And when you add in another charge / discharge cycle, you are able to reduce the LCOE by almost half. Other storage technologies are unable to do this, and so their LCOS and LCOE have a floor fixed below them, which prevents them from becoming cheaper.
A good article here on the subject of solar plus storage:
In particular look at the curve they call the "solar duck". This is in reference to the duck curve, which plots energy demand throughout the day against generation. The graph shows one instance marked where there is an opportunity to achieve peak shaving, however is there another peak/trough in there that might need a second cycle?
I see you decided not to challange Alfacomp any further on the issue. Smart move.
The reason this is at all being brought up, is that cyrogenics was brought up as a battery storage tech option. Alfacomp said that cyrogenics is something he knows a lot about and disputed the information. That was then challenged and they asked for proof of said insight. Alfa has now provided that and they turn around and ask why he's making this about his qualifications?
Large battery projects of Any tech require deep pockets, so I fail to see what your point is?
And you may be interested to know that VRFB can offer a lower LCOS per kWh than li-ion.
I think its fair to say that a few names here have been revealed to be only here in an attempt to undermine confidence in VRFB. Unfortunely for you those with those deep pockets that you mention are confident in it.
You want investment independent from state or without ties to li-ion. I show you one, and then you immediately disregard it and say it proves your piont??
The Only companies able to get into li-ion were the big hitters due to the huge costs with the li-ion production chain. That isn't the case for VRFB, hence why there are quite a few smaller scale manufacturers. The point is that larger capacity is being targeted, being backed, and is coming online. You can claim all you want that it doesnt make a difference to IES but as they operate within the same industry I would suggest that such a presumption would be foolish.
Thanks for the clarification FB. They are not being approved for use in buildings. The issue seems to be the population density of New York and the issues of safety when having something that has the potential to be dangerous being able to affect so many.
Time will tell re Lithium ion. But that's the risk isn't it? There is the potential for them to be exceedingly dangerous, and if you don't need to take the risk, why would you? Just look at Fukishima. They had all the safety procedures needed to keep their nuclear facility safe, but it didnt protect it from the natural disaster that hit it.
We will ultimately see in regards to li-ion. Will the fires continue? If they are now safe then why have they been banned in New York state?
When you consider round trip efficiency you also need to factor in degradation and the life span of the battery.
Li-ion may start at 86% but they won't stay that way, in 5 or 10 years that will be certainly be lower. VRFB may start at a lower 75%, but they can last for 30 years without any degradation, so drastically reduces the cost of needed to replace the entire battery system.
Li-ion can actually only be left unused in a partial state of charge. In fact it can only be used within 20% - 80% of its capacity, which begs the question, can a 1MW/4MWh li-ion battery really be called such? It might be more accurate to say its 0.8MW/3.6MWh.
This is of course different to VRFB that can be left in any state of charge for any length of time, is able to cold start after months of not being used, and can be used to the full range of its capacity ie: 0 - 100%.
Yellowf1..... You may wish to do some research into what has occured in South Korea regarding li-ion battery fires over the last year or so. They have publicly declared 23 fires out of around 1490 li-ion installations. They had to take 522 of them offline until they could figure out what was going on, and it has slowed the uptake of battery storage across South Korea.
23 out of 1490 is 1.5% of 1490 battery installations. Extrapolating that to a significant uptake in the US of say... 10,000 installations, that would result in 150 fires. Each of those, depending on the scale of the battery, could have the explosive power of a nuclear bomb capable of releasing deadly clouds of hydrogen fluoride gas, against which many fire fighters have no protective gear. As was seen in the li-ion fire in Arizona.
The idea that VRFB are not safer than Li-ion is lunacy, as multiple expert accounts can verify.
The very fact that Big Pawer are entering into an offtake with a project that won't be producing anything for YEARS tells you all you need to know about their business. Big Pawer are a relatively obscure, small VRFB manufacturer in China, who only make VRFB to a maximum capacity of 25 kw. Compare that with the 200 MW/800MWh battery currently being installed by Rongke Power in Dalian and you get a sense of where they are at.
If you had read regularly then surely you would have seen that the usual regular posters in BMN got fed up of having to constantly bicker with trolls, and so most have migrated to twitter. They are all active there I can assure you. You can join twitter, if you aren't already, and I'm sure you would find many here supporting the company there.
Both li-ion and vrfb are smaller and more versatile that Pumped Hydro. I'd say they can both be installed quicker than 20% of the time it takes a pumped hydro to be built, considering they can take at least 5 years.
However considering that South Korea recently had actually turn off a number of lithium-ion installations pending a safety review after 23 li-ion fires, and their energy storage implementation has slowed due to this, I can imagine that VRFB will take a fair bit more of the market share than 3.7%. Just have a read of some of the fire reports and warnings from US officials that are available on line if you want to see the genuine hurdles that li-ion face when it comes to safety. For example, google Arizona and lithium-ion fire.
There is a battery being planned in China currently that is 300 mWh. So that 200 mwh limit is wrong. Plus, you can effectively build vrfb as big as you want and need. I'm not sure that anyone has tested or found the upper limit of their capacity.
And world vanadium consumption was roughly 150,000 mtv in 2018, 135,000 of which was used for rebar. Even assuming that very small market share of 3.7%, they project a need for 138,000 mtV for energy storage alone.