Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(21,733 posts)
17. The real question is not how much energy it takes to chill it
Tue May 21, 2013, 05:52 PM
May 2013

Because, then, you have to ask, “how much energy do you get back?”

So, your real question is “what is the overall efficiency of the system?” As “tinrobot” pointed out, the article says, “Highview Power’s process is 50 to 60 percent efficient…”

Of course, that was taken out of context:



Highview Power’s process is 50 to 60 percent efficient—the liquid air can yield just over half as much electricity as it takes to make it. Batteries, by contrast, can be more than 90 percent efficient. But the new process can make up for its inefficiency by using waste heat from other processes (see “Audi to Make Fuel Using Solar Power”). Highview has demonstrated that low-temperature waste heat from power plants or even data centers can be used to help warm up the liquefied air. The system can also last for decades, while batteries typically need to be replaced every few years. This longevity could help reduce overall costs.



Here’s the key point (once again from the article):


“When we’re looking at energy storage mechanisms, we’re looking for something that’s based on extremely low-cost materials and very simple processes we can do in bulk,” says Haresh Kamath, program manager for energy storage at the Electric Power Research Institute. “And this certainly fits the bill.”



And now, I have taken 6 paragraphs from the original article, rather than the recommended limit of 4.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

How much energy does it take to cool nitrogen down to -200 degrees and keep it there? leveymg May 2013 #1
Gosh! I bet they never thought of that! OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #2
Just try answering the question, you posted the OP. leveymg May 2013 #3
Snark attack, eh? OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #6
An entirely appropriate question, my friend. longship May 2013 #7
Did that strike as a serious inquiry? OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #10
More snark? Really!? longship May 2013 #12
We're used to people who have a somewhat better knowledge base... kristopher May 2013 #13
I guess you missed my point OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #14
Perhaps investing a few seconds to read the article will answer your questions OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #11
That doesn't answer the question: how much to chill down to -200 degrees? leveymg May 2013 #15
The real question is not how much energy it takes to chill it OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #17
Is systems analysis catching on at DU? ;-) leveymg May 2013 #19
Less than drilling for/refining/shipping fossil fuels. silverweb May 2013 #4
50-60% Efficient tinrobot May 2013 #5
Any method of storage is “less efficient than using the power directly” OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #8
And that almost always requires an application specific evaluation. nt kristopher May 2013 #9
I think there's something to this idea htuttle May 2013 #16
There's quite a variety of thermal storage technologies. kristopher May 2013 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Liquefied Air Could Power...»Reply #17