Energy

A giant pit in Switzerland will soon house the world's most powerful redox flow battery

A giant pit in Switzerland will soon house the world's most powerful redox flow battery
Energy firm FlexBase is building a giant battery in this pit in northern Switzerland
Energy firm FlexBase is building a giant battery in this pit in northern Switzerland
View 4 Images
Energy firm FlexBase is building a giant battery in this pit in northern Switzerland
1/4
Energy firm FlexBase is building a giant battery in this pit in northern Switzerland
A redox flow battery uses liquid electrolytes stored in large tanks and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them
2/4
A redox flow battery uses liquid electrolytes stored in large tanks and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them
The battery will share real estate with a technology complex that also houses a data center, labs, and offices
3/4
The battery will share real estate with a technology complex that also houses a data center, labs, and offices
This enormous sandbox will eventually house the most powerful redox flow battery in the world for storing renewable energy
4/4
This enormous sandbox will eventually house the most powerful redox flow battery in the world for storing renewable energy
View gallery - 4 images

In northern Switzerland, a construction team is hard at work excavating a hole in the ground that will end up being over 88 ft (27 m) deep, and spanning the length of two soccer pitches. This pit will be home to Switzerland's first redox flow battery for storing clean energy – and it'll be the most powerful of its kind in the world.

The idea is to utilize a storage technology that's nearly 150 years old to prevent blackouts, and help stabilize Swiss and European power grids in times of fluctuating demand. It's being built by Swiss energy company FlexBase, and the project is set to cost over a billion dollars.

"We will be able to inject or absorb up to 1.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in a few milliseconds," FlexBase co-founder Marcel Aumer told Swiss public broadcaster RTS earlier this month, presumably referring to the battery’s ability to rapidly switch between charging and discharging, as GWh measures energy capacity rather than instantaneous transfer rate.

This enormous sandbox will eventually house the most powerful redox flow battery in the world for storing renewable energy
This enormous sandbox will eventually house the most powerful redox flow battery in the world for storing renewable energy

That's equivalent to the output of the Leibstadt nuclear power plant located in the same region, near the German border. The giant battery will be fed with excess energy generated by wind turbines.

The tech theoretically dates back to 1879, and was modernized through NASA research between the 1950s and 70s. While lithium-ion batteries are more common and have improved and become more affordable, they're mostly suitable for short-term energy storage. Redox flow batteries are a better choice for long-term, grid-scale storage – and FlexBase says the various components needed for them, like tanks, membranes, cell stacks and pumps, have become cheaper as the industry has matured in recent years.

A redox flow battery works by storing energy in liquid electrolytes. Two chemical components that are high in water content are stored in large tanks, and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them. When the battery is charging, ions transfer through the membrane from the positive to the negative side – changing the oxidation state and storing energy indefinitely. The opposite reaction occurs when it's discharging, and these charge cycles are inert.

A redox flow battery uses liquid electrolytes stored in large tanks and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them
A redox flow battery uses liquid electrolytes stored in large tanks and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them

This makes the life of the battery practically limitless. Plus, it's non-flammable, and almost completely recyclable at the end of its service life.

The Swiss battery has a capacity of 2.1 GWh, which is estimated to be enough to supply 210,000 households with power for an entire day. Beyond preventing outages, this one will also be tasked with meeting high demand from AI data centers in the area. It's significantly higher in capacity than China's 700-MWh Xinhua Ushi project, which is currently the largest operational redox flow battery. Japan and Germany are big on this technology too.

The battery will share real estate with a technology complex that also houses a data center, labs, and offices
The battery will share real estate with a technology complex that also houses a data center, labs, and offices

FlexBase hopes to get this battery up and running in 2029, at which point it'll be part of a 215,000-sq-ft (~20,000-sq-m) technology complex which will also house a data center, labs, and offices.

