>"How sand batteries work" >doesn't even begin to broach the subject of what a sand battery is or how it works
Kill whoever made this immediately. Dismissed.
Thats as imbecilic and intentionally vague as humanly possible. You make an info graphic about some new technology, alleging to detail its function, and then make no attempt to actually educate anyone about it. Its a crime.
Me holding an axe above your head is storing my fricking anger as potential energy.
sand for those things presumably doesn't need to be "good". i don't think texture matters for storing heat, while it obviously does for things like making concrete.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why add the heat from solar if you could just spread it out and let it heat up by the sun, cover it up during the night. Actually a better solution is creating hydrogen gas from excess solar, since that's a better storage method.
2 years ago
Anonymous
We need more investment in hydrogen infrastructure. In my local area they're going to trial hydrogen through the existing gas network.
>hot water used to heat up buildings year round
So, you will get heating during summer when solar produces the most energy?
Bravo renewabletards.
The heat is stored for later use, that's the whole point. For the Nordic countries where this is being trialed, this would be a highly workable system.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> hydrogen
It's moronic, dude. 35% efficiency tops for electrolyzation, again 35% tops when recombined again, that gives you 12% efficiency, IF you start with distilled water, which you don't. So you get sub 10% efficiency. For something that's really combustable and unstable and has very low energy density.
What are you going to do? Over build wind and solar by 10-100x to make up for the 90% loss?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It will never be a thing again
2 years ago
Anonymous
having a higher internal temperature (500c vs 50c) means less sand is required and we can extract the energy at a faster rate when needed
the whole point of a battery is to store ELECTRIC CHARGE, transforming it back into heat is just a fricking waste, not every country will need year long heating, spending on the piping and insulation will defeat the purpose of the sand battery. Why not just lead the electricity to a heater in the home? much simpler no?
>Sand is very good at storing heat
Cringe. >They store energy as heat.
moronic.
Thats as imbecilic and intentionally vague as humanly possible. You make an info graphic about some new technology, alleging to detail its function, and then make no attempt to actually educate anyone about it. Its a crime.
Me holding an axe above your head is storing my fricking anger as potential energy.
Good sand is a very limited resource that's getting rather expensive.
I was thinking it will be something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Only more moronic because it uses sand not water.
However turns out it is more moronic. >They store energy as heat.
moronic.
The problem with solar is this >Need to collect sunlight for 30 days to power a home for 1 day.
Even just from that diagram you can figure out what it is: a silo full of sand with water pipes running through it. Use excess solar power to boil water and send the steam through pipes in the sand to heat it. Then when you need heat, run cold water through the pipes and the sand will make it hot.
want to know something even cooler? you can bury that sand battery 10 to 100 feet underground and due to the insulation granted by the sheer mass and pressure it will remain the same temperature for years and years.
I don’t think the pressure of a few (or even a hundred) feet of dirt has anything to do with thermal insulation. It i recall it’s just the fact that it limits the ability for convection to take up more energy (not much air down there)
Proprietary solar sand that can only be purchased from China. Sorry champ, orders have a 280 day lead time and ships are backed up at the ports for 6 more months.
You can wait for your energy until then.
>generate surplus power(lmao rarely ever happening) >use said power to ???? >make giant vat of sand hot to store energy for some utterly moronic reason >now that electricity is mostly useless thermal energy >can be used to heat a house(very poorly) which is only useful for part of the year >can't be readily converted back to electricity the form of energy everyone actually wants)
you can't put much energy into water until it begins to change state (turns to steam), you can prevent the phase change by keeping it in a pressure chamber, but now you have highly dangerous and highly pressurised superheated water which could violent explode if the container fails, and for what benefit?
but nuclear is itself just turning heat into electricity by means of a steam turbine
can't you do the exact same thing here by using the sand's heat to make steam and turn a turbine?
Adds unnecessary step leading to less efficiency. It would be better to use solar and wind directly and just use nuclear to adjust load and provide night time power.
well the idea is like op's picture, to store energy which can't be used right now, like a battery or capacitor, it holds on to excess energy as heat during night so it can be used when there's not enough wind or solar to use immediately
i have nothing against nuclear either, but that's a different technology which this thread isn't about
>can't you do the exact same thing here by using the sand's heat to make steam and turn a turbine?
The efficiency of a steam turbine depends on the temperature of the steam.
The hotter the steam the more efficient it gets (eventually approaching a limit).
I think you can only get the salt up to a few hundred degrees.
Nuclear plants can get much hotter.
Also nuclear plants produce "waste" heat which could easily warm homes if people stop scaremongering and accept that having a nuclear plants near residential areas is perfectly fine.
Next in line for nukes along with the molten salt fuel/coolant combo is using the molten salt as a thermal storage medium and from there using it to heat water on demand so the nuclear power plant can adjust output more readily than they can today,
Added benefit is the heated molten salt isn't under pressure so it's much safer to to engineer unlike high pressure/heated water.
For starters, this is about energy storage, not generation. >nuclear can adapt to power grid consumption
So can fuel based power plants. In fact, fuel based power plants have better adaptation rate to power grid demand changes. Sure, it is not instant, fuel based power plants take some time to be engaged or disengaged but still they are hundred of times faster at it than Nuclear plants. Nuclear plants literally take weeks to completely shut down and there's no way yet to effectively store surplus power after shutdown so it is just wasted energy.
>we are trying to get away from fuel based power plants. >Europe records all time high in coal produced power skyrocketing the price of coal to an all time high.
Weird way to that anon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thanks for the irrelevant information, I was talking about the discussion at hand.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I was talking about the discussion at hand.
