Batteries are non-starters for mulit-hour grid storage. But the post is misleading on one respect. Tanks have to be charged too. In this case, what is fascinating
(if not astonishing) is they intend to do the liquifaction on site. Liquifying methane is very expensive. So I suspect the liquifaction plant will be quite small. If so, the cha…
Batteries are non-starters for mulit-hour grid storage. But the post is misleading on one respect. Tanks have to be charged too. In this case, what is fascinating
(if not astonishing) is they intend to do the liquifaction on site. Liquifying methane is very expensive. So I suspect the liquifaction plant will be quite small. If so, the charge time relative to capacity is probably worse than batteries.
I was very surprised to see that as well. It might explain the cost…at a heat rate of 8 GJ/MWh the Otter storage will he about 0.25 BCF, for a cost of $80 million or $320 million/BCF…that has to include the cost of all the equipment. Other storage transactions in the southern US last year were about $20 million/BCF.
Batteries are non-starters for mulit-hour grid storage. But the post is misleading on one respect. Tanks have to be charged too. In this case, what is fascinating
(if not astonishing) is they intend to do the liquifaction on site. Liquifying methane is very expensive. So I suspect the liquifaction plant will be quite small. If so, the charge time relative to capacity is probably worse than batteries.
I was very surprised to see that as well. It might explain the cost…at a heat rate of 8 GJ/MWh the Otter storage will he about 0.25 BCF, for a cost of $80 million or $320 million/BCF…that has to include the cost of all the equipment. Other storage transactions in the southern US last year were about $20 million/BCF.
Right. Dual fuel and an oil tanks would be far cheaper.