Liquid nitrogen generator engine

[sicetaitsimple]

[
The economic calculation is simple: take the example of a 6 KWp solar installation with an annual consumption of 6 MWh. Let's take a self-consumption rate of 40% without batteries and 90% with the storage of E. Dupont .........

I hadn't really looked at it (the math), but it's wrong. You implicitly consider that the efficiency of the storage installation is 100%.

[ENERC]

But 2000/2500 € that seems ambitious to me. Moreover, the system should be extremely flexible in terms of charge / discharge power, which is not the main quality of cryogenic processes.

I went out of curiosity to see the price of the storage canister which seems to me to be the most expensive part. It is not that expensive in fact: 1200 € per unit FOB (you have to add transport and taxes) for 175 Liters, which would make 28 kWh according to E. Dupont data.
Maximum working pressure (MPa): 1.4 MPa
Dimension (L * W * H): 508MM * 1500mm
Weight: 110kg


The electric motor costs pennies, so remains the compressor / exchanger part which is not high technology. IF I understood correctly it is cylinder, piston and exchangers for water.

For flexibility, with an asynchronous motor you can provide the power you want by controlling the phase advance.

[Eric DUPONT]

If you have a liquid nitrogen storage of 20 kWh available which draws 6 KW in charge and supplies 5 kW max in discharge for 2000-2500 €, I will buy it from you.

Do you want to kill him, our E. Dupont?

No, quite the contrary.
The economic calculation is simple: take the example of a 6 KWp solar installation with an annual consumption of 6 MWh. Let us take a self-consumption rate of 40% without batteries and 90% with the storage of E. Dupont. This in Brittany for example (1kWh / Wp / year).
Case without battery:
- I buy 60% of my energy -> 720 € (I rounded up to 0,2 € per kWh)
- sells the 60% at 6ct to Enercoop -> 216 € of income [as it exceeds 3KW no subsidized contract possible at 10 ct]
Annual cost 504 €

With storage:
- I buy 10% of my energy -> 120 €
- sells it 10% at 6ct to Enercoop -> 36 € of receipts
Annual cost 84 €

If my storage costs € 2500, I need 6 years to amortize it (2500 / (504-84)).

So like Remundo, I think it's a really big market. The advantage is that we can now position ourselves on low volumes and that it will gradually increase to reach a few billion € per year in the years to come (in Europe alone).
1 billion is only 500 units at € 000 each. We will be well above for storage.

It is also easier to design a 5kW machine with a 100 L nitrogen container than to build a plant in the MW unit. And it can work commercially if it comes in the nails at the price level.
It doesn't seem to me that it takes astronomical sums to make a prototype. The hardest part is surely to find a box to machine the parts.

you say :

a 6 kW installation to produce 6000 kw. that seems to me a little low compared to the average consumption per capita. how do you recharge the battery of the electric car with 6000 kWh / year, do you heat the water and the house? you don't say how much you pay for the installation of 6 kw, do you buy panels at 20 cents per watt / peak that you plant in the garden?
a 6 kw installation for an individual is at least 10000 euros?
for a ground-based plant in your village with, for example, 200 inhabitants who meet for a 1,2 MW installation the cost will be three frois cheaper and the use of the network will be the same since you say that you still have to in case storage buy 10%.

enrcop will not buy you 6 cents per kwh for the 500000 units that you plan, maybe if there is only you.

I don't think this is the best scheme. you rather have an interest in investing the money of your 6 kw in a ground-based power plant of a common project. you will have 3 times more production. for self-consumption with battery the problem is the 50% or 10% which binds you to the network. you will not pay 20 cents per kwh again if everyone installs photovoltaic panels and consumes at the same time during the peak hour in winter, the 10% of energy will be very expensive, to do this you have more interest in investing in a company which will buy energy at low cost to the network, to store the energy to resell it when all the pocessor of photovoltaic panel with a limited system of storage will need it.

the gains that you present in your diagram are uncertain.

if you count on edf to invest in efficient energy storage, it's blah, two years ago edf it's windy becoming the leader in energy storage and investing a lot of money in capacity storage, the problem they did not choose the right ones since at the same time in English the energy storage system by liquid nitrogen or liquid air is developed according to a technology a little different from NTERK (the heat of compression is recovered and store, not at NTERK). On the other hand EDF keeps repeating that there can be no nuclear energy transition than the future is nuclear. the truth is that EDF has no future without nuclear power (apart from dementation and storage ... of waste).

