yellow1 doesnt actually seem to know anything about the history of VRFB, I thought I'd share some.
The VRFB was invented by a woman called Maria Skyllas Kazacos in 1986, at University New South Wales, Australia. It was patented by said university. This means that anyone looking to manufacture and sell VRFB would have to pay a licensing fee to UNSW in order to use the technology. Only a few companies were able to afford this, among them were Sumitomo (A Japanese VRFB manufacturer).
Exactly how long the patent lasted for I don't know, but its usually around 20 years. This means that VRFB's could be made by anyone, without paying a licensing fee, from around 2006. Coincidentally this is exactly when we start to see other manufacturers pop up across the world.
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:
invinity.com/balancing_cost_benefit_risk_solar/
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 understand the narrative very well. Alfa was simply stating that from his educated opinion on the subject, the data looked to be incorrect.
Now why would you be on the BB for a company that sells VRFB trying endlessly to prove that they wont be needed?
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?
Great self defeating logic there.
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.