 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
One of the many spectacular waterfalls that cascade from Iceland's volcanic glaciers. The island is rich in hydroelectric and geothermal resources. The author proposes using this renewably generated power to recharge special 'battery' ships that will then sell power to Europe.
|
A proposal to 'ship' renewably-generated electrical power from Iceland to Europe
< Previous Page | << To Start
Open Access Article Originally Published: October 23, 2004
There may be another way to transport electricity indirectly, using the Aluminum as a fuel. As stated above, if we ship 20,000 Tons of Aluminum, we would be transporting the equivalent of 280 GW.h of electricity, enough to power 500,000 households for a year. Contrary to Liquid Hydrogen, Aluminum ingots can be shipped safely and easily. The question, of course, is how can we free this electricity from the Aluminum transported.
This can be done in an Aluminum battery. Using Al electrodes in a simple electrochemical cell, filled with seawater or Sodium Hydroxide solution and using a Nickel-Manganese counter electrode, the Al will be oxidized to Al(OH)3 (aluminum hydroxide) and give off 3 electrons per Al atom used up in the reaction. A large part of the electricity stored in the above 20,000 tons of Aluminum can in this way be released, generating about 280 GWh of electricity and about 60,000 tons of Al(OH)3 sludge. This sludge could be recycled back to Iceland to generate again 20,000 tons of Aluminum to start the process of electricity generation anew.
Technically, this should all be very possible to do, but there is a snag. The average price for Aluminum is 1350 Euro/ton (March 2004), so the electricity generated in this way would be minimal 10 Eurocent/KWh. But probably twice as much as cost for Aluminum transport and costs for the batteries, upkeep, personnel etc. are not included. So, simply "burning" Aluminum is an economically unfeasible option.
Direct Transport of Electricity
In 2001, the Icelandic government announced a project called Icelandic Submarine Cable Project. The idea was to export 25% of the nations electricity generation potential to Europe via electrical cables. Hydro- and geothermal power stations would be built (up to 30 facilities), requiring a 4,140 Million Euros investment (including infrastructure). Two 1200 km long submarine high voltage cables would be laid between East Iceland and Germany at a total cost of 3,500 Million Euros. Each cable would have a transport capacity of 550 MW of High Voltage DC current. On each end of the cable, special converter stations would change the High Voltage DC current in 50 Hz AC 3-phase current, suitable for the national electrical grid. This would require an additional 500 Million Euros investment. So, for a total investment of about 8 Billion Euros, a net transport of 8 TW.hr annually could be realized. However, also here simple economics pose a snag: amortizing the investment over 40 years and requiring an average Return On Investment (ROI) of 6 % (a very modest profit for the investors), the electricity price on the point of delivery would be at least 65 Euro/MW.h, but probably more. This exceeds the current wholesale price of electricity in Germany by a factor of 1.5, so it is too expensive, just as the simple Al battery is too expensive.
However, instead of "burning" the Aluminum in simple electrochemical cells, a rechargeable Al-battery can be used. Such batteries are being developed by Europositron1 in Finland. They claim the following specifications for their technology:
| Energy density: | 2100 W.h/litre or 1330 W.h/kgr |
| Cycle times: | 3000+ cycles |
| Working temperatures: | –40 C to +70 C |
| Lifetime of battery: | 10 to 30 years |
Exact details of the Europositron technology are not known, but from literature of similar designs it is clear that the claimed energy density represents a breakthrough. As a reference, look at US Patent 6,482,548 (Nov 2002), issued to Glenn Amatucci of Telcordia Technologies in Morristown, N.J. In that patent, a Lithium-Aluminum dual-cation rechargeable battery cell is described with Vanadium pentoxide and Lithium-silicide electrodes separated by a non-aqueous electrolyte. Charge capacities of up to 525 mAh/gr are reported for this battery. At a voltage of 1.4 V per cell, this comes close to the claimed 1330 mW.h/gr for the Europositron battery.
