We're Off To See The Wizard - Storing Energy Using Ammonia
Posted by Big Gav on April 29, 2008 - 6:01pm in TOD: Australia/New Zealand
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: ammonia, australia, concentrating solar power, energy storage, solar thermal power, wizard power [list all tags]
There were a couple of small Australian solar power projects that I left out of my look at solar thermal power a little while ago, as I thought they were worthy of separate consideration.
The first of these is being put together by a South Australian company called Wizard Power, which is trying to commercialise research from the Australian National University (ANU) - a solar concentrator dish and a closed loop thermochemical energy storage system using ammonia.
Most solar thermal projects use molten salt or water to store energy in the form of heat, as will another Australian solar thermal plant that uses graphite as the storage medium.
Like other solar thermal companies (Ausra being the highest profile example), Wizard is touting the coupling of energy storage with solar power as a "baseload power" solution, with the goal for the new plant being to provide power 24 hours a day to the South Australian town of Whyalla.
Wizard plans to start construction of a demonstration plant in October and to begin generating power from July 2009. Six concentrator dishes will be built on land opposite the OneSteel steelworks, which receives an average of 301 days of sunshine each year.
The demonstration plant was funded with an Australian Greenhouse Office grant of $7.4 million as part of the Advanced Electricity Storage Technologies programme, and the plant may be expanded if the technology is proven.
There have been reports that an associated company, Wizard IT, has gone into receivership, but apparently this does not impact the Wizard Power organisation.
The ANU describes the "closed loop thermochemical energy storage using ammonia" process as :
n this system, ammonia (NH3) is dissociated in an energy storing (endothermic) chemical reactor as it absorbs solar thermal energy. At a later time and place, the reaction products hydrogen (H2) and nitrogen (N2) react in an energy releasing (exothermic) reactor to resynthesise ammonia.
2 NH3 + Heat <---> N2 + 3 H2
A fixed amount of reactants (ammonia, nitrogen and hydrogen) are contained in a closed loop, and pass alternately between energy storing and energy releasing reactors with provision for storage of reactants in between. Because the solar energy is stored in a chemical form at ambient temperature, there are zero energy losses in the store regardless of the length of time that the reactants remain in storage. The reactors are packed with standard commercial catalyst materials to promote both reactions. Counter-flow heat exchangers transfer heat between in-going and out-going reactants at each reactor to use the energy most effectively.
Feeding the reactors with pure reactants is possible through the natural separation of reactants and products in the storage system: at the pressures applied, ammonia condenses.
By ensuring that the stuff leaving each reactor transfers its own thermal energy (sensible heat) to the stuff going in - using heat exchangers - most of the solar energy is stored in the change in composition of the chemicals which are kept at ambient temperature.
The advantages of this energy storage mechanism are identified as:
* A high energy storage density, by volume and mass.
* The reactions are easy to control and to reverse and there are no unwanted side reactions.
* All constituents involved are environmentally benign.
* There exists a history of industrial application with the associated available expertise and hardware.
* A readily achievable turning temperature of 400oC to 500oC (depending on the pressure). This helps to reduce thermal losses from dish receivers, avoids some high temperature materials limitations, and allows lower quality (and hence cheaper) dish optics to be used.
* All reactants for transport and handling are in the fluid phase, which provides a convenient means of energy transport without thermal loss.
* At ambient temperature the ammonia component of reactant mixtures condenses to form a liquid, whilst the nitrogen and hydrogen remains as a gas. This means that only one storage vessel is required for reactants and products.
There is also a possibility of using the low grade heat left after power generation for secondary applications such as desalination.
I haven't been able to find any comparisons of thermochemical energy storage to other storage mechanisms, so its hard to e certain how much of a boost (if any) this process gives compared to the alternatives.
Dr Keith Lovegrove from ANU mentioned some details regarding the solar dishes used in a talk on "Concentrating On Solar Thermal as a Solution to Climate Change" at the "Zero Emission" Conference in Melbourne last year.
A quick comment on why ANU advocates dishes, rather than other alternatives. Essentially if you go through the numbers, we pick up a higher optical efficiency and higher thermal efficiency in the receiver and that also propagates through. Our turbines will be the same as anyone else's turbines but at the end of the day, we think we'll get twice the electrical output per area of mirror. So that's just in case you're following that route. ...
