>World’s first large-scale ‘sand battery’ goes online in Finland
https://www.energy-storage.news/worlds-first-large-scale-sand-battery-goes-online-in-finland/
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Worlds first large-scale sand battery goes online in Finland
Isn't this basically the same thing that CSP plants already do? Nothing new, really.
It's not even remotely the same use, nor the same technology. Why on Earth would you type that?
no
>using an acronym without expanding it first
clip studio paint
dicky supports penis
Auringomaa craft
>heat up sand to store energy
why not use water instead?
You can heat it hotter and therefore can store more height for the volume
I see. That makes sense
stop tripgayging outside of IQfy
hell stop tripgayging there you barely even lift
I lift again
I'm happy you lift again so at least stop tripgayging outside of IQfy ya c**t
Because you can't heat water over 100 degress C?
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Superheating?lang=en
Not stable, moron. We are talking about real life systems designed to not explode.
All you need is pressure. Do you know how cooling systems in cars work?
>all you need is to spend extra thousands of dollars on a system that can explode
You can use cheap sand instead, mong.
>system that can explode
Don't be a tard.
>You can use cheap sand instead, mong.
I'm simply pointing out that your were wrong, not the best solution.
Water is a shit solution due to convection.
Convection is good if one wants to transfer energy.
>sometimes referred to as boiling moronation
sick insult, thanks anon
sand doesn't turn into a gas at the high temperatures used
Sand doesn't move heat to the surface via convection.
>doesn't move heat to the surface via convection.
Isn't that a disadvantage?
When you store heat in a hot water tank you can have hot water at the top and the cold water at the bottom.
The more heat you store the bigger the % of hot water vs cold water.
But even when you only have a little bit of heat stored, say 5% of the tank is hot and 95% is cold, you can still get nice hot water by tapping off the top.
Sand loses heat slower. Heat moves through water faster.
But you WANT to be able to extract the heat fast.
Faster = better.
Not really. You want to get it out slow and steady throughout the entire winter minimizing the heat losses.
Just insulate the storage.
It is a good thing because it allows pumping energy into and out of the system faster.
I don't understand.
How good of an insulator is it? Doesn't it still lose energy over time?
It stores enough energy to work long enough during winter months despite small losses.
What is it a thermal mass?
It's a giant pile of hot as frick sand. You heat it up with electricity and then use the heat in the winter for...heating.
Yeah but this means they need to run giant insulated water pipes to every building. Many countries can't even do waste water recovery.
Yeah, that's what district heating means. It's widely used in Europe.
>things filthy Americans don't have
>don't have
We have them in some places but most that tried them ended up dismantling them. Outside of urban cores with dense commercial space it becomes ridiculously expensive.
Minorities in USA switched from mugging trains to stealing sand now?
wealthy america doesn't have what commie shitholes achieved in the 60s? my whole metropolitan area of around ~35km radius around certain big city is connected to the municipal heating and contrary to america winters last for 5 months here and reach -30 regularly
Most of those buildings were built when coal boilers were modern heating. Why go to the extra expense when the buildings already have heat? Also not surprising the commies would go to the extra effort just to keep people employed.
And that's what will keep district heating/cooling from ever becoming a thing here.
>Same is true about roads, sewer systems, internet cables, etc. ect.
Most sewer sytems were put in when the roads were being built when it didn't require cutting open an existing right-of-way. Phone/Internet lines are usually hung on poles unless the area requires underground utilities.
>Doesn't stop Americans from building low density suburbs they can't afford to maintain.
It's not a matter of money but politics.
>Outside of urban cores with dense commercial space it becomes ridiculously expensive.
Same is true about roads, sewer systems, internet cables, etc. ect.
Doesn't stop Americans from building low density suburbs they can't afford to maintain.
None of those things need heavy insulation.
You can simply add more insulation like you add more lanes to a stroad the more homes it serves.
The Northern US would actually be a good place to implement this, but I was more thinking of if it could be used in the developing world.
Certainly more infrastructure then local energy production and improving building efficiency with insulation and waste heat recovery. Half of my energy bill is distribution losses. This is why geothermal heatpumps, mini wind turbines on your roof, and just better building codes would be easier to implement.
If this could be scaled down to a single building, then you solve a lot of problems.
You're right most of America has shit water. The USA is the exception with nice water.
I would rather have yank water than British water, at least. Tastes like freedom.
yes
>Doesn't it still lose energy over time?
I'm sure it does but the more they scale it up the less losses it should have.
Storing heat isn't that hard really especially when you go big.
The article says its heated from renewable energy and then used in a district heating system, but how?
You put a metal rod in hot sand and this shit heats up water that goes into your home?
Pass it through a heat exchanger to get hot water.
Blows hot sand through your home's heating ducts. Super comfy.
>forget to turn off the sand heating system before bed again
>wake up covered in sand
Why not phase change material?
Let me guess, low cost of the fricking sand?
low cost of sand doesn't matter, the construction costs of the facility dominate everything. If we want to use the facility the most efficiently, we need the material be the most efficient, so reducing the volume of material needed, and so the count of facilities needed.
So, why not phase change material? It is orders of magnitude has more capacity of storing energy.
>If we want to use the facility the most efficiently
We don't. It has to be cheap and it has to work.
Bloody armchair communist planners...
Came here to say this, theory may drive design principles and solution proposals, but economics dictate what will actually be built. See [literally 99.99999999% of products ever created in history] as proof.