Redt Energy Share Discussion Threads

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 01:19

another thing I forgot to mention is that a lithium battery will charge, to discharge once a day when needed for that extra boost to the grid and a flow battery will cycle between charge and dischage all day long, think long and hard, this is a huge advantage.....so where a lithium battery has a capacity of 100Kwh but discharges only 50% of its capacity in a day ie.. 50Kwh, a flow battery will charge and part discharge many times a day, so in fact you may get 150Kwh out of a 100Kwh battery or even more!!!!!

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 01:03

VRFB are none flamable and do not suffer thermal runway......

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 01:02

So flow battery,s can go where no lithium can go !!!!!!!!! another plus !!!

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 01:00

Rogers is in the forefront of those efforts. As New York began to ramp up its energy storage efforts, Rogers realized that there were not procedures in place to deal with battery fires.

That posed a problem in a densely populated city that in September set a goal of having 100 MWh of energy storage in place by 2020 as part of the city’s effort to cut greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050.

Right now New York City’s fire code “is not restrictive,” Rogers said. It doesn’t address what type of suppression system – water, chemical, water with an additive – would be most appropriate to put out a burning li-ion battery. “We are looking at a dry chemical suppressant, but it is not yet clear if that is the way to go,” he said.

The real problem, Rogers noted, is no so much how to put out a li-ion fire, but how a storage system reacts during and after a fire.

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:58

en smart phone batteries catch fire or laptop batteries explode on airplanes, it makes the news.

So far batteries used to store energy at the residential and commercial level have avoided those headlines. But eventually there will be a problem.

“Battery fires are rare, but when they happen you have to be prepared,” said Lt. Paul Rogers with the Fire Department of New York’s hazardous materials operations division.

Rogers works with a team within FDNY’s hazardous materials operations division, and he has become the point person on energy storage safety issues. “I am a one man show,” he said, operating as a liaison with regulators, researchers and industry.

As the headlines suggest, much of the current safety concerns about batteries revolve around lithium-ion batteries. Those concerns are well founded: Li-ion batteries have a lion’s share of the energy storage market and are the fastest growing storage technology.

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:57

What happens when 12,000 batteries burn?
The stubborn blaze burned for more than 13 hours and continued to smolder after 36 hours, spewing gray smoke and forcing the wind turbines to shut down. Though there were no injuries reported, the operators wrote off the entire battery system.
The fire was a hard lesson for energy storage developers and first responders in handling a new technology. Grid-level battery systems in particular are cropping up around the country as the industry matures, prices drop and regulations compel energy providers to invest in storage.

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:51

Battery Fires Pose New Risks to Firefighters
Electricity storage booms as regulators race to develop safety standards

The 10-megawatt battery system, installed by Xtreme Power, was used to buffer electricity from the 12-turbine, 30 MW wind farm operated by First Wind, smoothing out spikes and low spots in wind power production.
Within 20 minutes, the Honolulu Fire Department arrived at the scene. It was the third fire the firefighters had responded to at that 9,000-square-foot building since operations there started in 2011, but the previous fires burned themselves out or were extinguished before causing extensive damage.
"On-site supervisors advised us that entry into the building was not advised because of the hazards," said Terry Seelig, battalion chief at the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Honolulu Fire Department.
The risks from scalding heat, poisonous fumes, a collapsing structure and the potential for battery explosions kept firefighters outside the warehouse. After determining no one was inside, the response team focused on keeping the blaze from spreading to other buildings at the site.
"It's a defensive fire attack at that point," Seelig said. "The only risk at that point would be to the responders going in."
The team used water to cool parts of the building but avoided using it to extinguish the fire out of concerns for electric shock and risks of creating toxic chemical runoff. Instead, they waited for a carbon dioxide extinguishing system to arrive on the scene, but that proved ineffective at quenching the inferno.

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:47

PUGUGLY15 Apr '17 - 11:58 - 664 of 675 2 1 (premium)
dog:> Could it be that as many of the other technologies have significantly lower capital costs potential purchasers are betting on a continuing fall in cost per kwh



As lithiun technology price falls so will flow battery technology, but you can not get away from the fact that you need twice as much lithium battery,s and the degradation is quiet dramatic when you discharge lithium over 50%, so making the lithium choice very expensive in the long run...

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:40

So as you see the VRFB wins over the lithium competitor, but you still need lithium for that burst of power, thats why there are no diesel formula 1 cars and almost all lorry,s are diesel.....

