Will iron oxide work to replace baseline generation? Children mining for EV battery components. Yet another unelected board at the state level to tell you how to live.
Will iron oxide batteries work? Can they suitably replace baseline generation?
This is part 3 of 3. I left this part for last because it puts forth some unanswered questions re. Iron Oxide (IOx) batteries.
You can read this without reading parts 1 and/or 2 but there is some vocab here that, if you didn't already know it, you might find confusing. If you hit words you don't know, back up and read part 1.
So, a big question you might ask right off the bat is "are iron oxide batteries worth it?" If you don't have the patience to read through this whole thing, I included a table with a quick summary view on IOx batteries. It's attached as a screenshot.
For those that are interested in more detail, check the below.
This question could be parsed into a couple of different lines of inquiry. First, you might consider whether or not they are efficient in terms of resource use and cost. Second, you might ask about their performance: if they are nominally a replacement for baseline generation, do they compete with it in terms of power delivery when renewables are not generating enough to keep our grid going.
I wish I could give you more definitive answers to things like this, but I am not able to. I emailed far and wide. I emailed the company that will make the IOx battery in Pueblo, I emailed NREL, I emailed Xcel. I have heard back from no one in terms of answers to my technical questions about performance. I looked far and wide on the internet too and couldn't find performance data there.
Long story short, the best I can offer you is a series of questions to ask with regard to IOx batteries, a framework with which to analyze them in the future as we learn more. That is what is below.
Let's talk about performance. I.e. would an IOx battery be a suitable replacement for baseline generation?
The short answer is that it very well could be. The video linked first below goes into a little bit more detail, but it would appear that IOx batteries (as opposed to other battery options like lithium ion) scale up much better.
That is, all other things being equal, IOx batteries release their energy content at a slower rate than lithium ion. That would make them mimic baseline generation much better; our grid needs that stability. We could mix in the "faster" lithium ion batteries to act like natural gas turbines do now (handling quick spikes in demand).
Left unanswered, however, are questions relating to HOW they deliver that energy:
--What does their voltage look like as you draw down their charge? Do they fall of quickly or slowly? Screenshot 1 gives you a hint of what I mean here (this is a copy from post 1 of 3): will the voltage stay high for a while before dropping (like the lithium/iron/phosphorous battery--red line) or fall off rapidly (like the lead acid--blue line) battery? Baseline generation puts out the same voltage all the time. Our grid needs stability.
--What is their performance look like with changing weather conditions? All chemical reactions (oxidation of iron included) change speed with temperature. If it gets cold will the energy capacity or voltage fall off? If the battery overheats what happens to its output? Again, we need stability.
**You might say that the battery would be in a climate controlled building and thus immune to weather, but I'd counter here that any climate control system would eat into its efficiency regardless. You could keep the voltage and etc. stable, but for every 100 units of energy you try to store on a cold winter day, say, you might spend 15 units keeping the battery warm. Thus immediately your battery can only give back 85% of what you put in. .
--Speaking of energy in vs. energy out, I am not able to find a source that tells me where IOx batteries land. The review article (an old one admittedly, and the rumor is that the company that will build the one in Pueblo has made significant headway) puts early efficiencies at 35% for energy. That means that for 100 units of energy in, you get 35 back when you discharge it. Compare this to the battery in your car which is about 70% efficient.
Now let's talk about efficiency of resource use: how good a use of our resources are these batteries?
The first thing I'd ask here is cost. I know the materials are cheap and abundant, but I cannot find any numbers that let me compare the cost of this battery to a natural gas turbine, coal plant, nuclear, or similar. That we don't know. There are a couple hints we have though.
If you look at screenshot 2 from the Sun article linked second below (the part underlined in blue), this suggests that the batteries are, at least right now, only competitive with Federal subsidies.
Also, look at the study linked third below. To be cost effective against other forms of storage or baseline generation (in other words to come in with a savings of more at least 10%), any battery must be able to come in below $20 per kWh. Is that the case now? Again, I couldn't get answers from anyone so I'm not sure.
**A quick note: I do see claims that the IOx batteries are 10 times cheaper and last 17 times longer than lithium ion batteries, but I couldn't find a primary source.
Now, let's look at space. Look again at screenshot 2 and note the bit in blue. It's been a real challenge to try and get ENERGY storage data on these batteries (this is compounded by the reporters not knowing energy vs. power such as Mr. Booth at the Sun).
