How Buildings Are Staying Cool and Saving Money - with Batteries Made of Ice (msn.com) 62
"Thousands of buildings across the United States are staying cool with the help of cutting-edge batteries made from one of the world's simplest materials," reports the Washington Post — ice.
When electricity is cheap, the batteries freeze water. When energy costs go up, building managers turn off their pricey chillers and use the ice to keep things cool. A typical building uses about a fifth of its electricity for cooling, according to the International Energy Agency. By shifting their energy use to cheaper times of day, the biggest buildings can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on their power bills. They can also avoid using electricity from the dirtiest fossil fuel plants. In places where the weather is hot and energy prices swing widely throughout the day — for instance, Texas, Southern California and most of the American Southwest — buildings could cut their power bills and carbon emissions by as much as a third, experts say...
When every building is blasting its air conditioner at the same moment on a hot day, power companies often fire up backup generators, known as peaker plants, which are generally extra pricey and polluting. If utilities avoid using peaker plants, they'll pollute less and save money. Last year, the Energy Department struck a tentative $306 million loan deal with the ice-battery-maker Nostromo Energy to install its systems in 193 California buildings to make energy cheaper and cleaner while lowering the state's blackout risk.
"The batteries themselves are huge..." the article acknowledges, citing one in New York City that uses 100 parking spot-sized tanks "which collectively make 3 million margaritas' worth of ice each night... But that's starting to change." (And they believe new smaller designs "could bring the batteries into smaller buildings and even houses.") Wherever they can squeeze into the market, ice batteries could be a cheaper and longer-lasting option than the lithium-ion batteries that power phones, cars and some buildings because their main ingredient is water, experts say. The pricey chemicals in a lithium-ion cell might degrade after 10 years, but water never wears out.
And according to the article, one company has already installed ice batteries in over 4,000 buildings...
When every building is blasting its air conditioner at the same moment on a hot day, power companies often fire up backup generators, known as peaker plants, which are generally extra pricey and polluting. If utilities avoid using peaker plants, they'll pollute less and save money. Last year, the Energy Department struck a tentative $306 million loan deal with the ice-battery-maker Nostromo Energy to install its systems in 193 California buildings to make energy cheaper and cleaner while lowering the state's blackout risk.
"The batteries themselves are huge..." the article acknowledges, citing one in New York City that uses 100 parking spot-sized tanks "which collectively make 3 million margaritas' worth of ice each night... But that's starting to change." (And they believe new smaller designs "could bring the batteries into smaller buildings and even houses.") Wherever they can squeeze into the market, ice batteries could be a cheaper and longer-lasting option than the lithium-ion batteries that power phones, cars and some buildings because their main ingredient is water, experts say. The pricey chemicals in a lithium-ion cell might degrade after 10 years, but water never wears out.
And according to the article, one company has already installed ice batteries in over 4,000 buildings...
3 million margaritas (Score:3, Funny)
Re: 3 million margaritas (Score:2)
Re:3 million margaritas? (Score:2)
How much is that in the SI standard Libraries of Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
Per fortnight.
Can we please stop calling them "batteries"...? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are heat absorbers.
They absorb heat by using the phase change of ice to water.
They do not produce power, so they are not batteries.
Remember that cold isn't energy, it is the absence of thermal energy.
Re:Can we please stop calling them "batteries"...? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not batteries. ... They do not produce power, so they are not batteries.
Chemical batteries don't produce power either, they store energy. These are ice, which is frozen water, which was frozen using electricity. That took energy, like charging a chemical battery. That energy is later released when the ice melts, absorbing heat and cooling the surrounding air. This is like a heat pump. Stop being so, unnecessarily, pedantic. Also, the term "battery" has all sorts of meanings other than as a energy storage device (battery [google.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries produce energy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Batteries produce energy."
Some just shoot shells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Others accompany assaults."
Yes, when you are conducting infantry assaults on a defended position, it is necessary to have artillery support.
Re: (Score:2)
Chemical batteries don't produce power either, they store energy.
Batteries produce energy.
That may arguably apply to single-use/charge batteries, but not the rechargeable batteries that would likely be used in cases like this, they only store energy generated elsewhere for later use.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of an electrical battery is a device that uses an electrochemical cell to store/produce energy. These devices don't use redox reactions, they aren't batteries. One could call them a "heat accumulator", "thermal energy storage", or more specifically "latent heat storage" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . For this very particular device the term is "ice storage air conditioning" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Is the word "batteries" in the article? Check, ready to publish!
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of an electrical battery is a device that uses an electrochemical cell to store/produce energy. These devices don't use redox reactions, they aren't batteries.
More specifically, they are not electrochemical batteries.
Re:Can we please stop calling them "batteries"...? (Score:4, Insightful)
The definition of an electrical battery is a device that uses an electrochemical cell to store/produce energy. These devices don't use redox reactions, they aren't batteries.
Atomic batteries don't use redox reactions either yet they are still batteries.
