The world’s largest demonstration plant for a new kind of renewable energy storage is up and running in the west of the China. Called liquid-air energy storage (LAES) the plant uses renewable electricity to compress air to extreme densities until it turns to liquid. It can then be rapidly released to power a turbine and discharge that green energy back into the grid.
This is really cool. Seems so simple yet elegant.
Terrible article.
- It claims the facility is rated at 600 MWh, and then later claims it’s rated at 400 MWh of energy storage.
- It does not say how much power it has.
- It does not say anything about the efficiency of this storage.
- When it does the roughest cost comparison to Lithium battery storage they say it costs at least 33 cents on the dollar. What’s that supposed to mean, it could also cost 50 cents on the dollar or 80 cents on the dollar, but at least 33 cents on the dollar? Who needs a lower floor on the cost?
it is 600mwh dischargeable storage. it produces power at 60mw rated, 65mw peak. It is 50% efficiency range. At this demo size it is $131/kwh storage cost (including all compression/turbine costs). It could be lower at higher storage size, where storage is half the cost of deploying extra batteries. Sure, this is a poor article on the project.
Standard chinese fluff piece
400MWh is the size of the one being planned in Vermont, which would have been the largest commercial system if the states had actually built it. If you follow the link in the article to the story about that one it gives a range of cost per Wh comparing this to hydro storage and lithium ion.
This source names the place, Golmud, and says the power is 60 MW
https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2026/11/8/worlds-largest-liquid-air-energy-storage-project-connects-to-grid-in-chinaA 60 MW liquid air energy storage (LAES) demonstration project developed by China Green Development Investment Group connected to the grid and began generating electricity in Golmud, Qinghai Province, on October 30, 2026.
Thanks for this article that is much better than the original one from the post … although it is still limited in regards to the (obvious) separation of gases when in liquid phases. Yet, it does hint at that separation by saying :
An air purification system removes moisture, carbon dioxide and other impurities to support reliable operation of the cryogenic process.
We see why they keep their industrial secrets simply reading what they disclose as their source (from China) :
Source: Project information published by the Golmud Municipal Government.
This source says that efficiency wasn’t published, but at least it discusses some typical values
https://climatesolutions.news/spotlight/china-liquid-air-energy-storage-golmudHowever, the developer hasn’t published a round-trip efficiency figure for Golmud. Industry estimates put liquid air energy storage at 50% to 60% on average, rising to 60% to 70% with advanced heat recovery. Lithium-ion batteries typically return well over 80% of the power they take in.
Basically liquid nitrogen? I guess its a question of how much energy you have to put in to get it to expand rapidly enough. Presumably just exposing it to atmospheric conditions will be quite a slow expansion.
But maybe , at scale, that’s enough to get astable flow into a turbine.
It doesn’t sound quite as convenient as pumped hydro (in terms of controllability) but if you don’t need a lake at top of mountain, then that’s cool.
If you go to pressured tanks, wouldn’t hydrogen via electrolysis/fuel cells be a more capable and efficient storage option? What’s the energy density compared?
Idk about the cryogenic/liquified part of it but h2(g) is really corrosive and notorious bad for all kinds of storages because of that. Also imo h2 isn’t the best storage because it is too valuable in industry processes, a good way to get rid of excess energy but not to feed energy back into the system.
The other part being the energy put into the electrolysis, yes h2 has more energy, but a whole extra process + buffer storage and turbines and compressors that are h2-able.
N2 is inert
Consuming the excess energy is also good, even if it never goes back when production is low.
If a factory that makes H2 all the time is converted to one that only makes H2 when there is excess energy, you turned an energy consumer into a grid stabilizer which in addition creates other kinds of value. It would serve the same purpose as a battery.
Since it went from being an energy consumer, to an excess-energy consumer. Consuming excess energy is good for the system, and you reduced demand when there is little supply, which is very similar to just increasing supply when there is little (what a battery does).
This goes for basically any product (that is not the bottleneck of course). You just pay for storage of that product instead of energy storage. You also need more production capacity though. Which is expensive since a machine that stays idle is just “being wasted”.
Fair points, except for the value of H2, it really does not matter that much in a process that both produces and consumes it. The most efficient storage system, at least for anything that is more than just very short term is still pumping water up and let it flow down. It can also store immense amounts of energy given one has the geography to build such system. Which is also the main limitation. I guess we are looking for the second best storage system here.
I doubt that for day cycle compensation anything can beat battery systems. But the issue is seasonal storage.