Let’s assume, we equip a large ship with 200 giant batteries, each the size of a 40-foot shipping container. Each battery will weigh about 220 tons, so a 50,000 BRT ship can carry these. The batteries are charged fully in Iceland, making use of cheap electricity from hydropower or geothermal power. The 200 batteries will contain about 50 GW.h electricity when fully loaded. The ship – electrically powered of course – sails to the west coast of Denmark or England, or to the East coast of the USA. There it delivers its electrical charge into the national grid, but it keeps some batteries charged for the return trip to Iceland. It sails back and charges again. In one year, the ship can make 60 return trips, delivering about 3TW.h electricity annually. It can do so 3000 times before the batteries are worn out and must be replaced. This is after about 40 years. A simple cost calculation shows that the electricity can be delivered at the end market for a rather low price, 25 to 30 Euro per MW.h.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 14433 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
19 comments so far...
14-Dec-2005
11595
| |
A short reply to Jim Beyer (and maybe others): yes, if I can install a large buffer-capacity to store electricity for low costs in a super-dense rechargable battery near a windturbine(park) I can solve the problem of variable winds and variable electricity demand in an elegant way. Remember that nowadays, using lead-accus or even Li-Ion battery packs, the volume and costs of a reasonable battery-buffer will be huge, so not economical. In general a cheap and large capacity rechargable battery can be used in many ways.
Posted by: pieter van pelt
|
|
08-Jan-2007
44166
| |
One of the coments says that you can only render 4.07 KWH from a Kilo. Say all in processed and into the grid you spend $3000 per ton you are talking $.74 per KWH Not a very good deal. The LDC sells it for +-$.11 Here in Texas.
I have read some articles that talk about aluminum producing Hydrogen and other about aluminum batteries producing electricity. They both seem to use the same basic chemistry. Do the aluminum batteries also produce hydrogen?
Posted by: Jesse Fox
|
|
27-Apr-2006
19604
| |
Has anyone looked into the production of Lithium Aluminium Hydride (in Iceland) as the "fuel medium", transporting it in oil to prevent reaction with water, then converting it at point of demand via catalytic reaction in a fuel cell to release hydrogen for vehicles?
Further information at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride
Posted by: Rob Sherratt
|
|
16-Nov-2005
10964
| |
The comments above and the article about shipping "solid electricity" in the form of huge aluminum batteries from areas of the earth where cheap, environmentally friendly electical generation are available prove to me the entire fossile fuel industry is replaceable. The problem we now face is not particularly global warming or even eventual demise of cheap energy. The problem is the sequestration of O2 in CO and NO2 producing fuel combustion in combination to the release of millions of years of previously sequestered carbon contained in those fossile fuels being burned. Regardless of which "doomsday" theory you subscribe to, this massive chemical reaction is simply not sustainable in a finite environment such as this planet. Some process that gathers and expends energy without these volatile and deadly reactions is going to be an absolute necessity. The Icelandic "aluminum battery" solution seems to fit the need. We may see a day when we have huge robotic hydrogen generation plants located in remote islands using wave energy to crack hydrogen from sea water and ships loading the H2 and delivering it to various needy ports throught the world. To me, it is not an economic problem...it is a survival problem.
Posted by: Jim Boccio
|
|
29-Jun-2005
8199
| |
would it not be more economical to produce hydrogen there would be no loss of energy as there would be using battery ships or cables. Hydrogen is easy to produce and IS the best way to store energy."
Posted by: iain barker
|
|
26-Oct-2004
5219
| |
I like this idea...
But it all hinges on the cost and characteristics of the batteries. In particular the maximal charge and discharge rates will be critical. Having a ship sit in dock for 3 weeks while its batteries are charged or discharged is unlikely to be a viable option.
However, if we assume that these batteries will come to pass then I think that we need to step back and take a broader look.
Why leave them on the ship at all ? Port facilities exist around the world to handle and move containerised freight. Why not simply unload the batteries ? Then you have a stack of charged batteries that can be shipped and left plugged in at load centers - so reducing transmission losses. Major electricity markets such as London, New York, Hamburg & Amsterdam all have extensive port facilities.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to discharge all at once. Rather it would probably be more lucrative to use them for peak shaving. Selling into the grid during peak hours and when troughs arise (ie. when the wind stops blowing in regions with a high penetrance of wind power such as Denmark or N.Germany) would allow electricity shippers to sell at the top of the spot market rather than at 2am on Sunday nights.