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:37

The life of a redox flow battery not being affected by depth of discharge or number of cycles makes them especially suited for practical use at the grid scale or in electric vehicles where numerous cycles of various depths will occur. Additionally, RFBs can be designed to operate at much higher current and power densities than conventional batteries, and any system using this technology can have increased capacity by the addition of a larger tank system, at minimal cost compared to the cell stack. The two separate electrolyte tanks

During the charge and discharge cycles of a redox flow battery, only the relative concentrations of each oxidized and reduced form change in each stream. This decoupling of storage and reaction in a flow cell battery is an advantage over conventional batteries, but the only limiting factor of this is the more complex mechanical system for pumping the potentially corrosive electrolyte. Resultant from the necessity of mechanical components, mass and volume power densities are lower than traditional batteries, however these factors are unimportant for grid storage applications where size and weight do not matter. Other grid based energy storage solutions such as pumped water or compressed air storage require specific geographies, however a redox flow battery has none of these challenges. For electric cars, these lower densities are more than offset by the utility created by not only being able to charge the car conventionally by plugging it in but allowing the ability to quickly drain and refill electrolyte to allow the car on the road in a time no longer than the fueling of an internal combustion engine at a gas pump. The use of a quick electrolyte swap for charging, and the almost infinite number of charge/discharge cycles of a flow cell battery makes them far more useful in next generation electric vehicles than lithium ion batteries.

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:34

The lifespan of a battery is typically specified by two numbers:

the number of years the battery can function in a floating state (i.e. fully charged)
the number of charges/discharges (cycles) it can absorb while still providing nominal performance.
The problem with this specification is that the energy capacity of the battery depends upon the discharge current (in A. Amperes), and that the number of cycles in the lifespan depends upon how deep the discharge is.

So it is important to read the specifications of a battery system with great care, to understand properly what the manufacturers’ specifications actually mean, so that you can compare them to other manufacturers or technologies.

Many manufacturers of grid scale battery systems do not provide full public specifications for their products, nor price. This shows, to a degree, that the grid scale battery storage market is still quite immature, when manufacturers expect to gain competitive advantage by obscuring information.

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:26

this is what happens when a lithium battery is discarged too much, it shortens the life, there are many figures from lithium battery manufacturers but what they fail to tell you is how far the battery was discharged, they also fail to tell clients that they would need to install double the Kwh that they actually need to get any decent life out of the battery, so for 100Kwh they would need to install 200Kwh to get any decent life out of the instalation, where by they could install a REDT storage machine of 100Kwh and that could be discharged 100%, so while you pay REDT for 100Kwh you would have to pay a lithium manufacturer for 200Kwh, so if lithium was $250 a Kwh and REDT,s storage machine was $500 a Kwh, that would make them the same price, but you would still need to have 3 lithium to 1 REDT... over a 25 year period....

Lithium, how it degrades with depth of discharge !!!!

[dlg3] 16/4/2017 00:17

lets say a lithium battery costs £100 and lasts 8 years, (that is a fair expected life of a lithium battry, if not punished too much, but should it be subject to excessive discharge then you could probably half the life)

Now lets take REDT,s storage machine, it lasts 25 years, so lets say it is 50% more expensive so costs £150.. REDT,s storage machine could be discharged 100% nearly every day, while lithium if discharged below 60% would decrease the life....

the lithium battery costs £100 so needs replacing 3 times to make it last 25 years, so the total cost not accounting for inflation, would be £300, add in the removal of 2 battery at lets say 5% of cost so now that becomes £310 and the instalation of 2 battery,s, I now make that £320, now lets add 30% for inflation over 25 years I now make that £436..........meanwhile REDT,s 1 storage machine has cost £150....so lithium could be nearly 3 times the cost of 1 REDT unit.....

[dlg3] 15/4/2017 23:52

Initially, the Panamera is offered with a choice of three engines – two petrol and one diesel, all of which are supplemented by turbochargers. The entry point is a 3.0-litre V6 petrol fitted to the 4S. Producing 434hp and 406lb ft of torque, it covers the 0-62mph dash in 4.4 seconds (4.2 with Porsche’s Sport Chrono Package) yet returns a claimed 34.8mpg in official tests.

At 416hp, the 4.0-litre V8 used by the 4S Diesel can’t quite match the output of the 3.0-litre petrol, but compensates with a huge torque rating of 627lb ft and impressive 42.1mpg average fuel consumption. With a top speed of 177mph, it’s the fastest diesel production car on sale.

