TheEEStory.com

Article about the Coorstek ceramic battery they're working on.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/article_b0372fd...

Inside Ceramatec's wonder battery is a chunk of solid sodium metal mated to a sulphur compound by an extraordinary, paper-thin ceramic membrane. The membrane conducts ions -- electrically charged particles -- back and forth to generate a current. The company calculates that the battery will cram 20 to 40 kilowatt hours of energy into a package about the size of a refrigerator, and operate below 90 degrees C.

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

5 kW for 4 hours = 20 kWh
$100 / kWh is the same price point EEStor has with ZENN.

90°C; sodium and sulphur - quite combustible.

---

Sounds like something that would be handy at cooling my beer... :)

---

nekote wrote:

Inside Ceramatec's wonder battery is a chunk of solid sodium metal mated to a sulphur compound by an extraordinary, paper-thin ceramic membrane. The membrane conducts ions -- electrically charged particles -- back and forth to generate a current. The company calculates that the battery will cram 20 to 40 kilowatt hours of energy into a package about the size of a refrigerator, and operate below 90 degrees C.

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

5 kW for 4 hours = 20 kWh
$100 / kWh is the same price point EEStor has with ZENN.

90°C; sodium and sulphur - quite combustible.

It says 20-40 kWh for $2000 - big difference between $50/kWh and $100/kWh. And while it pales in comparison to EEStor, it does quite well in comparison to what's available. Of course, it would be nice to know the efficiency - at 90C, you may use three or four kilowatts a day just to keep it warm.

---

mjtimber wrote:

...
It says 20-40 kWh for $2000 - big difference between $50/kWh and $100/kWh. And while it pales in comparison to EEStor, it does quite well in comparison to what's available. Of course, it would be nice to know the efficiency - at 90C, you may use three or four kilowatts a day just to keep it warm.

Second quote specifically itemized 20 kWh (5 kW for 4 hours).

First quote offered estimate of volume - refrig size, getting 20 - 40 kWh.

FWIW, a refrigerator sized 20 kWh unit (15 cu. ft? 20 cu. ft. - cu. ft. NOT gallons!) probably won't go over very big, in mobile / transport applications.

---

Anyone know what they are talking about when they say it cost less than 3 cents a kWh?

nekote wrote:

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

Unless it's freely generating energy on it's own, I don't really see what the 3 cents/kWh has anything to do with the cost of power from the grid. Maybe they are storing free energy in it? Unless they mean that it adds 3 cents per minute to the cost of the energy you store in it? Hmmm... not sure what they are getting at.

What I don't understand is why they are targeting individual consumers. Sure, there are a small number of people living off grid that can benefit from this, but the market is small. A much more natural market is either at the utility or producer level. Is there something wrong with the technology that makes it unattractive to them? Perhaps it's just that the larger users won't care about the higher temperatures of the usual NaS batteries, and Ceramatec doesn't expect to be cost competitive, even at $100/kWh. That would suggest the intermittancy of wind and solar may not be a big problem in the future.

---

nekote wrote:

Second quote specifically itemized 20 kWh (5 kW for 4 hours).

First quote offered estimate of volume - refrig size, getting 20 - 40 kWh.

FWIW, a refrigerator sized 20 kWh unit (15 cu. ft? 20 cu. ft. - cu. ft. NOT gallons!) probably won't go over very big, in mobile / transport applications.

You're correct, I misremembered the order and though it went first quote then price. But I wasn't thinking for transportation, just grid, where cost will be far more important than speed of charge (which will be fairly slow based on the article) or size. Efficiency would still be important.

---

Well,

The problems for Utility scale use beyond temp and size are cost and charge cycles. It can only deliver power for 4 hours per day to maintain a 10 year life. If a utility goes through 2 charge discharge cycles per day, it only lasts 5 years. Not good for utility scale deployments. You are talking about having to replace train loads of theses things every year if you rotate their end of life.

And adding 3 cent per minute to the price of electricity stored is way too high for a utility. For example an EESU could deliver the same kWh per charge at the same price per kWh over 50 years instead of 10. Or it could do 2 charge discharge cycles per day for 50+ years. The cost per stored kWh is $0.006 to $0.003 instead of $0.06/kWh for the. Not to mention he EESU is much smaller, lighter and operated at ambient temperature.

Cobraphx wrote:

The problems for Utility scale use beyond temp and size are cost and charge cycles. It can only deliver power for 4 hours per day to maintain a 10 year life. If a utility goes through 2 charge discharge cycles per day, it only lasts 5 years. Not good for utility scale deployments. You are talking about having to replace train loads of theses things every year if you rotate their end of life.