It therefore seems inconceivable to me that only EDF with RTE would be able to reinject the energy previously stored in liquid nitrogen. This means that an industrialist can buy electricity when it is at its lowest, consume part of it for its own needs, EN reinject into the network during peak periods without EDF really having a say.

then for the electric car, NTERK is also developing a liquid nitrogen battery from 5 to 10 kwh which will be able to recharge a small battery in a vehicle adapted for this generator. But it should cost rather 10 to 15000 euros for this energy storage system, which will allow manufacturers to sell their stock of liquid nitrogen at a good price without reinjecting them into the network.

[Remundo]

the question, Eric, is not what seems conceivable or inconceivable to you, but what RTE, Enedis and the State decide on as legislation for access and use of the network.

Even if you created a fabulous high-performance liquid N2 storage system, it would surprise me if RTE left the toy in the hands of competitors for large installations; it will reserve the right to inject for itself, as regulator of the network and guarantor of its balance, but will prohibit injection for the others, by limiting them to strict self-consumption, or then perhaps potters for mini installations of a few kW, with of course low-cost subscriptions (withdrawal + injection).

In any case if I were at RTE, it would seem to me the most profitable and completely legal by the statutes and the history of the company

It would be necessary to make calculations to know if liquid N2 is capable of being an alternative to large hydropower (natural dams and WWTP). At first intuition, it seems very flexible to me to use, but the question of efficiency remains, modern WWTPs manage to restore 80% of the energy withdrawn. Reaching 60-70% with liquid N2 would not be ridiculous because it retains the advantage of being installed anywhere in the territory, unlike hydraulics, which has enormous relief constraints.

Once again, the debate is not in the regulatory blabla or the financial calculations of apothecary, but in the development of the technique, the rest will follow one way or another.

[sicetaitsimple]

In any case if I were at RTE, it would seem to me the most profitable and completely legal by the statutes and the history of the company

No, at least for RTE (therefore in France). RTE is not authorized to produce and must obtain all "system services" (frequency control, balancing mechanism, contractual load shedding, reserve capacity, etc.) from producers or (large) consumers ( load shedding) via calls for tenders.

It depends on the country, from memory in Italy, TERNA, the equivalent of RTE, installs batteries, but more to resolve network congestion problems, not for the purpose of arbitration.

[Eric DUPONT]

According to you, Remundo, RTE if a liquid nitrogen storage system exists, they would not leave it to the competition, but at the same time they have a monopoly, and that therefore if a liquid nitrogen storage system exists, RTE would prohibit it. its use to be reserved and used ... when they want to ... maybe. under these conditions how do you want an investor to participate in the development of such a system if it is RTE which dictates its law, according to what you tell me?

[Remundo]

your question would it not be a little "rubbish"?

The answers to your question are in my recent posts on this thread.

[Eric DUPONT]

Even if you created a fabulous high-performance liquid N2 storage system, it would surprise me if RTE left the toy in the hands of competitors for large installations; it will reserve the right to inject for itself, as regulator of the network and guarantor of its balance, but will prohibit injection for the others, by limiting them to strict self-consumption, or then perhaps potters for mini installations of a few kW, with of course low-cost subscriptions (withdrawal + injection).

In any case if I were at RTE, it would seem to me the most profitable and completely legal by the statutes and the history of the company
.

So you mean that rte could not refuse a manufacturer to buy energy to store it and resell it by reinjecting it into the network?

[sicetaitsimple]

So you mean that rte could not refuse a manufacturer to buy energy to store it and resell it by reinjecting it into the network?

Why would RTE do it, since its job is to TRANSPORT electricity?

PS: that said, before you have a project likely to be connected in 63kV or more, you have time to think about it ... It should especially not that it distracts you from the point of your demonstrator from 4 to 10kW.

[Remundo]

So you mean that rte could not refuse a manufacturer to buy energy to store it and resell it by reinjecting it into the network?

in my opinion you are currently in a legal vacuum with your liquid N2. But subject to checking.

on batteries, I don't even know if there are companies that do this by injection (but in autoconso, yes). I don't even know if it's authorized by Enedis.

I know that some hydraulic contracts provided for this (locks) for independent producers, we let the water rise in a dam at off-peak hours and we turbinate very hard at peak hours, even at peak winter to empty the dam.