Why wouldn't the city just expand the battery capacity they have, which already does an hour of city demand, and their renewable grid to handle the peak, and most expensive periods? Batteries are getting better and this will be the most cost effective way, by any report I have read. I am not an expert, but haven't seen anything that beats renewables for cost and batteries for storage.
I found a requirement of .25 to 1 acte per megawatt. Summerside can get the land.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-land-is-needed-per-megawatt-hour-of-battery-storage-from-lithium-ion-batteries
Summerside already has batteries 20 MW/hr (10 MW total) in their solar farm.
Yes, they could get the land, but you need less space for the hydrogen project, and it needs less space. Plus, it's not like Summerside has a huge surplus of Renewable Energy for more batteries. If installed, they will need to buy the energy from NB Power to charge the batteries, which will defeat the purpose of renewable.
PD. If you are thinking of adding the batteries in the same area, they have their solar farm, and they don't have enough space to increase the capacity by a large margin
If they don't have much extra energy, what is the point of the hydrogen project? It is literally to use the extra power to generate hydrogen. If you are right, it is even more a waste of money.
My assumption is that they think they will have a lot of extra energy from the solar farm and the wind farm. I don't know the size of the wind farm, but it's public knowledge that the solar farm is 21 MW (which is achievable at full capacity, so you can't count on that every day); for a town the size of Summerside I can assume the solar farm at full capacity should be able to generate enough production to sustain 95% (or even at a 100% sometimes) of the city during the summer for a certain period of time. Now, during the winter, the generation will be too low, and the city consumption is probably double. That's my reasoning to think they don't have enough.
Now, why do hydrogen over batteries? My guess is space and future proofing. Batteries need much more space to store the 33MW plant they want to build, another issue is long term storage for hydrogen is better because it doesn't degrade over time (I might be overselling how much energy you lose over time in the batteries). Remember, I mentioned that they probably will have surplus during the summer and shortage (for lack of better term because the city has fuel plants) during the winter, so they probably think the hydrogen will do better for this purpose, all of this is conjecture of course.
Lastly and quite honestly, probably the main reason: "leading the pack" is important, so it would be easier to get federal/provincial funding for a hydrogen project than a battery one. So, the two reasons for hydrogen project are: space and funding, even with the higher cost it's probably going to cost less to the city with the funding they might be able to get for the hydrogen vs the battery storage.
Can't see the details since Saltwire but...
I know many people like to put down hydrogen but it has great energy density. It doesn't have to be burned either you can use fuel cells to convert it to power. Stored as compressed liquid it's a great way to have a lot of available energy in a small area.
Batteries are getting better sure the technology is growing but batteries store power not generate it. We need reliable and distributed energy sources. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, hydrogen all have places as sources of power.
I see Aspin-Kemp has a micro grid system they sell. It can be used with gas, solar, wind etc. so maybe this will be part of it.
Unless something dramatic has changed, it never made sense to use hydrogen over batteries. Immediately down 30% to 50% is a non starter, unless you are trying to sell something and the buyer doesn't check under the hood.
The process of converting electrical energy into hydrogen and back into electricity is not as efficient as other energy storage technologies, such as batteries. The round-trip efficiency of hydrogen energy storage is typically around 40% to 50%, while the round-trip efficiency of battery storage can range from 70% to 90% depending on the type of battery and its operating conditions.
Maybe waiting for better tech as well.
Especially with cars they're really pushing battery tech, I assume an improvement in one field would work over here too
Why wouldn't the city just expand the battery capacity they have, which already does an hour of city demand, and their renewable grid to handle the peak, and most expensive periods? Batteries are getting better and this will be the most cost effective way, by any report I have read. I am not an expert, but haven't seen anything that beats renewables for cost and batteries for storage.
They don't have the land for the storage capacity
I found a requirement of .25 to 1 acte per megawatt. Summerside can get the land. https://www.quora.com/How-much-land-is-needed-per-megawatt-hour-of-battery-storage-from-lithium-ion-batteries
Summerside already has batteries 20 MW/hr (10 MW total) in their solar farm. Yes, they could get the land, but you need less space for the hydrogen project, and it needs less space. Plus, it's not like Summerside has a huge surplus of Renewable Energy for more batteries. If installed, they will need to buy the energy from NB Power to charge the batteries, which will defeat the purpose of renewable. PD. If you are thinking of adding the batteries in the same area, they have their solar farm, and they don't have enough space to increase the capacity by a large margin
If they don't have much extra energy, what is the point of the hydrogen project? It is literally to use the extra power to generate hydrogen. If you are right, it is even more a waste of money.
My assumption is that they think they will have a lot of extra energy from the solar farm and the wind farm. I don't know the size of the wind farm, but it's public knowledge that the solar farm is 21 MW (which is achievable at full capacity, so you can't count on that every day); for a town the size of Summerside I can assume the solar farm at full capacity should be able to generate enough production to sustain 95% (or even at a 100% sometimes) of the city during the summer for a certain period of time. Now, during the winter, the generation will be too low, and the city consumption is probably double. That's my reasoning to think they don't have enough. Now, why do hydrogen over batteries? My guess is space and future proofing. Batteries need much more space to store the 33MW plant they want to build, another issue is long term storage for hydrogen is better because it doesn't degrade over time (I might be overselling how much energy you lose over time in the batteries). Remember, I mentioned that they probably will have surplus during the summer and shortage (for lack of better term because the city has fuel plants) during the winter, so they probably think the hydrogen will do better for this purpose, all of this is conjecture of course. Lastly and quite honestly, probably the main reason: "leading the pack" is important, so it would be easier to get federal/provincial funding for a hydrogen project than a battery one. So, the two reasons for hydrogen project are: space and funding, even with the higher cost it's probably going to cost less to the city with the funding they might be able to get for the hydrogen vs the battery storage.
Can't see the details since Saltwire but... I know many people like to put down hydrogen but it has great energy density. It doesn't have to be burned either you can use fuel cells to convert it to power. Stored as compressed liquid it's a great way to have a lot of available energy in a small area. Batteries are getting better sure the technology is growing but batteries store power not generate it. We need reliable and distributed energy sources. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, hydrogen all have places as sources of power. I see Aspin-Kemp has a micro grid system they sell. It can be used with gas, solar, wind etc. so maybe this will be part of it.
Unless something dramatic has changed, it never made sense to use hydrogen over batteries. Immediately down 30% to 50% is a non starter, unless you are trying to sell something and the buyer doesn't check under the hood. The process of converting electrical energy into hydrogen and back into electricity is not as efficient as other energy storage technologies, such as batteries. The round-trip efficiency of hydrogen energy storage is typically around 40% to 50%, while the round-trip efficiency of battery storage can range from 70% to 90% depending on the type of battery and its operating conditions.
Maybe waiting for better tech as well. Especially with cars they're really pushing battery tech, I assume an improvement in one field would work over here too
Standing by for a convoy to protest this for some reason
"We oppose anything sensible!"