AirBattery- Seems pretty dodgy to me.

[gnuarm]

Even if the become more common they don't get much cheaper.

That is a self contradiction.  Most technologies fit a price demand structure where a ten fold increase in volume provides a halving of cost.

One of the main ways (and lowest costs) for storrage is pumped hydroelectric power and this is in many regions limited by the available places. So new installations will become more expensive than the existing ones.

Again, that does not follow since the cost of storage can be mitigated by increased quantity. 

Not everything gets cheaper when needed in larger numbers / quantities. Some things like computer chips do, but other things that are rare (e.g. oil, gold or antiques) the price goes up when the demand rises. For things like the pressurized tanks a main part of the price is just plain steel and even when they build more tanks the steel won't get much cheaper. Similar with concrete to build dams that is already made in quantities. Labor costs can go down, but the raw materials usually not.

Raw materials can be very pricey in small quantities.  It is only when utilized in larger quantities that mass production techniques can be used to lower the price.  What you are talking about is using materials to the point of scarcity and the short term response to rising demand.  In any industry a stable rise in demand will be met with more production lowering the cost of production and the selling price.

In production, this cost/quantity relation is a very common guideline.  You keep talking about steel when the tanks are not made of steel.  Materials may get somewhat cheaper, but the savings mostly comes from advances in the production process which includes finding ways to reduce the material quantities.  Every industry goes through optimizations early on.  This design is no different and is in the very early days. 

The awailable technology with the lowest cost would ideally set the price. Because of limited availablity pumped hydro may not be that in many areas (e.g. Australia). So it would be the next best technology.

Not sure why you are talking about that.

For seasonal storage the costs for the energy used (in times of excess power, e.g in summer) can be very low (e.g. 1-2 cents / kWh), well below the year round average for the production.

I've never seen any real numbers talking about even 2 cents per kWh for solar or wind much less 1 cent.  The fuel cost is more than that much for fossil fuels.

So efficiency does not really matter.

Of course it matters.  More than doubling your costs is a hard thing to sweep under the carpet.

Things are different for the storage on a daily basis - here the price on some days can be substantial and much less money earned from the energy released.  So far my best guess is batteries for the daily cylce and hydrogen gas (maybe with the extra step to CH4) for the long term part. Where available pumped hydro can be used and may be cheaper then hydrogen, but where not enough it would not set the price.

What do you do with hydrogen exactly?  Where/how is it made?  I've never seen any plan for hydrogen that was economically feasible. 

The proposed compessed air does not look like it can compete with the existng batteries. Not for the costs and not for the effciency. For seasonabl storage it is hopeless from the start because of the costs. There is no chance to get a 1 m³ tank for costs in the sub $10 range - the scap value for the steel tends to be higher and it does not get better when larger.

Except that you don't have any information to compare the two... and you keep talking about steel. 

[Kleinstein]

Raw materials can be very pricey in small quantities.  It is only when utilized in larger quantities that mass production techniques can be used to lower the price.  What you are talking about is using materials to the point of scarcity and the short term response to rising demand.  In any industry a stable rise in demand will be met with more production lowering the cost of production and the selling price.

Steel and concrete are already produced in quanteties and they don't get cheaper if you need 20% mode. It is more that both need quite some energy that the costs there are expected to go up.
For the compressed air tanks I take steel as the baseline, as this is the industry standard and it would be odd if there is something much cheaper and not used instead. The numbers for the air battery are so poor that even a factor of 10 reduction in the price would hardly make them really competative (a factor 100 may). Assuming multiple new technologies with unrealistic improvement on existing state of the art is a common thing for doggy technology scums.

I've never seen any real numbers talking about even 2 cents per kWh for solar or wind much less 1 cent.  The fuel cost is more than that much for fossil fuels.