Re: Can we please stop calling them "batteries"... (Score:3)
Donâ(TM)t shift the goalposts, you said you wanted us to stop calling them batteries, not electrochemical batteries. The very existence of the term electrochemical battery implies the existence of other kinds of battery too, for example thermal batteries, or phase change batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not moving goalposts, I am not the original commenter. You can call these devices "thermal battery" if you like. The problem here is the news report is calling them "batteries" without specifying, which induces a confusion with "electrical batteries" which are the ones called "batteries" in short. The article further entertains the confusion by comparing the devices to lithium-ion batteries.
You can check on reference materials, that though it is acknowledged that there exists batteries that are not bas
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of an electrical battery is ...
I don't think they said "electrical battery". More generally, a battery is a device that stores energy (generated elsewhere) for later use. I think it can reasonably be argued that this process does that so this could be generally referred to as a battery, at least in lay terms. Though the other terms you mentioned would be better, or at least more accurate.
A similar thing would be using off-peak nuclear power to "recharge" a pumped storage hydro facility [wikipedia.org]. We have one of the largest in the world here
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, a battery is a group of individual items connected or grouped for a common purpose. Like cells of an electric battery, the ice modules of a thermal battery, or the cannons/artillery in a military battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you be happy if we call them anti-batteries instead? We pump heat out of them when energy (to run the heat pump) is cheap, and then allow heat back into them when energy is more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not batteries.
They are indeed batteries.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
5
a(1)
: a number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together : set, series
ran through a battery of tests
a battery of filing cabinets
They are batteries of ice blocks.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not batteries.
They do not produce power, so they are not batteries.
Here is a video demonstrating otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that cold isn't energy, it is the absence of thermal energy.
That statement doesn't make any sense, particularly given removing all "thermal energy" (itself an ambiguous term) in order to create an absence of it would itself take an infinite amount of time and/or energy.
I'm not a physicist or anywhere close to being one, but something tells me that cold is better described in terms of relative entropy.
That's cool and all but (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only useful so long as we continue to have price swings from power providers. Enough people doing this will eventually dampen price swings and limit the economic feasibility of using chillers to store ice. Any other parties that find other ways to feed off cheap power due to generation imbalance will also be in competition.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only useful so long as we continue to have price swings from power providers. Enough people doing this will eventually dampen price swings and limit the economic feasibility of using chillers to store ice. Any other parties that find other ways to feed off cheap power due to generation imbalance will also be in competition.
Yes, but price swings happen because of inconsistent or unreliable supply. At one time in the not-so-distant past this would have been the utility's problem, but now it is the customer's problem. You seem to think customers will solve the problem themselves, and that is what the people in charge think too, but I'm not so convinced. I think you should get used to the price swings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When I first saw this article it reminded me of this: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/ima... [lemmy.world]
It's an Ancient Iranian Windcatcher, that filters air under ground, sometimes over a water system, and then the now cool air is pushed into the house. This also pushes the hot air up and out.
With a lot of wind, something like this but modernized with filters and sensors, could be a super cheap way to keep a home cooled. If for some reason it's not able to make it cold enough, your AC is a least doing significantly less wo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but price swings happen because of inconsistent or unreliable supply. At one time in the not-so-distant past this would have been the utility's problem, but now it is the customer's problem.
It's a utility customer problem in more ways than one. There's reports of solar+battery fires:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]
You seem to think customers will solve the problem themselves, and that is what the people in charge think too, but I'm not so convinced. I think you should get used to the price swings.
It is rare to see residential utility customers to see these price swings, they'd pay a flat rate regardless of the spot price for electricity. Large electricity consumers like factories will pay the spot price, and also have requirements on their consumption such as power factor correction. Really big consumers might want to have some of their electricity produced on site as a
Re: (Score:2)
It is rare to see residential utility customers to see these price swings, they'd pay a flat rate regardless of the spot price for electricity.
That is how it is here, but I'm continually reading about people living in jurisdictions where time based metering is a normal and accepted thing so I'm not convinced it is rare anymore. Unfortunately I think it may become more common. Some companies will adjust using large ice cubes. We will adjust by doing our laundry at an odd time of the day or night. It's supposed to be some sort of win.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of utilities offer time-of-use or flexible/variable electric rates. It's entirely optional and you can save a good bit of money if you're willing to put up with the mild inconvenience of adapting your usage behavior and/or adding some form of energy storage (batteries, thermal tanks, etc). Utilities benefit from it since price is directly proportional to demand and it's a win for everyone if you use less when demand is high and use more when demand is low.
=Smidge=
/So as per usual, MacMann does not kn
Re: (Score:2)
It is rare for any consumer, large or small to pay the spot price. It is common for large consumers to pay more per kWh during contracturally defined peak hours plus a demand charge for the largest kW used in the billing period.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't contradict anything that I'm saying. California in particular has this problem, but bring several gigawatts worth of chillers online during peak solar production hours and Californian utilities won't be giving away solar power anymore, they'll be charging for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, ice storage is a gamble that utilities won't come along at some point and "alter the deal". A PV system and just running a standard air conditioning from that is a much safer investment, even if the upfront costs end up being higher.
Re: (Score:2)
The ice storage system described here doesn't replace conventional A/C, it simply replaces it for brief periods of time when current pricing structures make it advantageous - once electric companies alter their pricing structures, this won't make any financial sense - but they would never do that, would they?
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking too small. The reason we have price swings is due to demand swings and intermittent energy production. Intermittent energy production is insanely cheap, especially if you can store it. Even if you flatten the duck curve perfectly the result will be a complete disuse of dispatchable power sources which operate only the ability to charge premium for electricity so even if everyone does this power still ends up overall cheaper for the consumer.
not to zero (Score:2)
The time of day price difference from the utility will definitely decrease over time, but won't go to zero.
Even with enough storage capacity to completely level utility output, there is the cost of the storage itself; the difference will be in the range of this cost.
Also, it is possible that some localized solutions, perhaps this ice, will be less expensive than grid scale solutions. Perhaps more efficient, perhaps less expensive, and perhaps not.
Someone tell Ripley (Score:3)
Nostromo?
They really should check to see what the Weyland-Yutani Corporation has hidden in the ice.
Some wishful thinking there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The failure mechanics of lithium batteries are substantially more difficult than the intricacies of a freezer with its heat exchangers, pumps and all. Sure, yeah!
I get where you're going with this, but a heat pump / freezer like this has relatively few moving parts, and none that can't be readily repaired/replaced. The useful lifespan is also probably longer than a lithium battery. For example, the heat pump at my house has been in use since 2005 needing only minor work to replace a stuck valve or worn run capacitor. The refrigerator at my house was here when I bought the place in 1993 and I've only had to replace the defrost timer. Still, there are probably go
Denver (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism! Tear it down!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I'm 162 ahead of you in /. signups. You better fucking giggle.
I wish I had my old account. I can't even remember the name of it. I've sworn of this place a few times.
Re:Denver (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
These included adding systems with packaged HVAC units for a publishing company whose ice storage system couldn't be expanded due to lack of space; replacing an aged ice water system with packaged electric units for an airport's Pre-Conditioned Air system*; a study for how to get more capacity out of another
Re: (Score:2)
Downtown Denver's district heating system has run continuously from 1879. They began operating a district cooling system based on freezing water to ice at night and melting it during the day in 1996.
Thanks for the tip! here's an old (2014) article that goes into a bit more detail: https://difcdn.denverinfill.co... [denverinfill.com]
Thermal energy storage (TES) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some locations have been using things such as stones and concrete to store thermal energy for quite some time (for both heating at night, and cooling during the day). Water and ice are basically just different mediums for the energy THERMAL storage.
IFIFY
Sounds great (Score:3)
Until the Legionnaires test comes back positive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly the bacteria for Legionnaires require water temperature above 20 degrees to multiply, secondly no one said you were using untreated drinking water here. We have all manner of chemicals that will address Legionnaires.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't blowing the melted ice water out of the A/C vents, the water is contained and re-used, over and over again.
The "tons" in hvac speak is tons of ice (Score:2)
A ton of cooling or heating is the heat of fusion in a one ton block of ice. That's 12000 btus. One ton of heating or cooling is 12000 btu/hr. A typical cooling or heating load in a residential system is 2-3 tons. So 3 tons of ice per hour. Maybe stretch that out to 3 tons of ice in 4 hours for 25% duty factor.
That's gonna be a *lot* of water and ice for a commercial building.
Re: (Score:2)
> of ice per hour
Per day, not per hour.
=Smidge=
Increasing Emissions (Score:2)
By shifting their energy use to cheaper times of day, the biggest buildings can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on their power bills. They can also avoid using electricity from the dirtiest fossil fuel plants.
Or they can use electricity from the dirtiest fossil fuel plants, coal, to avoid using more expensive power from a less dirty fossil fuel, natural gas. Which is the far more likely current situation. Using cheap base load power to replace expensive peaker power would also be possible where nukes and hydro are major base load sources. In theory, you could freeze the ice with excess solar, but the increased demand for AC is usually when the sun is shining. And there isn't much excess solar around in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in Roman times, they made small quantities of ice in the North African mountains with nothing more than a polished shield (or similar piece of metal) some brush and what you might call "lack of solar power" because it only worked at night. You put the shield in a place that was out of the sun in the daytime but exposed to the sky and fresh air. Cover it with brush in the daytim
But what if... (Score:2)
When every building is blasting its air conditioner at the same moment on a hot day, power companies often fire up backup generators, known as peaker plants, which are generally extra pricey and polluting. If utilities avoid using peaker plants, they'll pollute less and save money.
But what if everybody deploys this solution? Then every building will greatly increase energy usage during periods when they didn't used to use as much energy, wouldn't that result in little more than a reduction in peak usage and result in a more constant power draw? And just out curiosity, what about the inefficiencies inherent in this novel approach? Conventional air conditioning is the most economical method to reliably cool interior spaces (if it wasn't, we'd use something else, right?), so this "freez