Where is solar thermal power going? I think we can learn from the wind industry. It’s very similar. It's about manufacturing, the use of steel and glass and not rocket science. Wind industry has grown exponentially and costs have declined. And we can expect the same. ...
Here's a thought. We could actually export solar energy. How would we do that? Well, we would do that by using, for example, solar thermal systems can gasify biomass and even, dare I say it, gasified coal, in which case the final energy content is a mixture of solar and fossils. You can synthesise all that stuff into methanol and ship it overseas and quite literally power Japan, given that they're 40% dependent on Middle Eastern oil at the moment and not very happy about that. It's quite conceivable to imagine Australia as an exporter of solar energy.
I'll close with a quote from Thomas Edison back in 1910 (Source: Interview in Elbert Hubbard's Little Journeys to the Homes of the Great):
Some day some fellow will invent a way of concentrating and storing up sunshine to use instead of this old, absurd Prometheus scheme of fire. I'll do the trick myself if some one else doesn't get at it. Why, that is all there is about my work in electricity--you know, I never claimed to have invented electricity--that is a campaign lie--nail it!
Sunshine is spread out thin and so is electricity. Perhaps they are the same, but we will take that up later. Now the trick was, you see, to concentrate the juice and liberate it as you needed it. The old-fashioned way inaugurated by Jove, of letting it off in a clap of thunder, is dangerous, disconcerting and wasteful. It doesn't fetch up anywhere. My task was to subdivide the current and use it in a great number of little lights, and to do this I had to store it. And we haven't really found out how to store it yet and let it off real easy-like and cheap. Why, we have just begun to commence to get ready to find out about electricity. This scheme of combustion to get power makes me sick to think of--it is so wasteful. It is just the old, foolish Prometheus idea, and the father of Prometheus was a baboon."
When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy. Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.
There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen, for it can not be destroyed. Now, I am not sure but that my new storage-battery is the thing. I'd tell you about that, but I don't want to bore you...
Cross-posted from Peak Energy.




Some earlier ammonia discussion.
How shall driving gain nuclear cachet?
Yeah - I thought about using some of that material in this post but decided it needed a post of its own, as its not really related to the energy storage technique used by this project.
Excellent post. That ammonia storage process really looks like quite something. Exporting solar energy? Now that's something I'd love to see. Although I think we'd be back to square 1 with OPEC ;).
The process was patented in 1989. See US patent 4829768, Fluid dissociation solar energy collection system, Carden, Peter O. Assignee: Anutech Pty. Ltd., Canberra, Australia.
Most easily available at Google Advanced Patent Search:
http://www.google.com/patents?q=&btnG=Search+Patents
It's not the same process. The process in the patent expands the dissociated product stream in a turbine to make work. The process described here recombines the dissociated products in a reactor to make steam. The patent is by the research group at ANU. It contains references to their earlier work.
This project has particular significance as Whyalla will be in the energy spotlight. BHP Billiton has said they want 690 MW for the Olympic Dam expansion presumably including a desal plant on the nearby coast. Other new mines (eg Prominent Hill) are planning transmission lines to Roxby Downs.
OneSteel has coke ovens supplied by coal ships from Newcastle. Water and gas pipelines run down the coast, water from the River Murray and gas from Cooper Basin. Santos has a gas fractionation plant about 30km out of Whyalla where LNG ships call in once fortnight I believe, until Cooper Basin runs out.
The linked news story doesn't give an electrical output for the CSP plant, but if it supplies 10,000 homes I'll infer that as 10 MW. While that seems large it is infinitesmal compared to other captured energy flows associated with the area. The article doesn't state how long this plant can maintain output in overcast weather. To me 'baseload' means the ability to supply a specified output 24/7, barring unplanned outages.
So I see this project as a David and Goliath battle of small scale renewable versus the fossil and nuclear juggernaut.
Regarding size, remember - its just a demonstration plant to trial the technology commercially.
I agree that there is no detail about storage capacity - I'm hoping someone with some more knowledge will comment at some stage.
I view the renewables vs extraction based energy sources battle as a mammals vs dinosaurs one rather than a Dvid vs Goliath one.
And unlike those Goliath's, this one could be quite comfortably distributed in the suburbs... potentially generating (most of) that residential baseload where it's needed.