New large scale PV and wind installations reach costs of some 5 cents (sometimes 3 cent's at a good location) for the year round average. This is comparable to fossile fuel costs - so what. The problem with large scale use is that lack of storrage and thus not a fixed year round value. In times of high demand they get a higher price (e.g. up to 50 cents) and in times of excess supply they have to give it away essentially for free (at lest well below the average costs) unless there are government subsedies. In Germany the whole sale electricity price occasionally even gets negative, because there is not enough storage capacity to use it and small scale PV usually does not turn off because they get paid a fixed rate (subsedies).

They don't need to install extra PV to provide electricity just for storrage. The PV installation would still make most of there money in times when no storrage, or only the daily cycle is needed. The long term storrage would use the surplus in times of excess.

Storage lives from the variations and it will work against variations in the price. However with a reduction in fossile power plants there are also factors to make the supply more variable and thus cause more variations.  There will be a balance somewhere, when the price variations are so to make extra storrage about profitable. For most of the part the prices would adapt and the lowest cost storrage will have a chance, even if that means getting the excess energy for free or very high rates in the peak times.

[IanB]

For the compressed air tanks I take steel as the baseline, as this is the industry standard and it would be odd if there is something much cheaper and not used instead.

Their literature and publicity material says they use some form of polymer construction. So the discussion should try to reference what they actually tell about their system.

[gnuarm]

Raw materials can be very pricey in small quantities.  It is only when utilized in larger quantities that mass production techniques can be used to lower the price.  What you are talking about is using materials to the point of scarcity and the short term response to rising demand.  In any industry a stable rise in demand will be met with more production lowering the cost of production and the selling price.

Steel and concrete are already produced in quanteties and they don't get cheaper if you need 20% mode. It is more that both need quite some energy that the costs there are expected to go up.
For the compressed air tanks I take steel as the baseline, as this is the industry standard and it would be odd if there is something much cheaper and not used instead.

You will need to take that up with the manufacturer.  Explain to them how they are wrong and should be using steel. 

The numbers for the air battery are so poor that even a factor of 10 reduction in the price would hardly make them really competative (a factor 100 may). Assuming multiple new technologies with unrealistic improvement on existing state of the art is a common thing for doggy technology scums.

Sorry, what numbers are you talking about???

I've never seen any real numbers talking about even 2 cents per kWh for solar or wind much less 1 cent.  The fuel cost is more than that much for fossil fuels.

New large scale PV and wind installations reach costs of some 5 cents (sometimes 3 cent's at a good location) for the year round average. This is comparable to fossile fuel costs - so what. The problem with large scale use is that lack of storrage and thus not a fixed year round value. In times of high demand they get a higher price (e.g. up to 50 cents) and in times of excess supply they have to give it away essentially for free (at lest well below the average costs) unless there are government subsedies. In Germany the whole sale electricity price occasionally even gets negative, because there is not enough storage capacity to use it and small scale PV usually does not turn off because they get paid a fixed rate (subsedies).

Yeah, that's a problem with management and not an issue inherent to renewable energy itself.  Anyone can screw things up and it's hard to not screw things up temporarily.

They don't need to install extra PV to provide electricity just for storrage. The PV installation would still make most of there money in times when no storrage, or only the daily cycle is needed. The long term storrage would use the surplus in times of excess.

Hmmm... I think what you just said is that they have already installed the PV required to utilize storage.  But that still doesn't justify inefficient storage when efficient storage is just as available.

Storage lives from the variations and it will work against variations in the price. However with a reduction in fossile power plants there are also factors to make the supply more variable and thus cause more variations.  There will be a balance somewhere, when the price variations are so to make extra storrage about profitable. For most of the part the prices would adapt and the lowest cost storrage will have a chance, even if that means getting the excess energy for free or very high rates in the peak times.

I don't fully understand what you are saying, but it sounds like you think there is free energy on the market and that somehow justifies inefficient storage.  I guess we will find out.  I suspect the flaw in your argument is that once the storage is built and utilizing the "free" energy, it won't be free anymore and the lower cost, low efficiency storage will no longer be economical. 

Don't confuse temporary market conditions with a stable, functional energy economy.