maxwell - their content is shown here:- http://vanitec.org/vanadium/VRFB - this is produced by Lifa communications in collaboration between the VRFB manufacturing community and the chairman of the Vanitec Energy Storage Committee, one Mikhail Nikomarov.
There are plans in development to increase the cross-industry marketing of VRFBs.
Nobody has done a comparative costing because they are clearly quite different things. Electrolysing water is only 50% efficient in terms of the energy you can store versus the energy that you have to put in. That is fine if you have free electricity and just want to warm your tootsies - if you actually want to get electrical energy back then again you only get 50% efficiency on that conversion so overall you are now down to 25 % round trip efficiency. Batteries are 75%+
MKx - the key difference between the two approaches is that per kWh Li-ion prices are essentially fixed as you need to double the number of cells to get double the energy with a 'baked-in' Lithium-ion cell construction, whilst for flow batteries you only need to increase the amount of electrolyte in the tank. As a result there will always be a critical threshold duration above which VRFBs (and yes now that Scott has gone we can probably call them that here) always win on price.
The important point is that this threshold is less than 8 hours, perhaps as low as 4 hours now, and that as RNEL have pointed out, the largest market for stationary energy storage is for durations above 6 hours.
Well AIMforProfit when you do actually get prices for Lithium-ion batteries you should check to make sure they are really less than the $200 per kWh Capex quoted by Cellcube for 8 hour duration batteries.
no JD - it is likely that they are connected with positions on 'other markets' - eg spreadbet platforms. One scenario is that at the start of the day they hedge their position, then reverse it off at the end of the day if nothing happens. Same the next day and so on.
No exactly a 'million-mile' battery is it - more like a 2 year one.
The electric vehicle lithium-ion boys deride stationary storage as easy, boring, dull and so assume it is a walk in the park for their technology.
The simple fact is that batteries used in stationary storage actually get cycled much much harder than those used in electric vehicles. An electric vehicle may provide maximum power for a 10's of seconds at most. A stationary storage system may have to provide maximum power for 10's of minutes, maybe even hours.
A stationary energy storage system, in order to make money, may have to be fully charged and discharged 200-500 times a year. Compare that with an electric vehicle that is getting on average only 50 times a year (10,000 miles per year @ 200 miles per charge).
RE: Renewables, project expertise14 Nov 2019 23:10
Martin Creamer has been aware of BMN's Vanadium from the first point we started talking about it. I bet that just like the recent Crux Investor interviewer he is going to be going round telling everyone that they should be considering VRFBs for their self-generation projects.
interesting - I wasn't aware that Largo did not have their own facility for conversion of V2O5 into FeV. Of course we now have our own dedicated alumino-thermic smelting facility at Vanchem for doing just this job.
Gawd that's lame. For the record I have no need to get anyone to recommend my posts. They recommend them, and not coincidentally, make me one of the most recommended posters on LSE because of the research that I publish, and the fact that I have been following the Vanadium market with a fine-toothed comb for the last 5 years.
I don't expect you to read any of these but I post them for others should they wish to learn something useful.
You guys are in fantasyland if you think that BMN would be interested in IRON, they've just passed over VR8 and that resource is a whole lot larger and better than IRON's - what does that tell you about a company that already has 3 Vanadium sources of ore in the Bushveld complex - perhaps that it doesn't need any more ?