home battery

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:51:22 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:51:25 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:11:46 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

The article doesn't offer any clues as to the technology offered. My
wild guess(tm) is that it's something like this water based organic
battery:
https://news.usc.edu/64612/usc-scientists-plug-in-to-a-new-battery-thats-cheap-clean-rechargeable-and-organic/

It's probably going to use Musk's lithium ion batteries.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2013/11/05/tesla-considers-building-the-worlds-biggest-lithium-ion-battery-factory/

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/elon-musk-wants-tesla-batteries-power-homes-n305071

I suspect that most of the Musk ventures will eventually crash. The
Tesla may well go the way of the PT Cruiser. "Everybody who wanted one
had one."

Solar City will announce quarterlies tomorrow. Sales are expected to
be $72 million, with a loss of $118 million.

Way to go, Elon!


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:51:53 -0800 (PST), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhobbs@gmail.com> wrote:

Organic as in coming from life forms, vs. organic as in carbon-hydrogen chemistry.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Hydrocarbons can come from inorganic sources.






--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[rickman]

On 2/13/2015 6:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:47:51 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:12:28 -0800 (PST), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:



I'm an avid reader of Home Power magazine.
http://www.homepower.com
There's one technology which is never even mentioned, probably because
it doesn't work. That's charging a battery pile from commercial AC
power during off peak hours, and using the stored energy during peak
hours, in order to prevent power consumption from going into the more
expensive utility billing tiers. I've tinkered with the numbers for
this using common lead-calcium stationary batteries and it's far from
economical. I haven't bothered to do this for Li-Ion for the same
reason that you don't see Li-Ion UPS power supplies on the market. A
100% fully charged Li-Ion battery has a reduced life expectancy.


if you have time of use pricing, you can save a lot of money by use of simple timers and common sense to schedule the use of hot water heater/dryer/air cond...etc to off peak time.

No expensive batteries and inverters are needed.

I am waiting for time of use pricing to be offered in my area. They already took away the heating rate and I'm already paying for the smart meter.

Mark

Do you use electricity for heat and hot water? That's very
inefficient.

But it's (more than) 100% efficient! ;-)

Yes, we use electricity for heat (heat pump) and HW. It's the
cheapest TCO heat available. So in terms of BTU/$, it's the most
"efficient".

Where do I get TCO heat? I only have the typical BTU heat here.

--

Rick

 

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:15:15 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/13/2015 6:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:47:51 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:12:28 -0800 (PST), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:



I'm an avid reader of Home Power magazine.
http://www.homepower.com
There's one technology which is never even mentioned, probably because
it doesn't work. That's charging a battery pile from commercial AC
power during off peak hours, and using the stored energy during peak
hours, in order to prevent power consumption from going into the more
expensive utility billing tiers. I've tinkered with the numbers for
this using common lead-calcium stationary batteries and it's far from
economical. I haven't bothered to do this for Li-Ion for the same
reason that you don't see Li-Ion UPS power supplies on the market. A
100% fully charged Li-Ion battery has a reduced life expectancy.


if you have time of use pricing, you can save a lot of money by use of simple timers and common sense to schedule the use of hot water heater/dryer/air cond...etc to off peak time.

No expensive batteries and inverters are needed.

I am waiting for time of use pricing to be offered in my area. They already took away the heating rate and I'm already paying for the smart meter.

Mark

Do you use electricity for heat and hot water? That's very
inefficient.

But it's (more than) 100% efficient! ;-)

Yes, we use electricity for heat (heat pump) and HW. It's the
cheapest TCO heat available. So in terms of BTU/$, it's the most
"efficient".

Where do I get TCO heat? I only have the typical BTU heat here.

You really don't have to prove that you're a dumbshit. We all know
you're a lefty.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 20 February 2015 21:31:03 UTC+11, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-02-14, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now that hit me, ! OF COURSE !

Earth was once a glowing molten stone mass with hydrocarbons forming its
atmosphere.
As it cooled of, stones solidified, and later the hydrocarbons became
fluids, and condensed on the surface,.
THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE.
That is why you see oil in sands, under the water in sands, some places
still at the surface, etc.

There is plenty oil, the rest is marketing to get the price up.

It is as simple as that.

Think not.

Octane condenses at about 125C, water at 100C and butane at -1C How is
there butane mixed with octane under the sea?

But you will not see that simple theory published or even repeated
in a simple 500 $ experiment..

certainly not by a successful $500 experiment.

Thomas Gold's experiment cost a lot more than $500 and wasn't successful

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

The condensation temperatures of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons aren't the whole story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

so it can get trapped in cold oceans despite the fact that methane's boiling point is -161.5 °C.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-02-13, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:39:32 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 2/13/2015 8:11 AM, John Larkin wrote:

There's gigatons of coal, oil, and natural gas, enough to last
hundreds of years.

How do you know this, John? Do you have a *reliable* reference for this
assertion?

Look it up. There's tons of info online.

Are you worried about mind control rays and chemtrails?