H2 is used for many other products (steel reduction, ammonia), right now its produced from methane. If we were to replace methane with a green source (aka when green storage systems would also be a big part of the ecosystem) then we’d need to replace it or the price for anything would explode, because we can’t produce anything without steel nor ammonia.
So its not really of much value right now, but if we want to make everything CO2 neutral, then hydrogen will be expensive. So noone will just produce it and not sell it. At least that is my prediction.
That is all besides the point though in a process where H2 is both produced and consumed, as long as that process is competitive with other storage solutions. It appears it isn’t, even compared to air compression, as I found out in the meanwhile. However there is no technological reason why one would need some carbon source for producing H2. Electrolysis from water is a well established process.
That is all besides the point though in a process where H2 is both produced and consumed, as long as that
I wouldn’t produce 1g silver when I produce 1g gold in the process, I make more money with the gold,. Thats why it isn’t competitive.
It appears it isn’t, even compared to air compression,
efficiency of green hydrogen is low and storage of it is hard, fuel cell efficiency is also low I think it ends up with about a 20% efficiency but don’t quote me on that. Also you’d like to sell it to the industry anyways. But they take it from cheap gray sources right now so whatever.
However there is no technological reason why one would need some carbon source for producing H2. Electrolysis from water is a well established process.
The scales of electrolysis aren’t as big yet (maybe now idk, but 2-3 years ago they weren’t), compared to methane processes. They also don’t produce their own energy, they take energy instead! (Get 2 H2 from CH4 and burn the C to CO2, compared to electrolysis which takes energy)
If it were competitive to run that process for storage, H2 prices would take a dive. H2 prices are just a symptom, not the cause for H2 being not competitive for storage.
Fuel cell efficiency is certainly not commonly as low as 20%. As far as I understand it is commonly 40-60%.
Electrolysis requiring energy is the whole point of a storage technology.
So a different kind of steam.
Still spinning a turbine, but not steam. Almost all power is spinning a turbine, from hydro, to coal, nuclear, and this apparently. It isn’t always steam though. Thermal power usually is, but others are spinning it with something else.
It is powered by phase change of a liquid, so almost steam.
Yeah all air is steamed air
Yeah all air is steamed air
In a way I would say it’s pretty different, right? At room temperature, water needs a lot of energy to turn and keep turning into steam, while at first glance it would seem that air could be kept liquid at room temperature (of course after using energy to compress it) without using (much?) energy, then release that energy in a useful form when you need it.
I was joking about the “it’s always just steam” in energy production.
This here is just inverse steam for storing.Got it! Inverse steam is a good way to describe it.
not the best article, but this shit is awesome! 600mwh is a demo project in China.
This matches battery deployment costs in china if the compressor is half power. It is cheaper with more storage. Batteries don’t scale much lower in cost with more of them. So, if you need want an extra 600mwh+ of storage that can charge slower than batteries (but at the same time) then this is perfect.
Solar in southern Canada needs H2 electrolysis in summer to provide baseload in winter. Lots of storage needed to run baseload+electrolysis 24/7 in summer, and winter resilience. This tech is only 50% efficient, but current market for pure H2 is minimal, and Ammonia production is both its main use, and a massively larger market. Also, ammonia is massively larger volumetric energy density, and easy to store. A giant solar farm in Canada can pair with electric haber bosch plant to produce ammonia from green H2, and LAES can provide pure N2. (Pure O2 is also separated by liquifaction). Haber Bosch plant can also provide even higher waste heat than its 200C pressured water extraction, boosting LAES efficiency.
This is also an energy storage abundance path with different skillset than batteries…
Is ammonia a larger market because they produce their own grey H2 in the process of making ammonia?
because they produce their own grey H2 in the process of making ammonia? yes.
By market, I mean most H2 is sold under contract next door to an ammonia plant instead of “marketed”. Ammonia has direct farming application use, as well as input to solid fertilizer. It’s also the most practical green energy trade/longer term storage molecule.This needs a huge amount of energy surplus to provide enough in the summer and using ammonia for heat/energy is in direct contrast to using it using it for the market isn’t it? Except when you’d only use the expansion of liquid to gaseous and then use gaseous ammonia in a nearby plant. My guess would be anything green H2 will be too high demand and expensive to use as a fuel
This needs a huge amount of energy surplus to provide enough in the summer
Yes, but you need huge summer surplus solar to provide baseload in winter too. Ammonia in great lakes/mid west region market price is very profitable from solar production in the area.
using ammonia for heat/energy is in direct contrast to using it using it for the market isn’t it?
It’s more about making unlimited ammonia and still having a use for it for someone in the world in some season.
