George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi Slinkyfink
In my experience, it isn’t so much the build time for the energy solutions but more the time taken for the various permitting and contracting (environmental impact assessments, grid connection licences, land rights for leeways, PPAs, etc.) Apologies if this is stating the obvious. The ease or difficulty is going to vary wildly, but there is so much market to go after which makes it so exciting. Path-of-least-resistance projects should really build momentum for the technology.
For me, the most attractive use of VRFBs is the bolt-on to built wind and PV sites. However, permitting can still be needed here if there is grid connection involved. I believe this may have been looked into for companies like the Ventus VCTs (VEN, VEN2, VNC, VENC), where I’m invested (and which have regularly paid a 7% tax-free dividend, he added shamelessly!) This type of asset would be a perfect fit for VRFBs.
Slinkyfink - it is hardly surprising when you think about it - you are taking 1 Kg of coal which we'll assume is 100 carbon, burning it to generate 3.67 Kg CO2 (C=12 g/mole, O=16 g/mole => CO2= 44g/mole)
That 3.67Kg of CO2 is 3.67/0.044 = 83.5 Moles so occupies 22.4 x 83.5 = 1970 litres.
So 1 Kg of coal, a lump that you could hold in your hand and which would occupy just over 1 litre of volume generates roughly 2000 times as much volume of gas. So you either have to compress that gas or find a volume that is 2000 times as large as your coal mine in order to store all the output gas at atmospheric pressure.
On my way back from holiday near aachen my satnav appeared to lose track of where I should be going. This is because a few years back the A44 had been cut short and routed around the 48km2 sized garzweiler lignite mine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine ) - where are you going to get an enclosed volume that is 2000 times that ?
Ahhh - but you can simply compress the gas until it becomes a solid. Yes but this inevitably uses up a significant amount of the energy that you just liberated from the solid Carbon. How much is a much longer and more complicated calculation but a 12% figure is given here:- https://www.powermag.com/capturing-co2-gas-compression-vs-liquefaction - i.e. 1/8th of the output energy of a coal plant is needed just to compress the outgoing CO2 and that's on top of the cost of all the extra equipment. And then you've got to find somewhere to put that high pressure stuff. Big tanks are just not going to be cost effective. Under the sea at the bottom of the ocean trenches is currently suggested but then you have to be concerned about the CO2 leaking out and turning the ocean to an acidic fizzing drink.
And this is why I love the this BB. Insights which are straight up & factual. Many thanks @Alfacomp.
Slinkyfink - well 'clean coal' is easy - it doesn't really exist at any sort of scale and nobody in the world has got CCS to work at a price that is cost effective. The article from forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/05/03/carbon-capture-and-storage-an-expensive-option-for-reducing-u-s-co2-emissions/ ) shows that adding CCS to a coal power station increases US electricity costs from around $90/MWh to $150/MWh as compared with onshore wind which can yield electricity at less than $60/MWh.
That article was from 2017 so both wind and solar PV are less than $50/MWh hour now - so less even than the EXTRA cost to add CCS to AN EXISTING coal power station.
Ahhh but what about the costs of energy storage for when the wind isn't blowing etc etc. Well cellcube are quoting CAPEX of $200/kWh - use that capex over 10,000 cycles and it works out at an additional $20/MWh - however for each MWh of wind or solar PV electricity you generate you don't need to store 1MWh (probably 1/2 you can use immediately and 1/2 can be stored for use when you want it) so the extra cost per MWh of providing useful storage for generated renewables may only be around $10 per MWh.
And thinking some more... and throwing something balanced into the mix. What would it take to retrofit something like a coal station to become a gas station?
Just thinking... there is another big factor in all of this. It's not just about building a massive power station, it's about creating smaller grid solutions which are servicing a smaller 'user'. Whether that just be a remote town or a stand alone company. eg mine.
All I'm really coming up with - beyond solutions that utilise natural features, eg. hydro - would probably involve some sort of battery storage?!
Well, Vametco are building their own microgrid with energy storage, so we will see first hand how long it takes to build.
As for nuclear, that can take at least a decade to get going.
Hoping there are some in this forum who may be able to give some insight into the build time for the various different types of 'cleaner energy' solutions in relation to levels of power delivery, eg: clean coal, CCS, gas-to-power, hydro, renewables, battery storage and nuclear.
In my mind battery storage in conjunction with things like solar or wind power, must be quicker and cheaper to build than something like a coal/gas/nuclear station? Not just from the perspective of time spent engineering the blueprints through to fully built, but also the ability to easily scale thereafter.
This is something that I think would be front-of-mind for those doing the energy solution selection. There is now a real sense of urgency in the world around this, but this would be obviously offset by benefits of slower to realise options, which offer greater energy delivery in the long run (eg. nuclear). Obviously these all have different risk and green credential profiles.