Indeed, I would suggest that such peak shaving would be most likely to represent one of the first large scale uses of such mega batteries. Once the technology is mature then you can start moving it out of the climate controlled, maintained and accessible warehouses and onto the high seas. "
Posted by: Martin Zeidler
|
|
26-Oct-2004
5222
| |
I apologize for not reading the article thoroughly. I guess my opinion is now that sure, if those batteries do as they say, maybe that would work. But if those batteries work, it would change so many other things (like easily power all our cars with wind energy) that the whole Iceland issue pales in comparision. So, yes, great battery technology makes our (energy) lives much easier. But that doesn't have much to do with Iceland. In fact, it would probably make Iceland less attractive, as renewable on the continent could be picked up and stored more effectively."
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
28-Oct-2004
5241
| |
I wonder if it would make more sense, initially at least, to give Iceland the contract for all aluminium production, so releasing electricity production around the world for other uses."
Posted by: Malcolm Scott
|
|
28-Oct-2004
5245
| |
Elec. --> aluminum --> elec. loses a lot, so yes, local electricity production and faraway Al production makes more sense, if electricity is what you want.
However, I don't think Iceland has enough potentially available GW(e) to do all the world's aluminum production. I guess ten percent might be possible.
Aluminum-burning cars would be desirable to motorists, but hard for carmakers to make.
--- Graham Cowan
how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet"
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan
|
|
30-Oct-2004
5260
| |
I think we should look at power differently, instead of trying to build some huge powerplant at some beautiful natural wonder and then running lines around the globe, I believe we should focus on products that supply the power requirements on site of every home and business. We can easily retrofit homes and businesses with lower power consuming devices and generating the power locally through new technology. We obviously have a desire for power and the ability to make this possible. Home and building improvement would take off as the new products prove to be great investments due to energy bill savings and self reliance, we may never have another blackout. You may argue, but why, it would provide more jobs on a broader scale than building one massive complex environmental eyesore.
Just a thought."
Posted by: Jim Alberter
|
|
06-Nov-2004
5277
| |
I had a similar idea to this. What you need to do is to build a ship with a giant SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage) and send it oversees for sale. An SMES is basically a giant donut wrapped with superconducting wire and then subjetced to a large current. Since superconductors carry electricity with zero resistance, a current can flow nearly forever. The rub is that current superconductors require refrigeration to nearly absolute zero."
Posted by: Brian Panizzi
|
|
06-Nov-2004
5278
| |
Getting out of the harbour will be a challenge,
I think you'll find, for a ship whose only onboard energy store is superconducting coils. Propelling the vessel will very soon drain them. Big ships are very efficient, maybe it would go 50 km.
--- Graham Cowan
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
24-Oct-2004
5205
| |
4.07 kW/kg, not 14. Two points. (1) Although 14 kWh of electricity goes into a kilogram of elemental, metallic aluminum, this certainly does not imply that 14 electrical kWh can then be delivered by said kilogram. Aluminum's molar delta 'G' of oxidation of -791.15 kJ/mol translates into ... well, it may be best to apply a typical fuel-cell loss of 50 percent right away, before calculating a figure that will stick in people's minds. The energy yield a reasonable fuel cell enthusiast might reasonably hope for, from an Al-oxidizing fuel cell, per kg of metal oxidized, is 4.07 kWh/kg of DC electricity.
Spock and Transporter Chief Miles O'Brien together couldn't make it give back the 14 that it takes. Also one should not forget that in addition to electricity, aluminum production now-a-days consumes carbon electrodes, although that may not always be true.
(2) van Pelt seems to have electrochemical blinders on, same as I had about eight years ago. Fuel cells are invented in 1839; internal combustion takes over 99.999 percent of the personal carriage market throughout the last century; obviously electrochemical personal-vehicle propulsion for the masses must be just around the corner. Some corner.
In an aluminum context, it's interesting that aluminum has no market presence as an electrochemical fuel, but that does not mean it finds no paying work today as an energy carrier. It serves by being burned, witness the MPEG movies at http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm
--- Graham Cowan
how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
24-Oct-2004
5206
| |
4.07 kWh/kg, not 14, I meant. Titles are hard to proofread!