[dlg3] 15/4/2017 23:50

Diesel cars are no longer the slow, noisy and more economical option – there are some seriously quick models on the market that drink from the black pump. What’s more, they deliver plenty of torque from low in the engine range, so feel more relaxed on the move and return better fuel economy than their petrol counterparts.

Here are the 10 fastest diesel cars on sale:

Porsche Panamera 4S Diesel
BMW 435d xDrive
Audi A8 4.2 TDI
BMW 335d xDrive
Bentley Bentayga Diesel
Audi SQ7
Audi A6 3.0 BiTDI
BMW 740d xDrive
Audi A4 3.0 TDI
BMW 640d

[dlg3] 15/4/2017 23:49

dogrunner11 yes Redox flow battery,s of which there are many varierties will have the market just a lithium has.....years ago if you wanted a car with punch you would buy petrol, thats like the lithium battery today and if you wanted a workhorse you chose diesel that is flow battery,s, Flow battery,s are the workhorse of the energy business and lithium is the expansive option in the long run, petol engines have less life and diesels more robust,flow battery,s are dearer to purchase but in the long run save you money if you use them a lot, just like diesel cars are dearer to buy...but the punch could come from flow battery,s just like it did with diesel cars....

[dogrunner11] 15/4/2017 20:35

> cost benfit analysis they are taking a decision to invest a significantly lower amount of capital now - all-be-it for a shorter working life

That's the whole point there isn't another solution today hence storage being named the holy grail.

If we take Lithium as really the only alternative, Tesla are coming in at a figure near $400kWh, I realise they quoted $250kWh for the large 100MW system recently via Twitter but I actually believe that's more a promotion for storage by Musk then a commercial decision. A quick read of their accounts would certainly back up my theory.

We are at $490, our system will not degrade and can be cycled twice daily with ease, if done that makes our system cheaper short term significantly cheaper as the lithium alternative will have degraded a lot and will need much more maintenance then a flow battery.

Add in cost of disposal at end of term for lithium whilst the redT solution will actually go on for 40 years or more with a few parts being replaced, not to mention a retained asset that could be realised from the vanadium.

[netcurtains] 15/4/2017 14:25

it would be good if threads were arranged alphabetically rather than putting recently posted threads at top.

I keep seeing REDt near the top - its really cringe making embarrassing .

Could we keep all this sort of stuff on a RED investor tweet page ?

[pugugly] 15/4/2017 11:58

dog:> Could it be that as many of the other technologies have significantly lower capital costs potential purchasers are betting on a continuing fall in cost per kwh -

Just look how costs of solar and wind generation have fallen - While they know that the cpmpetitive performance is lower, on a cost benfit analysis they are taking a decision to invest a significantly lower amount of capital now - all-be-it for a shorter working life, on the assumption that when they need to replace the new and better technologies then available will be at a significantly lower cost per kwh.

So that their long term overall costs (say over 20 years) will be MUCH lower than an investment in REDT's offering today ?

[dogrunner11] 15/4/2017 11:03

> rapid strides in REDt's marketplace, albeit with inferior but cheaper technology

What does that mean? it doesn't make any sense.

[tullynessle] 15/4/2017 10:25

Positive article - hopefully confidence within the solar+storage industry is growing - the reference to May 1 may be interesting.




Generate Capital launches $250 million financing facility for solar+storage projects
By Dennis Price •   April 13, 2017

Generate Capital has launched a $250 million financing facility for solar+storage projects.

The advent of cost-effective batteries for electricity storage is making the numbers work for an increasing number of commercial and industrial solar installations (see “Energy storage takes shape with financing for Southern California battery installations”).

Also helpful: rebates for such projects from the state of California that become available May 1.

The specialty finance company Generate Capital has created a vehicle to capitalize $250 million in solar+storage and other energy storage projects.
Co-founder Jigar Shah, who earlier pioneered solar power-purchase agreements as the founder of SunEdison, told ImpactAlpha that the facility is the first to finance 20-year solar+storage power-purchase agreements that guarantee building owners significant energy savings.

Shah launched Generate in 2014 with co-founders Scott Jacobs and Matan Friedman to “bring project finance to the hundreds of technologies that cost more upfront but save money over time that are either too confusing or too small for the traditional players to invest in” (see, “Jigar Shah Eyes $1 Trillion Opportunities”).

[pugugly] 15/4/2017 09:29

Anesco appear to be a consolidator and using Lithium batteries supplied by BYD"


"BYD Co Ltd is a Chinese manufacturer of automobiles and rechargeable batteries with its corporate headquarters in Shenzhen. It has two major subsidiaries, BYD Automobile and BYD Electronic."