52MW ? ahhh I see that they have taken two of the numbers that they have seen in the press release (50MW, 2MW) and added them together. They should really be adding the Energy Storage Capacities together as they are true extensive physical properties. i.e. you take two batteries and ask what is the energy storage capacity compared with just one.
Power is not as it depends HOW you wire the units together - if you wire two batteries in parallel you CAN deliver the power into or from the battery at twice the rate, but NOT if you put them in series as the VRFB and Li-ion systems appear to be in this hybrid.
This is a call for ALL news reports to show the Energy storage capacity in MWh and NOT to report the power rating (MW) which is often irrelevant.
miner69er - apart from Covid tests Vanadium is about the best thing you could be invested in at present.
1. It is a metal in short supply that is needed (>$100 prices for FeV notwithstanding) to impart a critical property (strength) to a resource that is not going away any time soon (steel).
2. Primary Vanadium resources may be distributed across the world but the processing infrastructure and knowhow is not. It is concentrated in a small number of sites, and our Vanchem and Vametco are two out of about 6 worldwide.
SG - this follows hot on the heels of Australian Vanadium also being announced as Lead Agency Status ( https://stockhead.com.au/resources/lead-agency-status-simplifies-approvals-for-avls-tier-1-vanadium-project )
TMT and AVL have sites within about 5km of each other, both at Gabanintha though AVL now call theirs the Australian Vanadium Project rather than 'Gabanintha' which was seemingly getting confused with the TMT project.
It seems that the Australian government has now recognised that Vanadium is a battery metal.
D9Ber1 - have a look at the Bushveld Perspective and then decide.
Try starting with https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-414 then https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-415 to find out what energy storage means for the Clean Energy Transition.
Once you've done that read https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/bushveld-energy-your-time-has-now-arrived-355 to see how BMN are going to be plugged into and driving this.
It is interesting, of course, to now see the prices in china following those in europe up. Now why would European vanadium prices be leading the moves up - I mean it's not like europe is out of lockdown yet and investing in building hundreds of thousands of new cars...
Anybody else got any ideas ?
The presentation slides were fine but the real content was in the interviews and questions answered, which of course you had to be in on the call to get. The key takeaway for me was just how quickly they had been able to pivot the Oxford superhub offering from a RedT one to a stacked Avalon one.
You can get an idea of this on page 8 of the presentation - Avalon modules stacked up 2 high. However a quick calculation shows that there are not 162 modules in that configuration, there's only 84.
If you now consult the Oxford superhub project site here:- https://energysuperhuboxford.org/technologies/battery-energy-storage/ you will see that the VRFBs are arranged in the middle of the site, in 2 rows of 9 battery stacks (the inverters and power conditioning are in a row alongside these). That is a total of 18 battery stacks so if they are going to need a total of 162 battery modules they are going to need 9 modules per stack - that's 3 wide, and 3 high, rather than just only 2 high. And why not, the battery stacks are going to be a simple metal support structure that you simply forklift the battery modules into place in. If you need a forklift to get layer 2 loaded then lift another 1.5m and you can get layer 3 also.
Why this is interesting is that this yields a system footprint energy density for the VRFBs of 3x 40kWh / (1.8 x 1.2m) = 55.5 kWh/m2 - this compares with a typical grid scale lithium-ion footprint energy density of 2MWh / (12.2m x 2.44m) = 67 kWh/m2. Thus the real-world footprint of VRFB based grid-energy storage systems is not far from that of lithium-ion based ones.
In fact if you look at the overall site footprint for Mr Musk's 129MWh Hornsdale site you will see that this occupies a site of 50m x 110m . The overall site footprint energy density then comes out at only 23.5 kWh/m2 once you have to factor in all the additional space needed in between the lithium-ion battery modules to prevent a fire in one module spreading to neighbouring ones.
The simple fact that has so far eluded teslafan233 from Albuquerque and all his 23-year old futurologist friends is that for grid-scale energy storage VRFB systems can have as high and often higher footprint energy density than Lithium-ion.
People have asked 'where is the Dalian project and is it really progressing ?'
I can confirm that I know exactly where it is and that it is progressing strongly. I am currently in negotiations to establish if the details of this information can be published.
Halespur - it is clear that almost all those comments are from people who know absolutely nothing about flow batteries - I read such nonsense as 'each cell needs a pump' - what utter tripe from people who are clearly feeling under pressure. Have they not heard of the amazing invention called a 'T-piece' which is a clever piece of tube with one inlet and two outlets. Furthermore there are already about 50 cells in a power stack and that only has a single feed to and from the entire stack.
Furthermore they are quoting $250/kWh as a high price on the basis that lithium cells are purportedly $100/kWh - that is just for the cells as anyone who actually knows anything about grid scale batteries can tell you there much more cost in combining the individual lithium-ion cells into modules and then modules into racks and system with cooling and control. Those costs do not come down when you want to add more energy storage capacity, because for Lithium-ion to get twice the storage you need twice as much of everything, unlike flow batteries where you simply put more electrolyte in the tank. With flow you can increase the storage capacity in an hour or two, years after the battery has been installed.
I can't be ar-sed to respond to the f***wits on there, they'll find out soon enough.