Member Info for Alfacomp

https://www.bestmag.co.uk/indnews/second-product-recall-ecoult%E2%80%99s-lead-based-battery-technology

The Australian safety commission has announced a recall of Ecoult’s Ultraflex lead-acid/ultra-capacitor hybrid battery technology due to “risk of fire and electrocution, which may lead to serious injury or death”.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) identified the UltraFlex 48-4, 48-3 and 48-2, which was sold through Smart Storage t/as Ecoult and electrical integrators between June 2014 and November 2019.

The commission statement read: “UltraFlex was not designed to independently protect itself or the user against excessive voltage, overheating, or excessive gassing when combined with particular other equipment in a system.” \

...

The UltraFlex is designed for commercial, large-residential, microgrid and small-industrial users needing energy storage rated up to 20 kW. It is powered by the firm’s UltraBattery, which combines a Deka 12V lead-acid cell and a lead-carbon ultra-capacitor.

Ecoult’s website states the UltraFlex has been installed both on the grid and on remote off-grid sites.

CowboyInvestor - yes Pumped hydro can independently scale the size of the energy stored and the rate at which you can store/extract it.

This is fine if you are Norway, thanks to Slartitbartfarst they have plenty of the necessary terrain and water to build things like these.

Unfortunately for everyone else there is no such thing as pumped sand energy storage because the sand tends to destroy whatever you are trying to move it with.

South Africa especially has a problem with water supply - for example many of their thermal power stations cannot use rivers or cooling towers for forming the cold side of their heat engines and instead have to use massive, non evaporative, radiators driven by huge fans.

You cannot avoid the physics - which is why we're backing flow batteries

Could they signpost it any more clearly without using a neon sign ?

indeed mogwhy all sensible precautions which all commercial suppliers of VRFBs will have dealt with before.

Recall that skaapvlei 320 MWh has 2.16 Hectares specifically allocated for the final build of the battery (inside the roughly 20 hectare overall site which can be used for the build-up phase) so that works out at 14.8 kWh per m2 so H2's VRFB will also fit even without stacking.

Endion - those shipping containers are only 20 foot ones so are half of a standard 40 foot shipping container - hence 540 kWh per shipping container or 18 kWh per m2 if unstacked. Not as good as the unit that BMN had on test with Eskom - 450 kWh per half shipping container = 30 kWh per m2.

Under NFPA 855 Flow batteries do not need to comply with the extensive thermal runaway and explosion control requirements of NFPA 68 and NFPA 69 but Lithium-ion batteries do.

Don't ask me ask Fire Captain Paiss who is the primary representative of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to NFPA 70 (NEC) and NFPA 855 ESS standards and who produced the following report http://energyresponsesolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/VRB_SafetyReport.pdf

Table 2 is the key one which I reproduce in 1970's style line printer output below

Risk - Lithium-ion - Flooded Cell - Sodium Sulfur - VRB Flow Battery
Voltage - X - X - X - O
Arc-Flash/Blast - X - X - X - O
Toxicity - X - X - X - X
Fire - X - X - X - O
Deflagration - X - X - O -O
Stranded Energy - X - X - X - O

Notice that VRFBs get all O's meaning there is no risk, except for toxicity, so as long as you don't eat it you will be ok.

mogwhy - yes and I know two companies they can partner with

and of course the NFPA stuff is only for Lithium-ion batteries

Southerstorm - I fully expect that sort of thing to increase in its intensity before the end of the year. Those who are shorting the company or who wish to obtain a lower buy in price will do their utmost to try and get the price lower before the good news really starts to roll.

For those people it is all about trying to fool private investors into thinking bad companies are great and good companies are bad. If you have really done your research you can see straight through this but if you have not then you may be swayed by this kind of facile nonsense.

Southernstorm - as someone who has actually watched the video of the skaapvlei site visit I can report that on three separate occasions they stated that it was not compulsory.

Furthermore when one of the visitors put up his hand to ask for a vote on whether all the attendees might like to have the attendance list circulated saying "why do you think we are here ?" the guy running the show firmly put him in his place and said no way, no way and you can write me a letter but the answer will still be no - it is clear that there are some people sniffing around that are going to discover that they cannot simply run the show like they may have done in the past.

Utter lies being put out in my name - I am assuming it is that little prick NVHLTD

I have just been watching the site visit video for the Skaapvlei BESS tender - in that they specifically state an area for the finished BESS of 2.16 Hectares - the overall site is just under 20 hectares in area and this extra space can be used for temporary site equipment during construction.

Thus we come up with the simple question - is 320 MWh doable on 21,600 m2 of footprint ?

Answer:- this figure equates to site footprint energy density of 14.8 kWh/m2, assuming of course that all of the 2.16 ha was used.

Typical footprint energy densities for containerised VRFB's is 1MWh / 30m2 of a standard 40 foot shipping container - i.e. 33.3 kWh/m2

Thus a 320 MWh VRFB can easily be accommodated on the Skaapvlei site, without any container stacking. If you wish to stack containers then you can take up even less area, but there seems no need as there is plenty of space. Similarly there is no need to go to a building-style VRFB which, as the chinese are showing, can achieve footprint energy densities of over 50 kWh/m2.

exactly ... a whole lot better than simply pouring a concrete base and tightening down the lockdown bolts.

What South Africa needs are homegrown industries like Bushveld VRFB production that take advantage of SA's own fantastic natural resources.

30% of 1440 MWh would be 432 MWh, which would require something like 2,160 Tonnes of Vanadium.

Street value of the low quality stuff they put into steel about 65 Million USD.

High purity Vanadium turned into VRFB electrolyte to be between 1.5 and 2x this figure.

well I think we will get about 1/3rd - less than 25% and I would be disappointed, more than 40% I would be delighted

Plus we hear that they have been involved with Medupi and Kusile - the experience of one of those alone should be enough to preclude them from ever winning any more contracts ever again.

GE of course were the suppliers of the sodium Nickel-Chloride battery which was once on test at Eskom and then which was 'taken away in order to be replaced' - so having wasted Eskom's time on that occasion may not be particularly highly thought of now.

See https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/eskom-battery-site-visit-410

dxgraf - things would change if we moved off AIM

YTSS - I believe that it is common to most AIM stocks - it is a feature of the rules that permit Market Makers to behave in the way that they do.