There's tons of shit about that online too,


--
umop apisdn

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-02-14, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now that hit me, ! OF COURSE !

Earth was once a glowing molten stone mass with hydrocarbons forming its atmosphere.
As it cooled of, stones solidified, and later the hydrocarbons became fluids, and condensated
on the surface,.
THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE.
That is why you see oil in sands, under the water in sands, some places still at the surfece, etc.

There is plenty oil, the rest is marketing to get the price up.

It is as simple as that.

fink knot.

octane condenses at about 125C water at 100C and butane at -1C How is
there butane mixed with octane under the sea?

But you will not see that simple theory published or even repeated
in a simple 500 $ experiment..

certainly not by a successful $500 experiment.

--
umop apisdn

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-02-14, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

On 2/14/2015 9:31 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:18:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:17:23 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
ql4tdadh3vrteepguskoqjjbs8ok57tgr6@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:39:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:11:07 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

There's gigatons of coal, oil, and natural gas, enough to last
hundreds of years.

Perception is everything. I still remember the alarmist headlines
during the 1973-74 "energy crisis" proclaiming that we're running out
of literally everything. There were predictions that we'll run out of
gasoline by the next century. None of that happened, but the effect
on the economy and public buying habits were spectacular.

"Peak oil."

"The Canadian oil sands—a natural combination of sand, water, and oil
found largely in Alberta and Saskatchewan—are believed to contain one
trillion barrels of oil. Another trillion barrels are also said to be
trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,[185] but are in the
form of oil shale."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms


I will tell you something, what "I" think about that.

First, in school, we learned that oil came from plants that died etc etc.
I never believed that, but to speak up was not a good idea.

There is the theory that oil and gas are of inorganic origin. I don't
know the status of that. There are lots of hydrocarbons on comets and
such.

Does that make it inorganic?

To a chemist it's organic, but to a paleontologist or geologist it's inoranic.





--
umop apisdn

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-02-13, upsidedown@downunder.com <upsidedown@downunder.com> wrote:

Agreed that you have to measure incident and converter power.

Each photographic stop represents a power of 2, so 1 or 2 stops below
direct sun light is more or less useless.

If you claim is right your colclusion isn't just make the collector 4
times bigger. and two stops down is still plenty.

It should also be noted that PV panels generate electricity only when
the photon has sufficient energy. Photons below this may increase the
bolometric (total energy) of the sky, but only photons above the
threshold will actually produce electricity.

yeah, thus, silicon panels work fine down to the near infrared somewhere
are you trying to mkae a point?



--
umop apisdn

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (20 Feb 2015 10:20:23 GMT) it happened Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in <mc71p7$58i$2@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx>:

On 2015-02-14, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now that hit me, ! OF COURSE !

Earth was once a glowing molten stone mass with hydrocarbons forming its atmosphere.
As it cooled of, stones solidified, and later the hydrocarbons became fluids, and condensated
on the surface,.
THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE.
That is why you see oil in sands, under the water in sands, some places still at the surfece, etc.

There is plenty oil, the rest is marketing to get the price up.

It is as simple as that.

fink knot.

octane condenses at about 125C water at 100C and butane at -1C How is
there butane mixed with octane under the sea?

So, octane condensed first, the oceans came right after that,


There is also a pressure issue, butane is soluble in water,
it is heavier than air and will stay on the the surface.

There may be other reactions, or other reactions in the process of it appearing in the form we see now.
I had a car running on LPG, in winter a mixture of propane and butane so it will stil burn...

But our chemical Ph[D] refused to give his 'pinnion for less than a zillion cents,

Some butane could come from deeper in the earth ...
Or it could have come down with with the H2O.

But you will not see that simple theory published or even repeated
in a simple 500 $ experiment..

certainly not by a successful $500 experiment.

You just wait and see,
give it a few thousand years, or maybe the species will simply go extinct before that,


But from plants? You gottobe a believer (not a rare thing among homapiens).
And wtf do I care
No use arguing with 'religious beliefs'.

--
umop apisdn
That explains it (not).

 

[Jon Elson]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Syliva Else was claiming that "there has to be backup for pretty much the
entire solar power generation capacity" which is nuts. The peak solar
power generating capacity - at noon on a sunny day - is going to be way
higher than the network could absorb (at least not without some power
storage system - either pumped or batteries - which currently seems to be
much too expensive to be practical).

We have a pumped storage system here in Missouri. They have a lake on
top of a mountain, 800 feet above a lower basin and river. They pump
the top lake full every night, and generate power from the water coming down
every day. The facility got wrecked some years ago when the overfilled
the top lake and it broke down the wall atop the mountain. They have
rebuilt the system, so obviously it was still economically viable.
They had to pay a HUGE fine for their screwup, too.

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 21 February 2015 09:23:21 UTC+11, Jon Elson wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:



Syliva Else was claiming that "there has to be backup for pretty much the
entire solar power generation capacity" which is nuts. The peak solar
power generating capacity - at noon on a sunny day - is going to be way
higher than the network could absorb (at least not without some power
storage system - either pumped or batteries - which currently seems to be
much too expensive to be practical).