My guess would be anything green H2 will be too high demand and expensive to use as a fuel
Solar based baseload pricing can work at 2c/kwh daytime summer, and 15-20c/kwh daytime winter. Where legacy plants are kept around for 2 months of the year. But Ammonia is competitive to make/store for the winter and deliver power at around that cost, especially through home/V2H fuel cells, but also at higher backup power pricing. You need ammonia winter reserve for spring sales anyway.
This would be perfect for North Africa and Australia where there is excellent solar capability but limited water and high ambient temps (not great for batteries)
Meanwhile, US cuts NSF funding.
They really want China to win.
They ‘won’ a long time ago, you just are now seeing them starting to get ahead.
I don’t know where the idea that there is a winner and a loser for everything came from? Probably the same dicks that invented patent trolling. Anyone can do anything if they put their minds and resources to it, and doing a good thing after someone else is not a loss.
China is just getting on with doing their thing, slightly more responsibly and sustainably than most who developed before. Usa and other 'wannabe usa’s (like where i live) seem to be content doing their things less responsibly and less sustainably.
It’s not China ‘winning’ in this scenario, they’re trying not to lose too much, or, to postpone losses, but are likely to have significant losses forced on them nonetheless.
I think it’s more of a “dickheads wantonly shitting on the fan scenario” than a “winner takes all”.
Won what? Unemployment is rampant, their real estate is in a state of crisis the west has never experienced and it looks like they‘re preparing for war as well. And with everything we‘ve learned about Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine that likely won‘t go in China‘s favor either.
This article on the other hand is just the weekly „China is decades ahead!“ fluff piece that will likely be forgotten this time next week after actual scientists had a look at it and found some plot holes in the story. Be it about the revolutionary nature of it or physical properties.
this is an old idea through, decades ago when i subscribed to Scientific American a front cover atory was about an idea was to use abandoned underground mines for massive compressed air storage that could be released to spin a turbines when needed. i e a battery
good to see the Chinese having a go though
Compressed air storage already exists. That’s different from liquid air storage.
How so? Its higher pressure, but still just compressed air storage. They use the energy released during decompression to generate electricity.
Is not compressed, when it becomes liquid it can be unpressurized and just needs thermal insulation to stay cold. That’s how gas works. Not about pressure at all. You can pump the liquid or let it drain into an unpressurized thermos.
You are right, i didnt read that far. It should be possible to turn and keep it liquid just through pressure at room temperature but i guess that wouldnt be practical.
It’s spinning turbines alllllllll the way down!
This implementation is first sensible path from battery systems price drops.
Wasn’t there something similar before, but using captured CO2?
Compressed air sounds like a good long term energy storage option since the losses over time must be pretty low.
Its liquid, so its probably also cooled down and pressurized
So what you’re saying is that it still consumes energy to keep the air in that liquid form making it not worth keeping longer then a certain amount of time.
Insulations can be pretty good idk. But yea there are losses. As for LNG, that has uses for many countries with no natural gas or pipeline, so it seems to be worth to cool NG down. Not sure about Air because the heat energy from burning NG makes it desirable to have.
But also liquids have the advantage of taking way less space and not as high of a pressure as simple compression because of that. Which one is preferred is situational, I just wanted to correct you that it is a liquid
There are a couple kinds of CAES. The best ones (“advanced” methods like adiabatic and isothermal) can have 70-80% roundtrip which is pretty good – and much better than the 40-60% that “conventional” CAES is good for. Like many other things it could definitely have its place in a heterogeneous mix.
Having something similar to pumped hydro in places that couldn’t do pumped hydro is pretty crazy.
… is up and running in the west of the China.
No. “in Chinas’ west ?” or " … ?" idk.
When electricity is plentiful, it powers machinery that draws in air, compresses it and cools it to extremely low temperatures of around -190°C. At this point, the air becomes a liquid, taking up far less space than it did as a gas.
No. Liquid fractions of gases from air readily separates. So O2(l), N2(l), Ar(g), and many other, each being much more valuable alone. Helium for example is very expensive.
(So, economically speaking, only the nitrogen should be expanded back to retrieve stored energy.)
in my opinion, this article could have been much better even if written by artificial intelligence.
It’s remote and it sounds like they’re not messing with separating the gas which costs more and needs more equipment and storage.
You are right but the article was wrong on the low temperature and “liquid air” point.
To know more i read a little bit here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage
it shows my comment was right as well.No, the entire point is that it’s a new liquid process type, not the traditional compressed only. That’s the news.
