In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 3 May 2009 17:55:33 -0500: Hi,
One might expect any chemical battery to have a cost in the same ballpark as lead-acid batteries, and molten salt has the potential to be far cheaper, particularly where large volumes are used (cost of the containment goes as the surface area, while energy stored goes as the volume). The salt itself is about 1000 times cheaper for energy storage than batteries. Note that chemical storage does get cheaper if one can store large volumes of chemical e.g. Hydrogen, or some hydrocarbon, in a single tank. >On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, grok <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Surely there must be a simple teknology in the pipeline which will allow >> the storage of large amounts of electrical power on-site at any power >> generation site. > >There is: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery > >Terry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