Sources: Swissinfo, FlexBase

View gallery - 4 images
7 comments
7 comments
Brian Beban
Australia is currently- no pun intended but I'll take it anyway- building a hydro storage "battery' utilising pumped water into an immense lake storage. During the low cost peak power- solar and wind- production, power is used to pump immense volumes of water uphill for storage and use when power is needed. The cost currently-!- is estimated to be $40Billion Au and growing, as it involves not only the building of tunnels, dams, turbines etc, but also the solar and wind to power it, as well as the new grid to transport the energy to the system and from it to the grid. It was originally estimated at $2Billion Au - I assume 20 redox flow batteries of 1.2 GWhrs could be built for this and deliver more than the Hydro's 2,200 megawatt (MW) capacity. Maybe give up on it and build redox instead.
CD
Okay, so this is absolutely correctly quoted by NewAtlas, but is still wildly wrong:
>> "We will be able to inject or absorb up to 1.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in a few milliseconds," FlexBase co-founder Marcel Aumer told Swiss public broadcaster RTS earlier this month. <<
A gigawatt-hour is just what it says on the tin: a rate of power MULTIPLIED by an amount of time.
If you're pumping 10 gallons per minute, but you only pump for 6 seconds, you pumped 1 gallon. But if you pump for 100 minutes, that's 1,000 gallons.
Watts are joules (a unit of energy) per second (time).
If you produce 1 watt for 1 second, you've produced 1 joule.
1kw over a duration of 1 second = 1,000 (joules/seconds) * 1 second = 1,000 joules.
An hour is 3600 seconds, so one kw-hour = 1,000 joules/sec * 3,600 seconds = 3,600,000 joules
A gw-hour is 1,000,000 times that much, or 3,600,000,000,000 joules. This is an amount of energy.
When the quoted person -- who seems to be a financial guy and not an engineer, thus possibly accounting for the misquote -- says that they can dispatch 1.2 Gw-hours in a few milliseconds, he's saying that all the joules represented by that 1.2GWh are transmitted to or from storage in under 1/100th of a second.
Since it takes - by definition - 1 hour for energy moved at a 1GW rate to move an entire GWh, in order to move that amount of energy in (or out) of storage in a single second, you have to be moving that energy around at 3,600 times the the speed (since there is only 1/3,600th the amount of time available to transmit the entire quantity of energy). To do it in 100th of a second requires moving things 100 times faster yet.
So to move 1 GWh of energy in "a few milliseconds" you need to be moving that energy at a rate of 360,000 GW (which is also known as 360 TW).
Unfortunately the entire globe produces electricity at a rate much slower than that - less than 20 TW.
The conclusion is that the original source's error was to say "gigawatt-hours" when they meant "gigawatts". And, indeed, 600 megawatts to 3 gigawatts is exactly the range in which most nuclear power plants produce when operating at full capacity.
What they mean when they say this can be dispatched in milliseconds is that the battery can be turned off, set to output to the grid, or set to absorb from the grid within milliseconds.
This is important, because it allows you to balance load. If one power plant goes off line unexpectedly, demand almost certainly stays the same, but is attempting to draw more power than is being produced. This can cause blackouts and even damage the grid infrastructure itself.
This battery is an important piece of tech that will be doing good work, but it will not dispatch 1.2 GWh over the course of milliseconds. It will dispatch 1.2 GWh over the course of an hour, because the RATE of power is 1.2 GW. That's great! But it's nothing like the 360 TW rate that the source erroneously claimed.
Common sense and a little arithmetic allows us to see what Swiss state media intended to communicate, but did not.
michael_dowling
Wasn't aware of Australia's pumped hydro storage,but if there is the needed topography,it makes an excellent technology to store power for later use. I have been reading about another technology that does not need a difference in heights to store energy called liquid air storage,where air is liquefied and stored in large insulated vessels,and when power is required,it is allowed to become gasified,producing power as it is fed through a turbine.Even the heat of compression is stored for later use in converting liquefied air back to the gaseous state. The storage facility would take up little room.
Loc
This large battery is not what we need. New discoveries in power need to be on the front line. Not build old tech. Fusion still is the best hope yet.
martinwinlow
@ Brian Beban - Your comment reads like this is something new. It isn't. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station (built 1974+) not to mention the 3 others in Scotland. Your point on relative cost is valid but, from the POV of developer/money people, 'better the Devil you know', perhaps...
Ferdi Louw
Thanks for an excellent article. I hope we can get more details soon. Like which chemicals, membranes, pump sizes, lifetime expectancy, etc. Why is redox still struggling to make economic sense? What are the problems with redox?
Davy
Switzerland’s population: ~8.7 million Average per capita electricity consumption: ~7,000 kWh/year (this excludes industrial use; including that, the total grid demand is higher, but we’ll focus on residential for simplicity) Total annual residential consumption: 8.7 million people×7,000 kWh/person/year=60.9 TWh/year Convert to daily consumption: 60.9 TWh/year÷365≈0.167 TWh/day=167,000MWh/day Step 2: Battery capacity vs daily demand Battery: 2.1 GWh = 2,100 MWh Duration (days)= 167,000 MWh/day 2,100 MWh ​ ≈0.0126 days Convert to hours: 0.0126×24≈0.3 hours≈18 minutes ✅ Conclusion: The 2.1 GWh battery could power 210,000 homes for about 9 hours. The. entire country of Switzerland for about 18 minutes. So, claims like “this battery could power thousands of homes” sound impressive, but in the context of a whole country, it’s tiny. It’s really a short-term storage solution, not a national power source. More greenwashing……