Remember that the first nuclear reactor was essentially a pile of uranium covered by some graphite bricks that produced "zero" power.
And the first coal fired engines don't really stack up today either...
How many horse power was "The Rocket"?
Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND we don't have to wait for "carbon capture and storage"... I hope the trial is successful.
Anyways... David won!
Nice post Gav.
G'day mates, any chance I could have a little piece of the South Florida franchise? I promise to put a few large shrimp on the barbie for you if you come over for a visit. I'll even throw in a tour of our coral reefs.
"Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND .."
Well, just like Dr. Lovegrove points out above,
Setting it up and transport are the real real problems.
Meaning that Edison was right all the way. It has to do with breaking the bariers of collecting diffuse energy AND storing it. Right now, collecting is a tick too expensive and storing/transporting it breaks the bank. I've started the Ammonia discussion in other threads and think it will be ONE very good opportunity to store/use solar and wind being produced in Australia or the Sahara/MidEast. There are many brains working on the "problem" right now: http://www.desertec.org/ .
I have a greatly improved way to transport it, but you'll have to wait til I start my own company and publish the patents for that.
Anyone want to give me a couple million start capital for it?
All the best, Dom
SP enthuses that the technology is "scalable" but Big Gav, the author, says "I agree that there is no detail about storage capacity". So I think SP is premature. Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere. There is probably a reason.
Let's hope we can find some real, scalable solutions to the energy storage need.
What is the reason?
Yes, I am probably premature in my enthusing, and I should have used the appropriate modifier 'potentially'. But we are talking about a trial.
The argument that becuase "Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere" ... can be used to dismiss anything.
Battery Technology.
Cancer research.
Fusion.
I'm pretty excited about this method because the dishes seem to build on work that was carried out in astronomy in Australia by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss. They measured the sizes of stars using a novel form of interferometer called the intensity interferometer built near Narrabri in the 1960s.
I'm hopeful these facilities will be used in a similar way at night once they get going.
Chris
These new facilities will never be used for astronomy for a the very simple reason of cost-effectiveness, which in this case means poor mirror quality. For passive solar, it a focus of a few centimeters in diameter should be good enough, while for optical astronomy, the mirrors have to have a perfect shape down to the order of magnitude of some tens or hundred nanometers. It would be a huge waste of money to build perfect mirrors for heat generation.
That was kind of the point with the intensity interferometer. Tens of arcminutes resolution was fine. Thus, they could use the segmented mirrors you see in the image long before the active control used in the Keck. The intensity interferometer is much less sensitive than the Michelson interferometer in terms of collecting area which is why they used such large mirrors to work on bright stars. But, it does not need the extreme tollerances of a Michelson. Much more importantly, recorded signals can be used to to produce the interference and so the senstitivity of the intensity interferometer (in terms of the amount of collecting area) exceeds that of the Michelson when there are approximately 100 or so stations. This is because the number of beams that can be combined in a Michelson is limited to less than ten or so, while all possible baselines can be measured with the intensity interferometer. This crossover figure includes some methods I've developed to improve the sensitivity of the original Hanbury-Brown and Twiss approach on a single baseline. One of the truly fundemental next steps in astronomy is to measure the rotational orientation of stars. An intensity interferometer array is particularly well suited to this since it has both spatial and Fourrier transform capability so that it is possible to measure the changing doppler shift of a spectral line across the face of a star. If you want to do work that will be included in the introductory text books, this would be it. The science that can be accomplished from an archeology of angualar momentum in clusters of stars is breathtaking, yielding perhaps the most intimate details of star and plant formation that are possible to discover.
Dish solar collectors that are built to achive fairly high temperture are essentially perfect intensity interferometer base stations for night time use and only slight additions are needed to instrument them for this purpose which can be configured not to cause any difficulties with the main goal of collecting solar energy. By contrast, configuring arrays of solar panels for all sky monitoring and intensity interferometry may require intrusive modification of the electonic design and could be much less feasible. Night time use of panels may rather concentrate on transient detection and perhaps study of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays.
If you have access to a library that has a copy of Hanbury-Brown's book on the intensity interferometer I recommend it as one of the best written books in science.
Chris
A dumb question: Where does the ammonia (NH3) come from?
Bullshit ;-))
Ammonia is in plentiful supply (for the time being) and the system is a closed loop - the amount required to run the system is likely to be inconsequential compared to that required for fertiliser (farming) or explosives (mining) in the region.