And adding 3 cent per minute to the price of electricity stored is way too high for a utility. For example an EESU could deliver the same kWh per charge at the same price per kWh over 50 years instead of 10. Or it could do 2 charge discharge cycles per day for 50+ years. The cost per stored kWh is $0.006 to $0.003 instead of $0.06/kWh for the. Not to mention he EESU is much smaller, lighter and operated at ambient temperature.

I think those were just examples, I certainly don't average a 4 kW draw at my house (that's 96 kWh/day or nearly 3000 kWh/month). But yes, if an EESU actually exists, it would have significant advantage over this.

---

Cobraphx wrote:

Anyone know what they are talking about when they say it cost less than 3 cents a kWh?

nekote wrote:

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

Unless it's freely generating energy on it's own, I don't really see what the 3 cents/kWh has anything to do with the cost of power from the grid. Maybe they are storing free energy in it? Unless they mean that it adds 3 cents per minute to the cost of the energy you store in it? Hmmm... not sure what they are getting at.

I think they're making an awkward and incompletely worded attempt to say stored (off peak) kWh can be used, at peak, for a cost of 3¢/kWh, whereas (maybe), new / additional generation plants cost 8¢/kWh to produce the same kWhs.

Guess I'm guilty of awkward and incomplete wording, too! :(

In a phrase, grid leveling is cost effective, at $100 / kWh?

---

mjtimber wrote:

nekote wrote:

Inside Ceramatec's wonder battery is a chunk of solid sodium metal mated to a sulphur compound by an extraordinary, paper-thin ceramic membrane. The membrane conducts ions -- electrically charged particles -- back and forth to generate a current. The company calculates that the battery will cram 20 to 40 kilowatt hours of energy into a package about the size of a refrigerator, and operate below 90 degrees C.

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

5 kW for 4 hours = 20 kWh
$100 / kWh is the same price point EEStor has with ZENN.

90°C; sodium and sulphur - quite combustible.

It says 20-40 kWh for $2000 - big difference between $50/kWh and $100/kWh. And while it pales in comparison to EEStor, it does quite well in comparison to what's available. Of course, it would be nice to know the efficiency - at 90C, you may use three or four kilowatts a day just to keep it warm.

3 or 4 kilowatts per day?? kilowatts are a measure of power not energy. per day is meaningless. did you mean kilowatt hours?

nekote wrote:

Cobraphx wrote:

Anyone know what they are talking about when they say it cost less than 3 cents a kWh?

nekote wrote:

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

Unless it's freely generating energy on it's own, I don't really see what the 3 cents/kWh has anything to do with the cost of power from the grid. Maybe they are storing free energy in it? Unless they mean that it adds 3 cents per minute to the cost of the energy you store in it? Hmmm... not sure what they are getting at.

I think they're making an awkward and incompletely worded attempt to say stored (off peak) kWh can be used, at peak, for a cost of 3¢/kWh, whereas (maybe), new / additional generation plants cost 8¢/kWh to produce the same kWhs.

Guess I'm guilty of awkward and incomplete wording, too! :(

In a phrase, grid leveling is cost effective, at $100 / kWh?

Or far more likely... 20 kwh per charge, $2000 per battery = $100 per kwh for 1 charge, 3650 charges per life cycle = approx 2.5 cents per kwh over lifetime of battery. There are no cost of electricity here, no leveling, no off peak prices vs on peak. This is just cost to use the battery.

spew wrote:

nekote wrote:

Cobraphx wrote:

Anyone know what they are talking about when they say it cost less than 3 cents a kWh?

nekote wrote:

Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

Unless it's freely generating energy on it's own, I don't really see what the 3 cents/kWh has anything to do with the cost of power from the grid. Maybe they are storing free energy in it? Unless they mean that it adds 3 cents per minute to the cost of the energy you store in it? Hmmm... not sure what they are getting at.

I think they're making an awkward and incompletely worded attempt to say stored (off peak) kWh can be used, at peak, for a cost of 3¢/kWh, whereas (maybe), new / additional generation plants cost 8¢/kWh to produce the same kWhs.

Guess I'm guilty of awkward and incomplete wording, too! :(

In a phrase, grid leveling is cost effective, at $100 / kWh?

Or far more likely... 20 kwh per charge, $2000 per battery = $100 per kwh for 1 charge, 3650 charges per life cycle = approx 2.5 cents per kwh over lifetime of battery. There are no cost of electricity here, no leveling, no off peak prices vs on peak. This is just cost to use the battery.

Quite. But 2.5 cents/kW-h compares quite favourably with the differential in price between on-peak & off-peak electricity. So if you assume total in/out efficiency of 80% you could (in UK) save money by charging off-peak & using on-peak. The price differential is 16 cents/kW-h.

---