We have a pumped storage system here in Missouri. They have a lake on
top of a mountain, 800 feet above a lower basin and river. They pump
the top lake full every night, and generate power from the water coming down
every day. The facility got wrecked some years ago when the overfilled
the top lake and it broke down the wall atop the mountain. They have
rebuilt the system, so obviously it was still economically viable.
They had to pay a HUGE fine for their screwup, too.

Pumped storage has been around for year. It's still expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

was started in 1974 and has been running since 1984. Efficiency is about 75% - it costs you about 130 kilowatt hours of power to pump up enough water to generate 100 kilowatt hours of power when it flow back. It is currently used as a STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve) system to cover the brief surges of demand between TV programs, when millions of viewers all put the kettle on at roughly the same time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 17/02/2015 23:51, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:51:53 -0800 (PST), Phil Hobbs
pcdhobbs@gmail.com> wrote:

Organic as in coming from life forms, vs. organic as in carbon-hydrogen chemistry.

Hydrocarbons can come from inorganic sources.

So can all "organic" chemicals! This was first proved beyond all doubt
in 1828 when Wohler synthesised urea CO(NH2)2 by reacting silver cyanate
with ammonium chloride in a double displacement reaction.

AgNCO + NH4Cl -> (NH2)2CO + AgCl

Thus knocking on the head the vitalism theory of organic chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea

We just find it a lot more difficult as synthetic chemists to make the
right pure stereo isomer when compared to natural living systems.

Although it is true that hydrocarbons could be formed directly from
inorganic starting materials the resulting fossil fuels would not have
the preferential signature concentrations of lighter isotopes of carbon
present in the products of photosynthesis. Looking for fractionation of
isotopes is one moderately reliable test for the existence of life.

It is this stable isotope ratio coupled with GCMS that enables oil from
different sources to be distinguished. It can also be used to find wines
aldulterated with C4 cane sugar rather than grape juices.

It is however just about plausible that some simple hydrocarbons like
methane and ethane in the deep Earth predate organic life. Plenty of
methane and ethane on Titan and there is no evidence of life there. UV
light and/or electrical can generate more complex compounds from these
starting simple starting materials as in the Miller-Urey experiment.

The mass spec experiment on the comet lander would have been very
interesting in terms of how dirty a dirty snowball actually is.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

Energy density is unlikely to be impressive. On the other hand "dumping the waste products overboard" is what has given us anthropogenic global warming.
John Larkin doesn't believe it in (though he does believe in evolution, albeit a much clever version than anybody else's) but it's a real problem and not buring gasoline in cars is going to be part of the solution.

The liquid battery has to carry both reactive components around, and
their solvents, and has to lug the waste mass, too.

All true, but do you want a planet you can live on or a car with a long range between refills?

> 10x, 20x the mass of gasoline?

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167 watt-hours/
liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of metal with water.
Could be lighter. Maybe.

But it looks especially interesting for the thread topic. PV would be a
lot more interesting if there were storage.

A home flow-battery unit with zinc and iodine in solution sounds pretty tame,
cheap, capacity expanded at will with using larger storage tanks. They'll have
to fix the dendrites problem.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

The liquid battery has to carry both reactive components around, and
their solvents, and has to lug the waste mass, too.

10x, 20x the mass of gasoline?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den torsdag den 26. februar 2015 kl. 05.35.22 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

The liquid battery has to carry both reactive components around, and
their solvents, and has to lug the waste mass, too.

10x, 20x the mass of gasoline?

you'll have to take into account that the a gasoline/diesel engine in car
has efficiencies in the 30's, electric can be in the 90's

-Lasse

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:10:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

Hadn't heard of these--'flow batteries.' A-H capacity is set by storage
volume of aqueous electrolytes, hence easily scaled.

Dept. of Energy(Restriction)-financed, so they must be good ;-)

http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/02/new-flow-battery-keep-big-cities-lit-green-and-safe

Iron-Vanadium (DOE / Pacific Northwest National Labs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgw2Taw6BU

Filling stations could change out your electrolyte, quickly charging
a car.

I wonder what would be the energy density compared to gasoline. I'd
suspect it to be really bad. Gasoline is burned 100% and the oxidizer
component weighs nothing. And you can dump the waste products
overboard.

I was thinking of it compared to LiIon. This flow battery has 167 watt-hours/
liter versus 233 for LiIon, but the flow batt replaces lots of metal with water.
Could be lighter. Maybe.

But it looks especially interesting for the thread topic. PV would be a
lot more interesting if there were storage.

A home flow-battery unit with zinc and iodine in solution sounds pretty tame,
cheap, capacity expanded at will with using larger storage tanks. They'll have
to fix the dendrites problem.


Cheers,
James Arthur

Batteries tend to destroy themselves. The liquid thing sounds good, if
the membrane and electrodes can hold up.

But home storage (and home solar) don't make sense to me. The economy
of scale is awful. There's a reason why few people have a coal-fired
steam turbine generator in their garage.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com