Rather than dismantle coal plants, why not create a clean fuel that can be used in the same plants, utilising the steam turbines, existing connections to the grid, and preserve jobs at the plant. MGA (miscibility gap alloy) is that fuel, say Erich Kisi and Alexander Post at the University of Newcastle, Australia who are behind the development of these blocks of material, 20cm x 20cm x 16cm, made of blended metals. They are heated up – using energy from excess non-dispatchable wind and solar – and can store energy at a cost of $35/€30 per kilowatt hour. That’s a quarter of the storage cost of lithium-ion batteries. MGA has a much slower response time (15 mins) than batteries (milliseconds), so a combination of storage types will likely be the best solution for a real world grid. MGA blocks are emissions-free, safe, non-toxic, can be recycled and should last 25-30 years, say the authors. Beginning next year, the technology will be tested in Europe by retrofitting a functioning coal power plant.
As climate change worsens, the future of fossil fuel jobs and infrastructure is uncertain. But a new energy storage technology invented in Australia could enable coal-fired power stations to run entirely emissions-free.
The novel material, called miscibility gap alloy (MGA), stores energy in the form of heat. MGA is housed in small blocks of blended metals, which receive energy generated by renewables such as solar and wind.
The energy can then be used as an alternative to coal to run steam turbines at coal-fired power stations, without producing emissions. Stackable like Lego, MGA blocks can be added or removed, scaling electricity generation up or down to meet demand.
Stores energy like Coal. Much cheaper than Li-ion
MGA blocks are a fraction of the cost of a rival energy storage technology, lithium-ion batteries. Our invention has been proven in the lab – now we are moving to the next phase of proving it in the real world.

MGA blocks promise to give new life to old coal stations. / Themba Hadebe/AP
Captures excess Wind & Solar power
Major renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are “intermittent”. In other words, they only produce energy when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Sometimes they produce more energy than is needed, and other times, less.
So moving to 100% renewable electricity requires the energy to be “dispatchable” – stored and delivered on demand. Some forms of storage, such as lithium-ion batteries, are relatively expensive and can only store energy for short periods. Others, such as hydro-electric power, can store energy for longer periods, but are site-dependent and can’t just be built anywhere.
Affordable, versatile, scalable
If our electricity grid is to become emissions-free, we need an energy storage option that’s both affordable and versatile enough to be rolled out at massive scale – providing six to eight hours of dispatchable power every night.
MGAs store energy for a day to a week. This fills a “middle” time frame between batteries and hydro-power, and allows intermittent renewable energy to be dispatched when needed.

Researchers Alex Post and Erich Kisi. The company is looking to build a pilot manufacturing plant in NSW, Australia. / Authors provided
Re-purpose coal plants, don’t abandon them
In the next two decades, many coal-fired power stations around the world will retire or be decommissioned, including in Australia. Our proposed storage may mean power stations could be repurposed, retaining infrastructure and preventing job losses.
For coal stations to use our technology, the furnace and boiler must be removed and replaced by a storage unit containing MGA blocks.
MGA blocks are 20cm x 20cm x 16cm. They essentially comprise a blend of metals – some that melt when heated, and others that don’t. Think of a block as like a chocolate-chip muffin heated in a microwave. The muffin consists of a cake component, which holds everything in shape when heated, and the chocolate chips, which melt.
The blocks don’t just store energy – they heat water to create steam. In an old coal plant, this steam can be used to run turbines and generators to produce electricity, rather than burning coal to produce the same effect.
[Video courtesy University of Newcastle.]
To create the steam, the blocks can be designed with internal tubing, through which water is pumped and boiled. Alternatively, the blocks can interact with a heat exchanger – a specially designed system to heat the water.
Old coal plants could run on renewable energy that would otherwise be switched off during periods of oversupply in the middle of the day (in the case of solar) or times of high wind (wind energy).
Our research has shown the blocks are a fraction the cost of a lithium battery of the same size, yet produce the same amount of energy.

The technology may help prevent job losses in the coal industry. / KYDPL KYODO/AP
Commercialising MGA blocks
Our team perfected the novel material through research at the University of Newcastle between 2010 and 2018. Last year we formed a company, MGA Thermal, and are focused on commercialising the technology and conducting real-world projects.
In July this year, MGA Thermal received a A$495,000 grant ($350,000 / €300,000) from the federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, to establish a pilot manufacturing plant in Newcastle, New South Wales. This project is due to start operating in the second half of next year. The goal is to begin manufacturing a commercial quantity of MGA blocks economically, at scale, for large demonstration projects.
MGA Thermal have partnered with a Swiss company, E2S Power AG, to test the technology in the rapidly changing coal-fired power industry in Europe. Beginning next year, the testing will include retrofitting a functioning coal power plant with MGA storage. This will also verify the economic case for the technology.
Under 25% the storage cost of Li-ion batteries
We are aiming for a cost of storage of A$50 per kilowatt hour ($35 / €30), including all surrounding infrastructure. Currently, lithium-ion batteries cost around A$200 per kilowatt hour, with added costs if energy is to be exported to the electricity grid.
So what are the downfalls? Well, MGA does have a much slower response time than batteries. Batteries respond in milliseconds and are excellent at filling short spikes or dips in supply (such as from wind turbines). Meanwhile MGA storage has a response time above 15 minutes, but does have much longer storage capacity.
A combination of all three options – batteries, MGA/thermal storage and hydro – would provide large-scale energy storage that can still respond quickly to fluctuating renewable supply.
[Video courtesy University of Newcastle.]
Safe and recyclable
MGA blocks are safe and non-toxic – there is no risk of explosion or leakage, unlike some other fuels.
The blocks can also be recycled. They are expected to last 25-30 years, then can be easily separated into their individual materials – to be made into new blocks, or recycled as raw materials for other uses.
Like any new technology, MGA blocks must be financially proven before they’re accepted by industry and used widely in commercial projects. The first full-scale demonstrations of the technology are on the horizon. If successful, they could allow coal-fired power plants to be used cleanly, and provide hope for the future of coal workers.
***
Erich Kisi is a Professor of Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia
Alexander Post a Conjoint Lecturer, University of Newcastle, Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Oh dear! What a totally daft idea! Dear Editor, please stop wasting my time!
Dear Hugh, as you know, the better commentators always present the evidence against. Unless you’re planning to run for U.S. president.
Dear Arasan
Well let’s start with efficiency
So we have a renewable power plant, from there we lose around 5% in transmission to the blocks
those are heated and probably lose some energy during storage, especially when they want to bridge several days
then comes a existing coal fired power plant, well existing is a strong word because you need to upgrade it for this kind of power supply
the efficiency of existing coal power varies widely but around 30-50 % is reasonable
from that we get an power to power efficiency of 25-45 %
this is not very impressive
lithium ion on the other hand can be on site, so there are no losses and no grid load which can be quite important as well
what good is a coal power plant a 500 km from a wind park when the grid is overloaded and you cannot transport the electricity to your storage
we are currently seeing more and more hybrid installations of wind+solar+storgae on one site
back to efficiency: the efficiency of a good lithium ion system is above 90% and therefore 2-3 times more efficienct
now cost wise, well lithium does become ever cheaper and another factor of two will certeinly be achievable
in this article https://energypost.eu/grid-scale-battery-costs-are-declining-faster-than-wind-and-solar/
it certainly looks like the prices are dropping fast
on the other hand there is also a lot of research into redox flow cells which should have efficiencies >70% and cost again half as much as lithium (mainly bevause of material costs)
so there we should have a technology with the same cost as these bricks that are around twice as efficient
Thank you, Luke. But I’m not sure why you address it to me rather than our readers.
you asked for more than a “please don’t waste our time” so there is more
the comments suggested that the readers are aware how “daft” the idea is
The round trip efficiency for the power generation will indeed be very low. However this concept potentially could have a limited application in the central heating systems in the regions that are rich with wind resources. I am thinking about Denmark in particular.
There isn’t enough information in this article to even begin to assess the significance of this technology.
An energy density equivalent to Li-ion batteries, you say? Which Li-ion battery technology might that be? The range is from 150 Wh / kg to and expected 500 Wh / kg in the near future.
And more importantly, would that be simple thermal energy or electrical energy after thermal energy stored in the brick has been converted to electrical energy? If it’s the former, the energy storage capacity would need to be de-rated by a factor of approximately 3, to account for the conversion efficiency for thermal to electrical by way of steam.
Do the MCA bricks encapsulate phase change material for storing thermal energy, or do they just store sensible heat. I’d assume the former, since if you’re only storing sensible heat, you might as well go with gravel. But the company website states that the bricks operate over a wide range of temperatures. That sounds like sensible heat. And if it’s sensible heat, you only get to use a small fraction of the stored energy at the top end of the temperature range for powering a heat engine.
etc, etc, etc.
More information, please. Otherwise don’t bother us.