and working there for
several years if memory serves. His view on Japan's economic future was
_extremely_ widely held back then; many, many smart people have scratched
their heads since then, wondering why things didn't go as predicted. (Who'd
have thought it: History not unfolding as predicted; now _there 's_ something
new, eh?)

As to Fallows's views on China, he has been a voice of moderation --- again in
part because he moved there to live and work for a few years.

~~~
brc
Mutant Keynesian policy idiocy coupled with demographic decline is why things
didn't go as predicted.

~~~
dctoedt
Hindsight is always so much easier to get right than foresight.

------
Qworg
Batteries are really hard.

The combination of electrochemical systems, with mechanical requirements make
the tradeoffs subtle and the gains sometimes elusive.

Ex: We tested some new SLA(Sealed Lead Acid) batteries that claimed 20%
improvement. They provided very close to that number. But they were totally
unacceptable for us - the plates were too fragile and were breaking/shorting
in transit.

~~~
omegant
It's not possible to physically encapsulate the plates with some plastic grid
to make them more resistant? What kind of application are you doing?

~~~
Qworg
Riding Lawnmowers.

And no, that would obviate the benefits of their new technology.

------
stoev
This article is disappointing - the first two thirds explain why we need
better batteries, as if it was not already painstakingly obvious, and then the
last bit mentions three technologies without actually saying much about any of
them.

------
ballard
This is a good driver for tech. It makes sense for everyone to have their own
battery at home to be like a google server ups... Distributed is far more
reliable than centralized. Heck the power grid wouldn't even have to be 24/7
anymore if it could handle both the peak current and deliver enough average
power.

~~~
Sanddancer
Electricity is an area where centralized is much more efficient and reliable,
due to the economies of scale when dealing with larger load infrastructures.
However, batteries close to the end point could definitely a useful thing,
because the grid does work better when there is a constant load. It's easier
to plan for both day-to-day activities, and if a plant does need to go down
for emergency maintenance.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's not just economies of scale, but laws of large numbers.

Existing grids have benefited from the fact that though any given individual
demand rate might vary widely, averaged over a large number of consumers,
trends are far more predictable.

On the generating side this hasn't typically been as much of an issue, with
highly reliable and dispatchable generating plants. With intermittent
renewable/sustainable sources, the fact that local variations in solar or wind
capacity can be mitigate by transmitting surpluses, or importing necessary
capacity, also helps. In an advanced grid with attached storage, again, large-
number averaging should, with effective management, help balance supply and
demand.

Trying to do this at the scale of individual households means far more
variability which must be dealt with on he immediate premises. This is among
the reasons I strongly doubt that visions of a "gridless future" will emerge,
at least so long as there's not widespread collapse of _all_ social and
technical infrastructure.

~~~
ballard
Large battery banks would allow demand to "debounced" (smoothed) such that
load could be much flatter and more predictable. It would be an adjunct at
most, definitely not a replacement because it would be temporary storage.
Further, any new tech never replaces the previous completely (just look at DC-
power grid for elevators in SF. Records, 8-tracks still exist in a post CD
world.)

------
7952
If a large proportion of energy comes from storage wouldn't that eliminate or
reduce the need for off peak pricing? In such a system could you actually bid
on overcapacity? So that the initially generated energy would be sold to the
highest bidder who would store or use the energy.

~~~
zizee
People are doing just that to take advantage of off peak pricing:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/the-10...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/the-100-000-battery-
that-could-help-hotels-save-bundles-of-money/281194/)