Ammonia (NH3) is made via Haber synthesis from H2 and N2. Nitrogen can be fractionally distilled from air, and renewable hydrogen can be produced by methods as diverse as electrolysis of water and oxidation of charcoal with steam.
There are some questions I have about this post.
First, ammonia is a poison to fauna, so will it be environmentally benign in case of rupture?
Second, the storage medium is two gases; will that not require an enormous container to hold the substantial volume?
Third, hydrogen being what it is, will there not be a necessity for extra special materials to avoid losses thereof?
Yes, Ammonia in "high" concentrations, will kill you.
CO2, in "high" concentrations, will kill you.
N2, in "high" concentrations, will kill you.
Apples, in "high" concentrations, will kill you.
Don't get hung up on it.
In the event of a rupture, don't stand nearby. It is unlikely to be a catastrophic without warning rupture though. And being ammonia, small leaks will be readily detected by the remarkable sensor at the end of our faces... in addition to electronic sensors deployed to monitor the plant. IE in all probability, there will be warning.
In the event of a leak, the dispersed ammonia will become absorbed by water and adsorbed to soil. It will be "rapidly" utilised by bacteria and plants.
Not too many years ago, before we discovered chloro-fluoro carbons (ie freon), refrigeration used ammonia.
The ammonia is the storage medium. It is recycled and only needs to be synthesised once. In fact it is continuously being disassociated and reformed.
Gases have a useful property... they can be compressed. If you visualise an incredibly large centralised system then yes, the storage vessel would be large (it could be buried). But a large system may not necessarily be the best way to deploy this technology. It's still a trial.
Unlike, "the hydrogen economy tm", the requirement for "extra special materials" would be minimised. Unlike "the hydrogen economy" there is no requirement for cars, houses and pipelines to each have hydrogen storage mechanisms.
Unlike, the hydrogen economy, lost hydrogen in this system could be made up for by H2 derived from water. IE there need not be any requirement for H2 derived from natural gas.
There is no perfect "solution".
The thoughts above are only my un-researched, non-internet linked opinions derived essentially from my general reading.
Thanks for nothing SP! None of your comments showed any thought about the meanings of the questions nor about the actual process.
If you reread the actual description, ammonia is the feed stock and the N2 / H2 pair are the storage medium. So yes, the storage of these gases will require substantial vessels built of special materials to hold the hydrogen. I made no mention of a hydrogen economy, I was smply questioning being able to store hydrogen for long periods of time under any circumstances except perhaps in special containers? Your suggestion of making more hydrogen from water smacks of perpetual motion machine [use the energy from the generator to power electrolysis to split water].
As far as the benign qualities of ammonia, it is not as bad as other gases I'm sure, but in the quantities required for large scale generation, a rupture could release sufficient amount to maim and even kill.
Actually, I put some effort (after my initial, I thought light hearted, sarcasm) into that comment.
All three gases are stored in the same container!
It was actually step backs comment, and also yours about storage of hydrogen, that made me mention the hydrogen economy; storage of H2 being one of the technical challenges for widespread distribution of H2 as an energy carrier.
You describe ammonia as the "feed stock" and step back also made a comment that implies that this is a once thru process.
This is not a once thru process.
The ammonia is not consumed but recycled. Look at the picture.
The sunlight provides the heat to drive the reaction one way... we recover some of the heat when the reaction is reversed.
In the event of small H2 leaks, onsite generation of H2 from electrolysis of water would be a practical solution to "top up" the hydrogen supply and not as you bizarrely claim some kind of "perpetual motion" mechanism - an idea stemming from your mistaken belief that this is a once thru process.
As to your concern about ammonia...my point was simply... yes there is a risk, but its not that great. This is a material that is widely used in many chemical and manufacturing processes. It's used by farmers. That is one of the benefits of using ammonia. It's behaviour and effects are understood.
Now, I've spent about another 40 minutes on this reply. I hope it helps you understand the process better.
The answer is yes - you do need a storage vessel to hold the Nitrogen and Hydrogen gas.
How large the vessel is and what pressure the gas is held at isn't clear from any of the material I've been able to find.
However, storing hydrogen isn't rocket science and is done at many other locations, so I doubt it presents an insurmountable challenge.
The question is how much gas storage do you need to store "energy" that can be released later - ie. what size / strength vessel is needed to store enough gas to produce 16 hours worth of generation at 10 MW (in the case of this plant) - and I haven't seen a hint of what the answer is to this...
However, storing hydrogen isn't rocket science
And here I thought Liquid H2 was a big part of the science of rockets!
it presents an insurmountable challenge.
Depends on how one defines 'insurmountable'. As I understand, at the higher pressures, H2 leaks at about 5% a day. So the closed loop system strikes me as the frictionless, point mass bodies - a fine theory but the physical realities makes sure things just don't work that way.
(The interesting set of calcs would be how often the system could loose all of its gasses due to accident and still be making energy.)
OK, so make that "storing hydrogen as a gas is not rocket science ... that's storing hydrogen as a liquid".
Of course, hydrogen is just about the trickiest gas there is when it comes to leaks, which is one reason why ammonium may be a more sensible transport medium than hydrogen for direct conversion of, say, windpower to liquid fuel ... but a closed loop is less challenging to keep sealed than a transport chain with several transfer steps.
You understand wrong. H2 can be held for decades inside steel tubing; the Electrolux-cycle gas-fired absorption refrigerators used in RVs are proof positive.
Well, it's going to be stored around 200 atmospheres because that's where the Haber process works. Similarly the disassociation reactor is probably going to be run near atmospheric pressure. There will be compressors and expanders not shown in the simplified flowsheet.
Gas receivers even for hydrogen are an old technology. Any losses in the cycle would happen in the seals for any rotating equipment.
Methinks you're wrong. Consider the dissociation reactor alone; the energy involved in pumping the 2x increased volume of gas up to storage pressure would seriously cut the net energy output of the system.
Pressure only affects the equilibrium constant for a given temperature, not the change in energy. If the dissociation reactor doesn't crack as much of the NH3 at 200 bar as it does at 1 bar, so what? The un-cracked ammonia yields its heat to the input fluid, and gets cycled again.
The big expense for this process is going to be pressure vessels for storing gas mixtures. I suspect that the answer is going to be steel-lined caverns mined out of deep rock, like the hot-water solar thermal storage concept.
Maybe, maybe not. You'd use an ammonia expander in front of the dissociator direct coupled to a booster compressor to recover a lot of that energy if you went the small reactor route. Most commercial dissociators run at near atmospheric pressure so if you want to use off the shelf units that's where you're running.
Why would the properties of a commercial ammonia dissociator be relevant? This system stores all its stocks in a single tank; if the efficiency of dissociation is relatively low, this only affects the energy recovery in the heat exchangers. The system doesn't require a pure output. Eliminating compressors is going to be a far bigger gain.
Actually, if the dissociation reactors can be run at very high pressure, the dissociation system could be run as a Rankine engine (liquid NH3 in, gases out) and produce net energy from the drop back to storage pressure. That could be the daytime peaking generation, with the recombination supplying the night-time base load.
I found his response to be technically accurate and on target to the literal meaning of your question. If there is any fault regarding failure to satisfy you, it appears to be yours.
Nice animated GIF. That kind of a visual, which is quite unassuming IMO, is something you can't get from a textbook.
Yeah - I thought they did a good job on making it very simple to understand (though obviously it didn't succeed with everyone)...
頑張って下さい。
名古屋 風俗
For anyone who can't read Japanese, that's just a spam bot.
Wait, I thought that ammonia was the high-energy state (seeing as you can burn it). Now they're saying that it takes energy to disassociate ammonia? I thought that disassociating ammonia would release energy, and making ammonia would require energy...
Or maybe this is how it works:
6H20 + energy --> 6H2 + 3O2
6H2 + 2N2 --> 4NH3 + energy
4NH3 + energy --> 6H2 + 2N2
Net reaction: 6H20 --> 6H2 + 302
So this is basically a way to store sunlight that goes beyond simply storing hydrogen (which is difficult to store) and oxygen, but which take the hydrogen and reacts it with atmospheric methane to produce ammonia, which can be easily stored. Right?
Your "equations" contradict your statement...
I think we can trust one hundred years of chemistry since Haber and Bosch, that the fundamental processes and energies are pretty well understood for this reaction...
That's not a valid argument, you can burn H2 as well.