--- Graham Cowan
hot individual mobility gains nuclear cachet"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
25-Oct-2004
5213
| |
Aluminum, in general, is not a favored medium because it has no relation to biomass resources. Getting Aluminum from biomass would involve burning the biomass to turn a steam turbine to get electricity.... ugh. A much simpler strategy would be to modify an LNG tanker to (also) carry pressurized, liquid or solid CO2. The tanker gets CO2 from Europe, takes it to Iceland, reacts it with hydrogen (producing methane) and returns with the methane cargo. If one is clever, perhaps the cooled CO2 could be used to cool the methane for shipment, and likewise in Europe for the CO2. (There's probably a heck of a lot of CO2 coming out of the thermal vents in Iceland, for that matter.)
The point is NG is an existing energy medium.
-Jim"
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
25-Oct-2004
5217
| |
This should be investigated a bit further before being dismissed out of hand. A fair bit of skepticism is warranted however. What kind of production rate for the cells could be achieved with nanotech construction techniques? Can they really achieve the storage density that they claim? Will the cells really last as long as they claim etc.?
With regards to biomass and aluminum, I don't think the lack of being able to produce aluminum from biomass is a factor. Biomass in any case is/cannot be a large scale solution (no more than about 10 - 20% of present energy supply is sustainable with biomass) owing to the inefficiency of solar to biomass conversion.
I think the CO2/hydrogen to methanol etc. route would also be full of inefficiencies and not worth the effort. By the time the CO2 is collected, transported, reacted with H2 (already produced at a 25% loss from electrolysis) and then retransported to markets, it probably would have been more efficient or at best no net efficiency gain to send it by liquid despite all the losses. Liquid hydrogen transport and delivery would probably entail about a 50% energy loss and be far cleaner. "
Posted by: Sheldon HArrison
|
|
09-Nov-2004
5325
| |
Graham,
Maybe not. SMES can carry enormous currents (+10,000 amps)and since the energy stored in a magnetic coil is E=Li^2 where L is a factor depending on the size of the coil and number of loops, you can see that the energy content can be truly enormous. Units capable of delivering MW's of power exist today. You would just need to make good use of the ships space with SMES coils, and make them larger. But this isn't going to be economically feasible until a room temp superconductor is developed, which I personnally believe is possible."
Posted by: Brian Panizzi
|
|
11-Nov-2004
5338
| |
Hi everyone. This is a bit of a late thread on this but it seems there could be a place for Iceland producing power for export. If hydrogen was created from the cheap renewable electricity, it could be liquified, and pumped onto special ships to be taken to terminals in Europe. The hydrogen could then be used as aviation fuel to replace gasoline based jet fuel. Obviously this is impossible until there are commercial jets using hydrogen, but is is technically feasible. I was thinking about this today as the UK Government has been saying that aviation emmisions are a key factor in global warming and need to be addressed. Using hydrogen for aircraft would be simpler than for cars as the storage and refuelling infrastructure would only be needed at airports. The same airports could use some of their vast acreages to make hydrogen from solar power also. Small planes such as prop planes could be wholly electric powered either with hydrogen or batteries. If cars and lorries were biofuel / electric hybrids, then you've practically sewn up the whole problem. This means we have developed all the basic technology needed to implement this, and with more r&d and technological improvements, only political will is the major hurdle to rapid development. I think hydrogen is wasteful to use in cars, but the benefits from using it for air transport would include, lighter, less noisy jet planes, less harmful atmospheric emissions and less danger of fire in a crash. Yours sincerely Jim."
Posted by: jim welch
|
|
26-Jan-2008
60138
| |
280GWh = 'enough to power 500,000 households for a year' ??
Please tell me what I'm missing:
280,000,000,000 Wh/year for 500,000 homes
is 560,000 Wh/year for 1 home
is ~ 64 W / home (continuous)
Where on earth, pray tell, does an average home use an average of 64W throughout the day?
Posted by: Michael Bender
|
|
|
|
|
