Organic Flow Battery funded by the ARPA-E begins commercial development in Europe

[Bill USA]

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/harvards-organic-flow-battery-under-development-in-europe

Last year, the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences demonstrated a flow battery concept in the laboratory that used organic quinone molecules as the basis for its electrolyte.

It caused plenty of excitement. The most expensive component of flow systems is often the electrolyte. Many current and prototype systems use elements such as vanadium, which can be both expensive and difficult to source, so a widely available organic alternative has the potential to dramatically reduce costs for flow technology.

And because the key component is biodegradable, it wouldn't be a potential hazard in the case of an accident, or when the system needed to be decommissioned.

After the findings were published in Nature, the project immediately attracted interest. As soon as Emilio Sassone Corsi at the Italian consulting firm Management Innovation read about the breakthrough, he jumped on a plane from Rome to Boston for a meeting with Dr. Aziz, the battery project's director, to discuss the opportunities for commercialization.
(more)

Organic mega flow battery promises breakthrough for renewable energy

Cambridge, Mass. – January 8, 2014 – A team of Harvard scientists and engineers has demonstrated a new type of battery that could fundamentally transform the way electricity is stored on the grid, making power from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar far more economical and reliable.

The novel battery technology is reported in a paper published in Nature on January 9. Under the OPEN 2012 program, the Harvard team received funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) to develop the innovative grid-scale battery and plans to work with ARPA-E to catalyze further technological and market breakthroughs over the next several years.

The paper reports a metal-free flow battery that relies on the electrochemistry of naturally abundant, inexpensive, small organic (carbon-based) molecules called quinones, which are similar to molecules that store energy in plants and animals.

The mismatch between the availability of intermittent wind or sunshine and the variability of demand is the biggest obstacle to getting a large fraction of our electricity from renewable sources. A cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy could solve this problem.
(more)

When Conservative twits bring up Solyndra just mention this.

[GliderGuider]

1. Who fucking cares?

It. Doesn't. Matter.

For 35 years they knew what they were doing , and they killed us anyway. Read it and weep.

Big Oil’s decades of deception: Report reveals that Exxon’s known the truth about climate science since 1981

Batteries will not save us. Nothing will. The damage has been done, we are dead men walking.

[mackdaddy]

2. Try this video clip from 1958 on CO2 and global warming.

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 01:31 AM - Edit history (1)

only 2 minute clip, but important part start at 30 seconds.

Looks like the entire 1 hr film on weather including this clip on climate change from1958 is also on youtube.

[Bill USA]

3. I share your disgust with Oil industry's perfidies. But I cannot agree with giving up on fighting GW

I believe that we can still slow GW and hold out the hope that in the future a technology for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere will be developed. This will be needed as even with adoption of renewable energy technologies, there will still be a massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that will need to be removed.

Nonetheless, it is going to get considerably worse (just how much worse nobody knows for certain, but why would we do nothing just to see how bad it can actually get?) before it gets better. I think whatever we can do to slow down GW will buy us time to develop CO2 extraction technologies as well of course, for the adoption of Renewable energy technologies.

What is particularly exasperating to me is that there are well meaning people who too often approach this problem in a way that does not always put facts and scientific analysis first - sometimes parroting nonsense first promulgated by Oil Industry shills (e.g. Tad Patzek) or repeating urban legends long since debunked (okay, but not publicized in general media). This really jeopardizes and slows any progress we might be able to make.


Here's a excellent report on Big Oil's machinations ( in particular, underwriting of phony research)...(subj of Goodman's interview of the author)

Big Oil Goes to College: BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell Fund & Influence Research at Major Universities: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/18/big_oil_goes_to_college_bp

AMY GOODMAN: The world’s largest oil companies aren’t just heavyweights in the world of Washington lobbyists; they’re also showing a great deal of interest in financing energy research at major American universities. According to a new report released by the Center for American Progress, five of the world’s top ten oil companies — ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips — give millions — have been giving millions over the last decade to support energy research at America’s top universities. The private funds might fill a gap left by declining public investment, but the report warns they also pose the risk of hijacking the universities’ research agenda and compromising academic independence.

Top Obama administration officials, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy Steven Koonin, strongly advocate using industry money to advance research on clean energy. Prior to joining the administration, both Chu and Koonin were instrumental in brokering a $500 million research collaboration between the British oil giant BP and three major publicly financed research institutions — University of California, Berkeley; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The report provides a detailed examination of ten university-industry agreements that exceed $800 million. It looks at grants awarded to Arizona State University; Stanford; the University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Davis; Colorado School of Mines; University of Colorado, Boulder; Colorado State University; Georgia Institute of Technology; Iowa State University; Texas A&M; the University of Texas at Austin; and Rice University. The report is called "Big Oil Goes to College."

I’m joined now from San Francisco by the author of the report, investigative journalist Jennifer Washburn.

Big Oil Goes to College - An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities - Center for American Progress

◾ In nine of the 10 energy-research agreements we analyzed, the university partners failed to retain majority academic control over the central governing body charged with directing the university-industry alliance.[font color="red"] Four of the 10 alliances actually give the industry sponsors full governance control[/font].

◾ Eight of the 10 agreements permit the corporate sponsor or sponsors to fully control both the evaluation and selection of faculty research proposals in each new grant cycle.

◾ None of the 10 agreements requires faculty research proposals to be evaluated and awarded funding based on independent expert peer review, the traditional method for awarding academic and scientific research grants fairly and impartially based on scientific merit.

◾ Eight of the 10 alliance agreements fail to specify transparently, in advance, how faculty may apply for alliance funding, and what the specific evaluation and selection criteria will be.
(more)

[StevieM]

4. I agree that at this point geo-engineering is our only hope. But how much damage will be done before

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

it is possible....if it is ever possible? By the time we figure something out it could be that the damage is done and it is irreversible. I have even heard that climate change could have an affect on the spread, and deadliness, of infectious diseases.

And what about methane from animals? That will be especially hard to reduce. And I am not sure if geo-engineering, even if possible for carbon dioxide, would apply so easily to methane.

Of course, I am more than interested in any information you have to share. I don't want to give up. But I have reached the point where I am glad not to have children on this dying planet. I shudder to think about what the world will look like in 50 years.