Simulation test of iron-air batteries and power to methanolThe simulation puts 5 MWh of sodium batteries and 6 MWh of iron-air batteries on the winning test, which really surprised me. What would happen without all the new technology?How do you test products that don't yet exist? With a simulation in which these products are used! The simulation assumes an off-grid fast-charging settlement with just under 2 MW of photovoltaics. It is simulated with 80 kW to 400 kW continuous load. The load is distributed throughout the day as is typical for a filling station: up to 200% of the average load at peak times, 25% after midnight. This off-grid fast-charging settlement is then equipped with different quantities of sodium batteries, iron-air batteries and power to methanol. In the test 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 MWh sodium batteries, 0, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, 30 MWh iron-air batteries. At the beginning of the simulations even with 40 and 60 MWh iron-air batteries, but these were so unprofitable that these combinations were removed from the simulation. Plus 0, 100 kW, 200 kW, 300 kW, 400 kW power to methanol.
Assumptions without transportation, customs and taxes. Simply the lowest imaginable prices. 300 € per kW photovoltaic, 64 € per kWh for sodium batteries and 12 € per kWh for iron-air batteries. The 100 kW, 200 kW, 300 kW, 400 kW power to methanol plants were assumed to cost 300 k€, 500 k€, 700 k€, 900 k€.
If iron-air batteries are so cheap, why sodium batteries at all? Because of 60% efficiency and C=0.01. They are supposed to have 250 Wh/kg. This means that a ton of battery has 250 kWh, but you can only draw 2.5 kW, but you can only charge with 2.5 kW. To achieve 1 MW charging power, you would have to have 100 MWh of iron-air batteries. The simulation therefore decides every day at midnight whether to charge the iron-air batteries. These are then charged constantly until the next decision. At night with the sodium batteries. How can you use such crap with only 60% efficiency? Because 50% times 35% equals a pitiful 17.5%. Power to methanol is assumed to be 50% efficient from electricity to HHV calorific value. The generator then converts the HHV calorific value back into electricity with 35% efficiency. A 20,000 liter tank costs €30,000. So €1.5 per liter. If this liter with a calorific value of 5 kWh is then converted into 1.75 kWh of electricity, you have a 35 MWh electricity storage system for €30,000. If only there weren't the costs for the power to methanol plant and the miserable efficiency. In the simulation assumption, 35 MWh iron-air batteries cost € 420,000. Why use them if 100 kW power to methanol is assumed to cost only €300,000? With 100 kW, the system produces 10 liters per hour and requires 2,000 hours until the tank is full. In contrast, the iron-air battery with C=0.01 is still extremely fast-charging. A full charge in 2,000 hours is C=0.0005.
There are 3 different reasons for storing electricity. The earth's rotation, there is no solar power at night. The weather, surplus when the sun is shining, shortage when the clouds are thick, the tilt of the earth's axis, which causes different yields in summer and winter. Now each of these reasons can be assigned an optimal storage technology:
As the simulation for off-grid fast-charging settlements is in Africa, most of the locations are close to the equator. As a curiosity, Rome, Salzburg, Berlin and Aalborg in Denmark were also included. There is a 1:4 difference between the best locations and Aalborg. In addition to the lower yield, there is more electricity in the lossy summer/winter balance and a costly 200 kW power-to-methanol plant. It is simulated with the solar yields for each hour over 16 years. The results are then calculated for 5, 10, 15, 20 years amortization and with 10, 15, 20, 25 cents per kWh calorific value of methanol. Sale of methanol at 30% of the purchase price. The best results in the electricity generation price and in the balance sheet are then sought over 7 load points in each case, for example 140 kW to 260 kW or 180 kW to 300 kW when selling at 20 cents kWh at the rapid charging station. The first 10 places are then awarded 20, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1. The points from the price and balance competition are then multiplied for each combination. 
Here is an example of the top 10 of a place / year / price methanol combination
I assumed that the winner would have significantly more iron-air batteries and power to methanol. When I added power to methanol to the simulation software, I simulated with 400 kW and was surprised at the significant deterioration in the results. But not the expected miracle cure, so simulate with 0, 100, 200, 300, 400 kW power to methanol. The simulation puts 5 MWh of sodium batteries and 6 MWh of iron-air batteries on the winning test, which really surprised me. What would happen without all the new technology? Even 6th and 7th place are occupied by sodium batteries and nothing else. The first combination with 100 kW power to methanol only lands in 14th place.
Cheering reports such as “Solar power covered 120% of electricity demand today at 13:00” are as stupid as “The dragster completed the 1/4 mile in 3.7 seconds”. It's great how this dragster accelerates from 0 to 100 in 0.6 seconds, but any vehicle suitable for everyday use would beat it at the Nürburgring because the dragster's engine is not designed for 22 km and corners are extremely problematic. Where do such cost optimization studies for the German energy transition exist? How can it be that they do not exist? If you are of the destructive opinion that the taxpayer simply has to pay for everything, then you don't come up with the idea of carrying out cost optimization studies.
Net zero emissions means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level that nature can absorb. For the rich, this means Maintain poverty, cause poverty, so that enough emission rights remain for the rich.
Planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2 means around 47,000 TWh of electricity to filter 1 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere and recycle it into carbon and oxygen. Who can afford that? Only a rich humanity, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it.
It is a decision between 3 directions:
It's not about whether the shares will be worth 10 times or 100 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal? Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that there is no solution that is even remotely viable. On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy. It's about survival! The social situation in 2024 compared to 2004. Extrapolating that to 2044 makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements. One new shareholder said "I with my very modest investment”, but €4,000 times €1,000 is also €4 million for all investments up to the opening of the settlement in Unken as a starting point for global expansion. There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program. Here are the details. |