If I use this number then we can say that this battery (about 1 acre's worth of land) could power 2000 houses for 4 or 5 days. That means that for Colorado's 2,454,873 housing units (see screenshot 3 from the fourth link below, maybe not the best source but a rough number) we'd need 1,227 such batteries to power the houses in this state for 4 or 5 days. Not industry, not business, not office buildings, just the houses. That's 1227 acres of batteries (Heathrow Airport) Any guess where the Front Range will want to put them?
I hope that this series has been helpful. As with many things in life, the answers are not black and white, yes they will be great/no they won't work.
Whether these batteries fit our needs, whether they're cost effective is still being decided. They could be a dead end or they could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. At the very least, I am glad to see that we didn't dive in with both feet on these things. So far we're only on the hook for one football-field sized one.
The only question I have about that one is what Xcel's going to charge us.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/27/xcel-energy-renewable-battery-storage-pueblo-comanche-form-energy/
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/138145
https://www.towncharts.com/Colorado/Colorado-state-Housing-data.html
***Related:
I know I posted it before, but it bears repeating (or if you missed it, it will be new). Xcel makes its profits off of construction. Lots of profit. See below.
How much do you suppose they'll clear for the new iron-oxide battery in Pueblo?
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2023/02/15/caldara-colorado-media-catching-on-to-energy-monopoly-cronyism/
Where is the outrage?
Child labor is being used to mine cobalt (an important component in the batteries of electric vehicles among other things like cell phones).
Where is the outrage at this? Where are the calls on the manufacturers of these things to clean up their supply chains?
Is it that we're too invested in these things to concern ourselves over where they come from?
I have a cell phone. I have a hybrid car that has a battery. Moral purity is horrendously difficult in a world that has multiple streams for component parts. Even, according to reading I've done, sticking to brands that have third-party certification as to labor practices or materials is no guarantee (there are too many games and dodges).
In that sense I say what I said above without a sense of moral superiority. Still, I say it. Still it needs to be mentioned and it's not.
I wonder why not. Is it a tacit statement of our values right now?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cobalt-children-mining-democratic-republic-congo-cbs-news-investigation/
Adding another unelected board to the state. Adding another unelected board in the Front Range that will tell the state how best to do things.
Just as the Progressives in the Assembly did last Assembly session with their energy code board, they're back this session with yet another board of unelected officials that will decide large chunks of your life.
This board as outlined in the bill linked second below (along with some context provided in the Sun story linked first below) is to be tasked with coming up with a definition of which areas around the state are in a "wildland-urban interface" and then develop model codes that new homes will have to meet.
Before anything else, let me say that I think this is a worthy goal. I think it is quite intelligent to harden buildings that are in danger of wildfires against such events. It's a good investment because it will help prevent the fire's spread, reduce the damage, and increase safety.
That being said, the policy, as written, is bad. Let me flesh that out.
The policy for me fails on a number of fronts.
1. This is an unelected board. That means another case of the legislators abdicating their control (and blame?) to a bunch of unelected people (many of whom are bureaucrats). That means we have less control over the decisions being made.
2. This board soaks up tax dollars and doesn't adequately represent the state. Look over screenshots 1, 2, and 3 from the bill's text. I underlined each time in the list of 21 appointees that someone from a rural area is specifically mentioned. 3 of 21 appointees specifically HAVE to be rural. Given what we've seen of unelected boards lately in this state, if they're not mandated to be something the governor (or his appointees want), they will be his political cronies. In reading the bill, there is some spreading out of the appointees, but the bulk are coming from the governor's appointee.
3. This board will step in on local control. To quote the bill summary: "The bill requires a governing body with jurisdiction in an area within the wildland-urban interface to adopt and enforce a code that meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the codes adopted by the board."
4. This bill will, in addition to taking away local control, add a burden to local governments in terms of money and enforcement. Take a look at screenshot 4 from the bill's fiscal analysis to see what I mean.
What would be wrong with leaving it up to the elected officials who live in the area and know it to come up with a code? What would be wrong with encouragement instead of a power grab?
You could accomplish the same end goal with other means. This is badly-written policy, and I do not support it. I have added it to my list of bills to watch (and try to testify against). I encourage you to do same.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/02/14/colorado-building-codes-wildfires-wildland-urban-interface-bill/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-166