This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Power from liquid air

Work is starting in Manchester on MW scale liquid air to power system , designed by a inventor not from a university or academic institution , basic principals seem to be electricity is used to liquify air down to -197oC and the heat from this stored at around 110oC , the liquid air is held in cryogenic tanks and then when needed to generate electricity, the hot side is used to heat the liquid air , expanding it by 700 times in volume , this expansion then drives turbine and gen set.


At 20 yrs expected life of plant , no harmful emissions and ability to be a cheaper alternative to most battery technologies ,it looks a really interesting choice for eco thinkers and inventor did really interesting thing of storing the heat from compression , i like it had ability to use other heat sources also,, quoted efficiency is 60% which perhaps needs to improve because in one way its consuming electricity , however its biggest marketing aspect is that it can use surplus (mostly night time) cheap electricity, which is interesting as this electricity must be really cheap if your plant in one way is losing 40% of iit every cycle, whilst I dont think the media have been duped in giving it so much praise , one remark i herd is why not give people cheap night time electricity or isn,t this a device for making cheap electricity more costly ??? 


that aside i do see some uses for liquid air , be useful in some off grid scenarios , in a simpler format , could certainly heat a home at night , maybe an air conditioner supplimentary heat energy source ??  


only data i cant find is how many kw it takes to make a kg of liquid air ??? if any one knows
Parents
  • Some more background reading here
    article

    A kilo of air is approx one cubic metre at room temperature and reduces to approx 1,2 litres of liquid at  77 K, the boiling point of liquid nitrogen - as oxygen has a higher boiling point and iar is mostly N2 anyway  the nitrogen temp, and molecular mass is normally assumed.


    To liquefy nitrogen  needs you to cool the air  by 220 degrees at  ~1 joule per gram per degree you might think this is mere 220kJ, plus a vaporisation energy of a further 180kJ  (based on 5000 Joules/mol where 1 mol is 28g). However  the second law of thermodynamics kicks in, even before you allow for real efficiency, so  to pump out 400kJ or between 2 masses 220degrees apart at  77K  and say 350K , will need  4.5 times as much energy - so your high temp heat-sink  receives 1800kJ, and you need to put in something closer to 2200kJ.

    Some but not all of these factors work in reverse getting the liquid back to gas again and getting the energy out.   You may be storing energy as "cold", but you could have to store or use quite a bit more as "hot". The key here to efficiency is not to waste the heat.

    In reality the whole cycle of putting energy in and getting it back again is perhaps only 30-50% efficient, but if the alternative is to set your wind turbines to idle, then saving half of something free is better than saving none, and in such cases when losses are not so important, storage makes sense. to compare  facilities using pumped water electric storage like Dinorwig electric mountain

    are typically quoted as 75% efficient. Unlike water, air tanks do not rely on the right geography. There are very small installations that use the waste cold gas from the turbines to operate refrigerated storage as well as generate electricity
    experiments on lorries are encouraging.



Reply
  • Some more background reading here
    article

    A kilo of air is approx one cubic metre at room temperature and reduces to approx 1,2 litres of liquid at  77 K, the boiling point of liquid nitrogen - as oxygen has a higher boiling point and iar is mostly N2 anyway  the nitrogen temp, and molecular mass is normally assumed.


    To liquefy nitrogen  needs you to cool the air  by 220 degrees at  ~1 joule per gram per degree you might think this is mere 220kJ, plus a vaporisation energy of a further 180kJ  (based on 5000 Joules/mol where 1 mol is 28g). However  the second law of thermodynamics kicks in, even before you allow for real efficiency, so  to pump out 400kJ or between 2 masses 220degrees apart at  77K  and say 350K , will need  4.5 times as much energy - so your high temp heat-sink  receives 1800kJ, and you need to put in something closer to 2200kJ.

    Some but not all of these factors work in reverse getting the liquid back to gas again and getting the energy out.   You may be storing energy as "cold", but you could have to store or use quite a bit more as "hot". The key here to efficiency is not to waste the heat.

    In reality the whole cycle of putting energy in and getting it back again is perhaps only 30-50% efficient, but if the alternative is to set your wind turbines to idle, then saving half of something free is better than saving none, and in such cases when losses are not so important, storage makes sense. to compare  facilities using pumped water electric storage like Dinorwig electric mountain

    are typically quoted as 75% efficient. Unlike water, air tanks do not rely on the right geography. There are very small installations that use the waste cold gas from the turbines to operate refrigerated storage as well as generate electricity
    experiments on lorries are encouraging.



Children
No Data