Which is?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why don't read the thread you illiterate frick.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How about you educate me zoomie. Teach me daddy I am willing to learn how in a discussion about energy production and storage your comment about the policies of moving away from fossil fuels is relevant and my comment on how this is false and such policies are little more than farts in the wind is irrelevant.
2 years ago
Anonymous
For starters, this is about energy storage, not generation. >nuclear can adapt to power grid consumption
So can fuel based power plants. In fact, fuel based power plants have better adaptation rate to power grid demand changes. Sure, it is not instant, fuel based power plants take some time to be engaged or disengaged but still they are hundred of times faster at it than Nuclear plants. Nuclear plants literally take weeks to completely shut down and there's no way yet to effectively store surplus power after shutdown so it is just wasted energy.
I can't find any data on how efficient this actually is.
A naive calculation tells me that 4m *8m cylinder of sand heated 500K can store nearly 30 000 kWh, which is enough to power 1-3 homes for a year. However, I'm sure there must be huge losses in the process, mainly heat leaking out but also leakage when transporting, charging and discharging the heat. Not so sure it would be practical.
I would imagine there's room in the market for even 90% energy losses.
Northern Europe had big energy issues last winter and it's going to be even worse this year because of politics around gas.
Also Sweden decided to turn off their nuclear power, and the energy produces understood what would happen, so many of the old nuclear power plants are dismantled with uncommon speed, to the point they cannot be put back on line without gigantic expenses.
Somehow both Germany and Sweden succeeded in exporting their troubles abroad in the form of painful energy price increases.
A more practical solution for northern europe is pump storage. Scandinavia, especially Norway, already has infrastructure for it, with huge reservoirs. They only need to install pumps in order to reverse the process and charge the reservoirs. Not many have done so yet because historically norwegian power has been super cheap and stable in comparison to mainland europe so there was no incentive to ever buy power from them to charge, however these days it's different with more and more highly variable renewable power being built.
>Scandinavia, especially Norway, already has infrastructure for it, with huge reservoirs.
I have no idea who is trying to sell that idea, but there are major problems:
- first of all we have (still a little left of the )energy intensive industry such as Al refining, so we need a lot of cheap power ourselves
- secondly the power distribution nets are insufficient and already at max use
- third, the export cables are going max most of the time already as baseload rather than quick reaction load as the original intention was, at least they allege that
- last but not least we have a totally incompetent government, cabinet, parliament and press, so we will have endless reviews, commissions, committees and more but nothing will ever happen.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>- first of all we have (still a little left of the )energy intensive industry such as Al refining, so we need a lot of cheap power ourselves
Pump storage doesn't reduce the amount of power available, it simply distributes it better over time. In fact it will be better for our supply since we can load up when its cheap and save that for a rainy day (or should I say non-rainy day). >- secondly the power distribution nets are insufficient and already at max use >- third, the export cables are going max most of the time already as baseload rather than quick reaction load as the original intention was, at least they allege that
So we can build out more. >- last but not least we have a totally incompetent government, cabinet, parliament and press, so we will have endless reviews, commissions, committees and more but nothing will ever happen.
Maybe but is it less likely than bunch of huge sand batteries being built everywhere?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Maybe but is it less likely than bunch of huge sand batteries being built everywhere?
NTAYRT but given a certain timescale maybe. It won't ever be fast enough though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Pump storage doesn't reduce the amount of power available, it simply distributes it better over time. In fact it will be better for our supply since we can load up when its cheap and save that for a rainy day (or should I say non-rainy day).
Perhaps, but until the infrastructure is completely redone, Norway is not in a position to contribute more. Northern parts have power surplus and water us sent outside the turbines, while in the south there is not enough and bottlenecks in the net means power is 50 - 100 x the price elsewhere.
>So we can build out more.
The present government loves nothing more than to think up new fees and taxes, real infrastructure is not on the cards.
>Maybe but is it less likely than bunch of huge sand batteries being built everywhere?
The PM takes the knee to EU so normally we export huge amounts of energy. Only when there are very strong winds in Denmark do things change.
you can't put much energy into water until it begins to change state (turns to steam), you can prevent the phase change by keeping it in a pressure chamber, but now you have highly dangerous and highly pressurised superheated water which could violent explode if the container fails, and for what benefit?
Holy frick you can be ignorant (I am) but at least don't ask moronic questions before al least attempting to get information on your own.
Thank you to the people who had the patience to answer.
lmao, which drunk moron drew this on a napkin at a bar?
none of their proposals make any kind of sense for realistic power density or use other than a giant pressurized hydrogen tank
>none of their proposals make any kind of sense
There is an airport where they dump excess heat into the ground during summer, and recover it during winter. Probably there are many such places.
I cant find any information on what you're referring to unless you mean a geothermal heat pump, which isn't that long of a term of storage, certainly not of seasonal duration unless perhaps its from somewhere like iceland which isnt exactly a good comparison for the rest of the planet
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not him but it does last all season and I think it's fairly common.
During summer it's used for cooling and heat is stored, and during winter it's used for heating and "cold" is stored.
I think it works best in climates where you need both cooling and heating, not in places that are always cold or always hot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Where is it/what is the system name then?
No one can provide an ACTUAL example
Actually yes, water reservoirs have a noticeable effect on how fast the earth spins.
But IIRC it's less than a second per year.
It's one reason we have the occasional "leap second".
2 years ago
Anonymous
By definition it must do. It's more a question of whether the scale of it is even in the ballpark for making a meaningful change with any measurable impacts.
Given you're competing against other stuff that likely has a larger impact yet still not measurable, such as surface/atmosphere moisture exchange, I'm gonna flat out guess not until maybe you start getting up into the quadrillions of tonnes range and you're talking about moving more than ~.0001% of the total mass.
Source: My ass, just based on the raw weights we're talking about and assuming you can scale it up from a smaller conceptual model.
Huh, consider me corrected. I'm surprised something in the range of just 40 billion tonnes of water is sufficient to have a measurable impact.
By definition it must do. It's more a question of whether the scale of it is even in the ballpark for making a meaningful change with any measurable impacts.
Given you're competing against other stuff that likely has a larger impact yet still not measurable, such as surface/atmosphere moisture exchange, I'm gonna flat out guess not until maybe you start getting up into the quadrillions of tonnes range and you're talking about moving more than ~.0001% of the total mass.
Source: My ass, just based on the raw weights we're talking about and assuming you can scale it up from a smaller conceptual model.
>Dig hole in florida >State begins to sink >The power of capillary action pulls the rest of the continent down with it
Cool, at least I was able to store some energy!
>Let's just dump the pollution into the air there's so much of it what could go wrong? >We're so green lets dump heat into the ground there's so much of it what could go wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities
lets go boys, lets find the new heat battery. no human has ever researched wikipedia before
Solar can not work. A better option is to simply let grass grow and the harvest and burn the grass you get more energy form the sun this way.
If you are not a total moron you realize this if solar did have this amazing energy plant eaters would be like jets or frick that animals would go direct photo synthesis. Evolution says that solar can not work.
>you get more energy form the sun this way
Solar panels have an efficiency of 10 - 15 percent.
Photosynthesis is only 1 percent.
Rarely have people been more wrong than you.
>Solar panels have an efficiency of 10 - 15 percent. >Source environmentalist propaganda.
That is proven to be wrong. >Photosynthesis is only 1 percent.
That is proven to be wrong.
>Rarely have people been more wrong than you.
Oh yes genius ? What is your evidence ? Your propaganda book told you so ?
Show your magic solar panels then. Their output is pathetic.
And you really fricken think evolution would not have utilized this magic extra solar energy ? It is already harvesting solar energy 3 billion years yet nothing evolved a way to get this extra energy despite it being super beneficial in evolution.
>That is proven to be wrong.
Proven? How interesting. Cite?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Proven?
Yes. If you disagree show your magic solar panels.
And they do not exist see proven.
>Cite
This is not your religious book of lies known as a science journal.
>b-b-b-b the pope (science journal editor) did put his stamp of approval on these papers full of made up lies and rejected these other papers.
This is not your religion of science you dumb moron.
>b-b-b- muh fallibility
Get the frick back where you belong science right next to the astrologers and taro card readers and faith healers.
Yes it can, it's horribly inefficient, expensive and definitely not moron-proof.
>you always need more panels that you initially thought >you always need more batteries than you initially thought >end up spending a lot >it takes space not everyone has. Urbanites and solar is completely impossible.
yeah you can live comfortably without paying mr shekelberg every month, it's not practical in many many many situations, though.
Industrial applications on solar? Absolutely fricking impossible. They can go shill that somewhere else.
Also Li-ion batteries are the antithesis of "green". Not that I give a frick about that, but greengays do.
>>you always need more panels that you initially thought
How many ? >you always need more batteries than you initially thought
How many ? >Yes it can
What is it no electrical use all day and 2h of light in the night ?
>Industrial applications on solar? Absolutely fricking impossible. They can go shill that somewhere else.
At least you did see the light.
>How many ?
14 >How many ?
6. Top of the line batteries.
>What is it no electrical use all day and 2h of light in the night ?
I really don't get what you're saying. The panels generate more than enough power to do whatever the frick you want during the day, while having extra power to charge the batteries at the same time. by 11-12 am the batteries are fully charged and you can pull off at least 3 days of moderate use on the batteries alone if, hipotetically, there was no more sunlight at all.
However, even on shitty days it generates power, even while raining. That's were we go back to "you need more panels"
under ideal conditions you can get by with a lot less, the thing is making the system functional even accounting for low production days.
all I'm saying is residential solar is absolutely doable, but having undergone the process of going offgrid, you can see its obvious limitations, but for home use, it's fine.
District ground source heatpumps are the next big thing hopefully. It's the only reasonable way to transition to electric heating. Air source sucks, but ground source is unaffordable for a single home except for the rich gays.
>Sand - Water
Heat capacity (J/gK)
830 - 4200
Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
0.25 - 0.598
Density (kg/m^3)
1500 - 997
Ok so it loses the heat 1/2 as fast, but it can only store 1/4th as much? Only benefit I can think of is that it's less prone to leak or corrode its container and it doesn't expand into steam like water does.
Can people get off the electric grid, in 2022?
How difficult, expensive or safe is it, or is it even worth it?
In case the answer is no, will it be worth it, and if so, when?
depends on the country (legislation and geography), it is possible and getting more feasible as well, also depends on your energy needs. just not go full moron renewable and have backups. I would trust it better than the grid, but I'm a crazy prepper so
where's that meme about earth being a planet full of water boilers
>burn wood or coal >use it to boil water to power something >split the atom >use it to boil water to power something >aliens visit earth >earth full of water, people mainly made out of water, and water boilers
>Solar Energy
What the frick is this gay shit ? Where are all my nuclear power brothers in Christ at ? You gays think that when we'll be coasting on that 100 year journey to Alpha Centauri the fricking sun is going to power our colony ships ? Get the frick out, I want nuclear power now and frick all the boomers, homosexuals, trannies, liberals and hippies to hell and back.
>The frogs are at it again
Dear God, first the krauts cuck themselves twice, now the frogs are AGAIN unable to think past what kind of snail they're going to eat tomorrow, frick this gay earth. Rivers had lower yields in Europe during the summer for years now, but God forbid anyone trying to do anything about it, let's just bend over so nature can frick us hard.
>now the frogs are AGAIN unable to think
They could have used the cooling water to preheat water for residential use (boilers, swimming pools etc.) and then used that pre-cooled water to cool further with river water. And they don't, I guess it is because they fear that cuts into their earnings. Better then to scare the little people into believing they have to pay twice as much as they did last year. So less work, more money.
dams WORK, they work DAMN well,
people use water, they water their lawns, they take LONG showers, they constantly clean their cars, they fight lots of fires, they bottle and ship their water away from their water tables
their damns stop working because they don't have water to run the turbines
the solution is to make a reservoir above the damn(already exists/empty lakes), pump water into said damn during too much power production, pump water down to new lake BELOW said dam, now you have power during the night and high demand, no expensive/short lived batteries involved
not enough water to do above
use SALT WATER, its CHEAP, its easy to get in most locations, no one FIGHTS OVER IT/HAS STATE/PROVIDENCE LAWS involving its transport, no one will be able to make it fresh water for profit
your DRIED UP DAM now ACTS LIKE A BATTERY IN THE FRICKED UP GRID, using salt water(not much lives in land surrounded salt water unless you are in a swamp), no one and companies WANT it for drinking/watering their communities, you have literal oceans of it to draw from when needed
just need to get some cheap land in now water free area's below said dam for the second salt water reservoir and a good set of industrial pumps
hooked up to turbines so they don't have to brake and shut down when demand is low(less wear and tear/breakdowns, longer wind farm usage) solar plants can also dump excess power into heating said salt water dumps for heated utilities(steam plants for cities/towns/industry)
but my ecological disaster if the salt water escapes(look at all the other shit that occurs so some select area LOOKS pristine) there is a reason many industries are STILL EXPORTED TO CHINA, even lithium production is mainly there BECAUSE ITS TOO EXPENSIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE to the environment to do it here
also it is cheap to buy up dried up dams and area's, add some salt proof clay/plastic, reroute whatever water remains(everyone supports this point) and add a lower salt water lake
2 more decades
How's 2002 again?
>"How sand batteries work"
>doesn't even begin to broach the subject of what a sand battery is or how it works
Kill whoever made this immediately. Dismissed.
They store energy as heat. Sand is very good at storing heat
Thats as imbecilic and intentionally vague as humanly possible. You make an info graphic about some new technology, alleging to detail its function, and then make no attempt to actually educate anyone about it. Its a crime.
Me holding an axe above your head is storing my fricking anger as potential energy.
>Me holding an axe above your head is storing my fricking anger as potential energy.
You would've had /thread if all you posted was this.
What's the problem? It says "stored as heat in sand". What more can be explained?
Good sand is a very limited resource that's getting rather expensive.
sand for those things presumably doesn't need to be "good". i don't think texture matters for storing heat, while it obviously does for things like making concrete.
Why add the heat from solar if you could just spread it out and let it heat up by the sun, cover it up during the night. Actually a better solution is creating hydrogen gas from excess solar, since that's a better storage method.
We need more investment in hydrogen infrastructure. In my local area they're going to trial hydrogen through the existing gas network.
The heat is stored for later use, that's the whole point. For the Nordic countries where this is being trialed, this would be a highly workable system.
> hydrogen
It's moronic, dude. 35% efficiency tops for electrolyzation, again 35% tops when recombined again, that gives you 12% efficiency, IF you start with distilled water, which you don't. So you get sub 10% efficiency. For something that's really combustable and unstable and has very low energy density.
What are you going to do? Over build wind and solar by 10-100x to make up for the 90% loss?
It will never be a thing again
having a higher internal temperature (500c vs 50c) means less sand is required and we can extract the energy at a faster rate when needed
Or just. Use hydrogen.
yea no shit. i dare to walk on sand bare feet when it's 30c outside. especially with your neet feebly feet that never left comfiness of your basement
How do I get the heat out of the sand, in a timely manner.
I don't know. I was just stating what I know about it
>how does X battery work?
>it uses X to store energy
How does sand battery compare to semen battery
the whole point of a battery is to store ELECTRIC CHARGE, transforming it back into heat is just a fricking waste, not every country will need year long heating, spending on the piping and insulation will defeat the purpose of the sand battery. Why not just lead the electricity to a heater in the home? much simpler no?
>Sand is very good at storing heat
Cringe.
>They store energy as heat.
moronic.
I was thinking it will be something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Only more moronic because it uses sand not water.
However turns out it is more moronic.
>They store energy as heat.
moronic.
The problem with solar is this
>Need to collect sunlight for 30 days to power a home for 1 day.
>the desert is one huge battery
well there you go, you don't even need the solar panels
Might as well use salt
Even just from that diagram you can figure out what it is: a silo full of sand with water pipes running through it. Use excess solar power to boil water and send the steam through pipes in the sand to heat it. Then when you need heat, run cold water through the pipes and the sand will make it hot.
thread
>BREAKING NEWS
>3 workers melted by super hot sand as sand battery bursts during routine maintenance
yeah, it's not like lithium can spontaneously combust
nor can gasoline
want to know something even cooler? you can bury that sand battery 10 to 100 feet underground and due to the insulation granted by the sheer mass and pressure it will remain the same temperature for years and years.
I don’t think the pressure of a few (or even a hundred) feet of dirt has anything to do with thermal insulation. It i recall it’s just the fact that it limits the ability for convection to take up more energy (not much air down there)
Doesn't sound very cool to me. (Cold)
then how tha fuk u get nrg out, genious?
Oh shit is the sand spreading!?
It's coming through the pipes to melt everyone who exploited it.
>Meanwhile, 30 people died of air pollution in the time the article was written
Anybody has plans what is really inside that "sand battery"?
sand
some new silicon alloy
Proprietary solar sand that can only be purchased from China. Sorry champ, orders have a 280 day lead time and ships are backed up at the ports for 6 more months.
You can wait for your energy until then.
Other technologies exist that are better such as compressed air that provide electricity and not just heating or warm water.
all electricity in the world barring pv solar is generated due to pressure moving a turbine whether it's steam, wind, or water.
this implies that solar and wind are generating a surplus of energy
Electricity price has been negative a couple of times in Europe during the past 2 years.
>negative
>as in you still have to pay but Mr. Goldstein from Shlomo Green Energy Co. gets to "buy" that energy at negative prices
Yes, same as negative euribor.
>hot water used to heat up buildings year round
So, you will get heating during summer when solar produces the most energy?
Bravo renewabletards.
i thought they just use molten salt
it feels like zoomers want multiple nobels for re-discovering things have heat capacity
>generate surplus power(lmao rarely ever happening)
>use said power to ????
>make giant vat of sand hot to store energy for some utterly moronic reason
>now that electricity is mostly useless thermal energy
>can be used to heat a house(very poorly) which is only useful for part of the year
>can't be readily converted back to electricity the form of energy everyone actually wants)
sounds moronic and convoluted. why not just put the bags of sand out in the sun to heat them up?
>solar towers
DAMN HIPPIES REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE PANELS FRICKING SUCK ASS
Surplus power is always generated, what the frick you are on about? Do you even know how power plants work?
It can only be the next big thing when it doesn't use building sand but shitty otherwise useless sahara desert sand
>Next big thing
Hardly. This has existed for years in various forms:
https://energy-nest.com/technology/
Why but just heat water?
you can't put much energy into water until it begins to change state (turns to steam), you can prevent the phase change by keeping it in a pressure chamber, but now you have highly dangerous and highly pressurised superheated water which could violent explode if the container fails, and for what benefit?
Because there's not enough heat in that stored sand to superheat the water and spin a turbine.
As such, the only thing you can do with that 'stored heat' from the sand silo is to deliver hot faucet water to houses.
Stored sand is a scam like most 'green' energy ideas
>he doesn't know
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/borehole-thermal-energy-storage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Rankine_cycle
>trusting anything named ORC
are they even trying to hide anymore
it's always about boiling water isn't it? god i'm sick of this shit.
Turns out you only need a giant three story structure to heat and provide hot water to two smalls home
Or you know nuclear, which can provide constant power and can adjust to power grid demand.
but nuclear is itself just turning heat into electricity by means of a steam turbine
can't you do the exact same thing here by using the sand's heat to make steam and turn a turbine?
Adds unnecessary step leading to less efficiency. It would be better to use solar and wind directly and just use nuclear to adjust load and provide night time power.
well the idea is like op's picture, to store energy which can't be used right now, like a battery or capacitor, it holds on to excess energy as heat during night so it can be used when there's not enough wind or solar to use immediately
i have nothing against nuclear either, but that's a different technology which this thread isn't about
Excess energy is better stored as hydrogen.
>just use nuclear to adjust load
Reactors aren't suited for that.
Control rods and you can literally just disconnect the turbine.
Nuclear reactors are meant for steady load, any changes to the output power will mean thermal stresses on the reactor that shortens the lifetime.
>can't you do the exact same thing here by using the sand's heat to make steam and turn a turbine?
The efficiency of a steam turbine depends on the temperature of the steam.
The hotter the steam the more efficient it gets (eventually approaching a limit).
I think you can only get the salt up to a few hundred degrees.
Nuclear plants can get much hotter.
Also nuclear plants produce "waste" heat which could easily warm homes if people stop scaremongering and accept that having a nuclear plants near residential areas is perfectly fine.
Next in line for nukes along with the molten salt fuel/coolant combo is using the molten salt as a thermal storage medium and from there using it to heat water on demand so the nuclear power plant can adjust output more readily than they can today,
Added benefit is the heated molten salt isn't under pressure so it's much safer to to engineer unlike high pressure/heated water.
For starters, this is about energy storage, not generation.
>nuclear can adapt to power grid consumption
So can fuel based power plants. In fact, fuel based power plants have better adaptation rate to power grid demand changes. Sure, it is not instant, fuel based power plants take some time to be engaged or disengaged but still they are hundred of times faster at it than Nuclear plants. Nuclear plants literally take weeks to completely shut down and there's no way yet to effectively store surplus power after shutdown so it is just wasted energy.
Anon, we are trying to get away from fuel based power plants.
>we are trying to get away from fuel based power plants.
>Europe records all time high in coal produced power skyrocketing the price of coal to an all time high.
Weird way to that anon.
Thanks for the irrelevant information, I was talking about the discussion at hand.
>I was talking about the discussion at hand.
Which is?
Why don't read the thread you illiterate frick.
How about you educate me zoomie. Teach me daddy I am willing to learn how in a discussion about energy production and storage your comment about the policies of moving away from fossil fuels is relevant and my comment on how this is false and such policies are little more than farts in the wind is irrelevant.
>the moronic coal vs nuclear autist is back
I can't find any data on how efficient this actually is.
A naive calculation tells me that 4m *8m cylinder of sand heated 500K can store nearly 30 000 kWh, which is enough to power 1-3 homes for a year. However, I'm sure there must be huge losses in the process, mainly heat leaking out but also leakage when transporting, charging and discharging the heat. Not so sure it would be practical.
I'd rather not have sand silos scattered around the world either.
I would imagine there's room in the market for even 90% energy losses.
Northern Europe had big energy issues last winter and it's going to be even worse this year because of politics around gas.
If only Germany would get the stick out of their ass about nuclear.
Also Sweden decided to turn off their nuclear power, and the energy produces understood what would happen, so many of the old nuclear power plants are dismantled with uncommon speed, to the point they cannot be put back on line without gigantic expenses.
Somehow both Germany and Sweden succeeded in exporting their troubles abroad in the form of painful energy price increases.
A more practical solution for northern europe is pump storage. Scandinavia, especially Norway, already has infrastructure for it, with huge reservoirs. They only need to install pumps in order to reverse the process and charge the reservoirs. Not many have done so yet because historically norwegian power has been super cheap and stable in comparison to mainland europe so there was no incentive to ever buy power from them to charge, however these days it's different with more and more highly variable renewable power being built.
>Scandinavia, especially Norway, already has infrastructure for it, with huge reservoirs.
I have no idea who is trying to sell that idea, but there are major problems:
- first of all we have (still a little left of the )energy intensive industry such as Al refining, so we need a lot of cheap power ourselves
- secondly the power distribution nets are insufficient and already at max use
- third, the export cables are going max most of the time already as baseload rather than quick reaction load as the original intention was, at least they allege that
- last but not least we have a totally incompetent government, cabinet, parliament and press, so we will have endless reviews, commissions, committees and more but nothing will ever happen.
>- first of all we have (still a little left of the )energy intensive industry such as Al refining, so we need a lot of cheap power ourselves
Pump storage doesn't reduce the amount of power available, it simply distributes it better over time. In fact it will be better for our supply since we can load up when its cheap and save that for a rainy day (or should I say non-rainy day).
>- secondly the power distribution nets are insufficient and already at max use
>- third, the export cables are going max most of the time already as baseload rather than quick reaction load as the original intention was, at least they allege that
So we can build out more.
>- last but not least we have a totally incompetent government, cabinet, parliament and press, so we will have endless reviews, commissions, committees and more but nothing will ever happen.
Maybe but is it less likely than bunch of huge sand batteries being built everywhere?
>Maybe but is it less likely than bunch of huge sand batteries being built everywhere?
NTAYRT but given a certain timescale maybe. It won't ever be fast enough though.
>Pump storage doesn't reduce the amount of power available, it simply distributes it better over time. In fact it will be better for our supply since we can load up when its cheap and save that for a rainy day (or should I say non-rainy day).
Perhaps, but until the infrastructure is completely redone, Norway is not in a position to contribute more. Northern parts have power surplus and water us sent outside the turbines, while in the south there is not enough and bottlenecks in the net means power is 50 - 100 x the price elsewhere.
>So we can build out more.
The present government loves nothing more than to think up new fees and taxes, real infrastructure is not on the cards.
>Maybe but is it less likely than bunch of huge sand batteries being built everywhere?
The PM takes the knee to EU so normally we export huge amounts of energy. Only when there are very strong winds in Denmark do things change.
or hear me out
slap a geothermal heat exchanger and a solar installed to have the pumps running 24/7
far better than this
>20% efficent photovoltaic panels to power a dumb heater
Now that's a new level of dumb
>ctrl-f storage heater
>ni pa resultas
Well frick
>Sand - 830J/kg
>Water - 4182J/kg
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html
Lol, irrelevant
Heating up water from 0°C to 40°C takes as much energy as heating up sand from 0°C to 200°C
>honey put the kettle on
>sure ill just use the power from our giant water battery outside, which can heat the kettle to 40 degrees
ur an idoit
Holy frick you can be ignorant (I am) but at least don't ask moronic questions before al least attempting to get information on your own.
Thank you to the people who had the patience to answer.
how do they heat sand?
resistive heater?
Sounds dumb, having to store sand and insulate it. Nuclear is better
will it also use geothermal heating?
This is dumb. Ecologists are desesperate shilling windmills and photovoltaic.
Nuclear is the only solution.
/misc/ pls
So we getting this before or after the super capacitor lithium ion hybrid batteries.
i would expect huge heat losses from that building.
at least 70% would go in air
Why bottle up sand? Why not just make underground cities? It's more energy saving.
this is dumb as frick why would i pay to heat my fricking sand 24/7 when I could just pay for the natural gas I actually need and use
the sunlight is free and more powerful than your brain could ever comprehend you smegma eating troglodyte
never going to make sense due to high upfront costs and unreliable operation lmao moron
>unreliable operation
it's the sun dumbass, it operates itself.
ok moron turn that in to hot sand for 12 months straight
you only need to turn it into hot sand for 1 minute and then move it underground where the heat is insulated so heavily that it never changes.
>move it underground
>where the heat is insulated
fricking move yourself underground, do the world a favor
it's basic physics anon, if you can't grasp physics or elementary school math why are you even on the technology board?
grasp physics? how about you grasp my dick instead?
uh oh, looks like the comp sci major got filtered by physics 1
I'm not sure what I got filtered by but yeah, 100% agreed bro, with you on that one
what's the temp loss? efficiency still better than lithium ion?
Electricity was a mistake
lmao, which drunk moron drew this on a napkin at a bar?
none of their proposals make any kind of sense for realistic power density or use other than a giant pressurized hydrogen tank
>none of their proposals make any kind of sense
There is an airport where they dump excess heat into the ground during summer, and recover it during winter. Probably there are many such places.
I cant find any information on what you're referring to unless you mean a geothermal heat pump, which isn't that long of a term of storage, certainly not of seasonal duration unless perhaps its from somewhere like iceland which isnt exactly a good comparison for the rest of the planet
Not him but it does last all season and I think it's fairly common.
During summer it's used for cooling and heat is stored, and during winter it's used for heating and "cold" is stored.
I think it works best in climates where you need both cooling and heating, not in places that are always cold or always hot.
Where is it/what is the system name then?
No one can provide an ACTUAL example
See
https://avinor.no/konsern/flyplass/oslo/miljo-og-lokalsamfunn/energi/fornybar-energi
So this may be a stupid question but if you raise and lower gigantic weights in sync with seasons, could it alter Earth's rotational velocidensity?
probably, doesn't like china's gigantic reservoirs frick up earth rotation or something?
Actually yes, water reservoirs have a noticeable effect on how fast the earth spins.
But IIRC it's less than a second per year.
It's one reason we have the occasional "leap second".
Huh, consider me corrected. I'm surprised something in the range of just 40 billion tonnes of water is sufficient to have a measurable impact.
By definition it must do. It's more a question of whether the scale of it is even in the ballpark for making a meaningful change with any measurable impacts.
Given you're competing against other stuff that likely has a larger impact yet still not measurable, such as surface/atmosphere moisture exchange, I'm gonna flat out guess not until maybe you start getting up into the quadrillions of tonnes range and you're talking about moving more than ~.0001% of the total mass.
Source: My ass, just based on the raw weights we're talking about and assuming you can scale it up from a smaller conceptual model.
>Dig hole in florida
>State begins to sink
>The power of capillary action pulls the rest of the continent down with it
Cool, at least I was able to store some energy!
Surely a lake at the top of a hill that you pump water up and down from would store more power for less money.
what if there is no hill
>Let's just dump the pollution into the air there's so much of it what could go wrong?
>We're so green lets dump heat into the ground there's so much of it what could go wrong?
Storing heat has always been easy mode.
What we need is an efficient way to "store" electricity.
Pumped storage chads, where we at?
only rich countries that won the elevation lottery
when you learn that humans can modify the height of terrain you'll be smarter than a monkey at least.
swissbros can't keep winning can't they?
I am so tired of you "alternative" energy homosexuals.
JUST USE FOSSIL FUELS FOR FRICKS SAKE, THEY WORK GREAT AND ARE SUPER RELIABLE.
We could just use it to heat the water
oh no
>100 tonnes of sand
Playing pretend sure is fun. To bad that will never work out the way they hope.
I oppose the next big thing
LOL, if solar works, then you dont need heating that much.
why use solar panels to generate heat instead of just solar heater?
I guess the idea is that the excess electricity is stored in the sand battery.
Excess heat storage. Not main heat generator. Solar panel because electricity.
>waaa muh greenhouses it's too hot in the atmosphere
>proceeds to heat up the ground instead
>next big thing
>ancient egpyt had these circa 200 B.C. at least
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities
lets go boys, lets find the new heat battery. no human has ever researched wikipedia before
>1950s: "Now that we've invented nuclear power all of our energy problems are a thing of the past! Think about what the future may hold for us now?"
>The Future: "Wait wait wait, hear me out guys...sand..."
>>The Future: "Wait wait wait, hear me out guys...sand..."
You are watching idiocracy arrive in real time.
they should install turbines in my penis'
Why not just use geothermal?
Just fricking drill a bit and you have unlimited energy. Believe in the planet that believes in you anons
I don't like sand.
Solar can not work. A better option is to simply let grass grow and the harvest and burn the grass you get more energy form the sun this way.
If you are not a total moron you realize this if solar did have this amazing energy plant eaters would be like jets or frick that animals would go direct photo synthesis. Evolution says that solar can not work.
>you get more energy form the sun this way
Solar panels have an efficiency of 10 - 15 percent.
Photosynthesis is only 1 percent.
Rarely have people been more wrong than you.
>Solar panels have an efficiency of 10 - 15 percent.
>Source environmentalist propaganda.
That is proven to be wrong.
>Photosynthesis is only 1 percent.
That is proven to be wrong.
>Rarely have people been more wrong than you.
Oh yes genius ? What is your evidence ? Your propaganda book told you so ?
Show your magic solar panels then. Their output is pathetic.
And you really fricken think evolution would not have utilized this magic extra solar energy ? It is already harvesting solar energy 3 billion years yet nothing evolved a way to get this extra energy despite it being super beneficial in evolution.
>That is proven to be wrong.
Proven? How interesting. Cite?
>Proven?
Yes. If you disagree show your magic solar panels.
And they do not exist see proven.
>Cite
This is not your religious book of lies known as a science journal.
>b-b-b-b the pope (science journal editor) did put his stamp of approval on these papers full of made up lies and rejected these other papers.
This is not your religion of science you dumb moron.
>b-b-b- muh fallibility
Get the frick back where you belong science right next to the astrologers and taro card readers and faith healers.
We could just burn wood, just need to kill 95% of the population first to make some room for all the extra forest.
>just need to kill 95% of the population first to make some room for all the extra forest.
This one gets it.
>just need to kill 95% of the population first to make some room
Same story for solar.
You have no idea how systemically fricked the world is.
offgrid solar gay here
Yes it can, it's horribly inefficient, expensive and definitely not moron-proof.
>you always need more panels that you initially thought
>you always need more batteries than you initially thought
>end up spending a lot
>it takes space not everyone has. Urbanites and solar is completely impossible.
yeah you can live comfortably without paying mr shekelberg every month, it's not practical in many many many situations, though.
Industrial applications on solar? Absolutely fricking impossible. They can go shill that somewhere else.
Also Li-ion batteries are the antithesis of "green". Not that I give a frick about that, but greengays do.
>>you always need more panels that you initially thought
How many ?
>you always need more batteries than you initially thought
How many ?
>Yes it can
What is it no electrical use all day and 2h of light in the night ?
>Industrial applications on solar? Absolutely fricking impossible. They can go shill that somewhere else.
At least you did see the light.
>How many ?
14
>How many ?
6. Top of the line batteries.
>What is it no electrical use all day and 2h of light in the night ?
I really don't get what you're saying. The panels generate more than enough power to do whatever the frick you want during the day, while having extra power to charge the batteries at the same time. by 11-12 am the batteries are fully charged and you can pull off at least 3 days of moderate use on the batteries alone if, hipotetically, there was no more sunlight at all.
However, even on shitty days it generates power, even while raining. That's were we go back to "you need more panels"
under ideal conditions you can get by with a lot less, the thing is making the system functional even accounting for low production days.
all I'm saying is residential solar is absolutely doable, but having undergone the process of going offgrid, you can see its obvious limitations, but for home use, it's fine.
Gor me, it's iron rust batteries.
Just pump water up a hill bro
District ground source heatpumps are the next big thing hopefully. It's the only reasonable way to transition to electric heating. Air source sucks, but ground source is unaffordable for a single home except for the rich gays.
first we tricked sand into doing math, now into heating our houses!?!
>Sand - Water
Heat capacity (J/gK)
830 - 4200
Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
0.25 - 0.598
Density (kg/m^3)
1500 - 997
Ok so it loses the heat 1/2 as fast, but it can only store 1/4th as much? Only benefit I can think of is that it's less prone to leak or corrode its container and it doesn't expand into steam like water does.
Can people get off the electric grid, in 2022?
How difficult, expensive or safe is it, or is it even worth it?
In case the answer is no, will it be worth it, and if so, when?
depends on the country (legislation and geography), it is possible and getting more feasible as well, also depends on your energy needs. just not go full moron renewable and have backups. I would trust it better than the grid, but I'm a crazy prepper so
where's that meme about earth being a planet full of water boilers
>burn wood or coal
>use it to boil water to power something
>split the atom
>use it to boil water to power something
>aliens visit earth
>earth full of water, people mainly made out of water, and water boilers
fricking boilers
there won't be a next big thing, it's over
for me it's the gravity
based
Energy never degrades over time
There's always a catch. In this case it's: potential energy is pathetically weak
you mean gravitational potential energy
You mean energy density
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Other_release_mechanisms
>Solar Energy
What the frick is this gay shit ? Where are all my nuclear power brothers in Christ at ? You gays think that when we'll be coasting on that 100 year journey to Alpha Centauri the fricking sun is going to power our colony ships ? Get the frick out, I want nuclear power now and frick all the boomers, homosexuals, trannies, liberals and hippies to hell and back.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/edf-expects-nuclear-output-cuts-in-summer-on-low-river-levels-1.1787838
>The frogs are at it again
Dear God, first the krauts cuck themselves twice, now the frogs are AGAIN unable to think past what kind of snail they're going to eat tomorrow, frick this gay earth. Rivers had lower yields in Europe during the summer for years now, but God forbid anyone trying to do anything about it, let's just bend over so nature can frick us hard.
>now the frogs are AGAIN unable to think
They could have used the cooling water to preheat water for residential use (boilers, swimming pools etc.) and then used that pre-cooled water to cool further with river water. And they don't, I guess it is because they fear that cuts into their earnings. Better then to scare the little people into believing they have to pay twice as much as they did last year. So less work, more money.
>next big thing
IT'S SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS
Battery """crisis""" solved:
>dig a big hole
>walk up a hill
>dig another big hole
>put a pump between them
>put a turbine between them
GENIUS
SOMEONE WRITE IT DOWN FAST
dams WORK, they work DAMN well,
people use water, they water their lawns, they take LONG showers, they constantly clean their cars, they fight lots of fires, they bottle and ship their water away from their water tables
their damns stop working because they don't have water to run the turbines
the solution is to make a reservoir above the damn(already exists/empty lakes), pump water into said damn during too much power production, pump water down to new lake BELOW said dam, now you have power during the night and high demand, no expensive/short lived batteries involved
not enough water to do above
use SALT WATER, its CHEAP, its easy to get in most locations, no one FIGHTS OVER IT/HAS STATE/PROVIDENCE LAWS involving its transport, no one will be able to make it fresh water for profit
your DRIED UP DAM now ACTS LIKE A BATTERY IN THE FRICKED UP GRID, using salt water(not much lives in land surrounded salt water unless you are in a swamp), no one and companies WANT it for drinking/watering their communities, you have literal oceans of it to draw from when needed
just need to get some cheap land in now water free area's below said dam for the second salt water reservoir and a good set of industrial pumps
hooked up to turbines so they don't have to brake and shut down when demand is low(less wear and tear/breakdowns, longer wind farm usage) solar plants can also dump excess power into heating said salt water dumps for heated utilities(steam plants for cities/towns/industry)
but my ecological disaster if the salt water escapes(look at all the other shit that occurs so some select area LOOKS pristine) there is a reason many industries are STILL EXPORTED TO CHINA, even lithium production is mainly there BECAUSE ITS TOO EXPENSIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE to the environment to do it here
also it is cheap to buy up dried up dams and area's, add some salt proof clay/plastic, reroute whatever water remains(everyone supports this point) and add a lower salt water lake