undefined | Better HN

0 pointss1artibartfast1y ago0 comments

Maybe I dont understand. If your primary goal is thermal storage, why do you care about the peak temperature?

If we are talking primarily about storage, what are the advantages of a PV field + 1400 C brick storage vs parabolic + 500C storage?

0 comments

Retric1y ago

> If your primary goal is thermal storage

The goal isn’t thermal storage the goal is to do something that needs extreme temperature.

You can’t melt steel at 500C, you can melt it in bricks at 1500C that then cool to 1400C. Use electricity to heat a brick to 1500C and you get 100C worth of energy storage. Use solar thermal to get to 1400C and you get zero energy storage.

s1artibartfastOP1y ago

I think that is kinda my point. These comments are all in reference to the idea of using these bricks for electrical storage, as an alternative of offset to other technologies like molten salts, batteries, or pumped hydro.

Im skeptical that they would be improvement on other forms of grid power storage.

This is independent of the question if they are good for melting steel.

I guess I dont understand the point you are advocating for.

Retric1y ago

The energy never gets turned back to electricity. It’s electricity > melting iron for steel (or whatever) and we’re inserting an energy storage in the middle because it’s effectively free.

The total energy storage is also unlikely to be huge so it’s more like load management not really grid storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_management IE: Because we have energy storage and other users don’t we can cut demand when prices spike. Utilities will cut special rates for companies that allow the utility to load shed them first.

The same basic concept is common in other areas. Get enough storage for ~free such as with an EV and you can simply wait until prices get cheap before charging.

yetihehe1y ago

Higher temperaure = more energy stored in the same material. Simple as that. When you have a process requiring 400C for reasonable effiency, your storage actually starts to count from above 400C, so if you have 500C storage, you only have effectively 100C of usable tmperature difference stored in your bricks.

s1artibartfastOP1y ago

If it is cheaper to store at 1400 than 500, then that is an argument for doing so. Higher temperature is not a justification in its own right, absent economic benefit. It is also the case that conduction losses are proportional to heat, and it brings many other challenges as well.

Retric1y ago

Chemical processes don’t occur at any temperature. So the ideal storage temperature depends on the goal temperature and a bunch of other factors.

The argument for storing at 1500C could be 500C is useless not just worse economically.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Retric1y ago

> If your primary goal is thermal storage

The goal isn’t thermal storage the goal is to do something that needs extreme temperature.

s1artibartfastOP1y ago

Im skeptical that they would be improvement on other forms of grid power storage.

This is independent of the question if they are good for melting steel.

I guess I dont understand the point you are advocating for.

Retric1y ago

The energy never gets turned back to electricity. It’s electricity > melting iron for steel (or whatever) and we’re inserting an energy storage in the middle because it’s effectively free.

The same basic concept is common in other areas. Get enough storage for ~free such as with an EV and you can simply wait until prices get cheap before charging.

yetihehe1y ago

s1artibartfastOP1y ago

Retric1y ago

Chemical processes don’t occur at any temperature. So the ideal storage temperature depends on the goal temperature and a bunch of other factors.

The argument for storing at 1500C could be 500C is useless not just worse economically.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse