• perestroika@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    It’s a pretty neat system:

    • can be set up anywhere
    • can supply high grade heat (process heat, not mere space heating heat)

    However, heat stores are subject to scaling laws which don’t favour sand on the large scale, at least unless it’s underground (and then you have to keep groundwater out to avoid vaporizing it). Large thermal stores benefit from storing heat in water, and placing the water deep underground, so the boiling point rises. If local rock has low thermal conductivity, even better.

    For comparison Helsinki (.fi) has a 10 GWh underground thermal store. Where I live, Tallinn (.ee) will soon get a 1 GWh surface thermal store. And Vantaa (.fi) will soon complete a whopping 90 GWh thermal store that’s located 100 m underground, so their water will boil at 140 C instead of the usual 100 C. Boiling points up to 300 C are attainable in practise, then the curve starts leveling out.

  • Hirom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Pornainen’s battery is charged using electricity from the grid

    How so, do they use heater resistors or a heat pump?

    Electricity may be cheap sometimes but still, heater resistors aren’t the most efficient.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    19 hours ago

    it’s hard to get any cheaper than the crushed soapstone now housed inside an insulated silo in the small town of Pornainen. The soapstone was basically trash — discarded from a Finnish fireplace maker.

    Hell yeah. I’m glad that this works with that kind of sand, and is being done without the kind were running out of.

  • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    20 hours ago

    They report about 10/15% loss when doing heat -> heat. Cost per Kilowatt of storage about 25 euro, compared to 115 if lithium batteries were used.

  • yuri@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    this shit is so cool. it’s like those potential-energy-battery ideas with the stacked blocks, but ACTUALLY efficient!!

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      efficient because heat is used for heat. (district heating system). getting electricity from heat is relatively inefficient. Stacked blocks are relatively efficient but concerns over wind resistance.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Conversions tend to be inefficient, but in this case you can use only the best kinds of conversions.

        They’ll use cheap electricity to heat up the sand, which is approximately 100% efficient. Then, the heat is stored for a while, and that’s when some of it will leak through the walls. Not a whole lot though, because of insulation and a small surface to volume ratio. Eventually, the heat is used to heat up water, which is another highly efficient conversion.

        If you convert another form of energy back to electricity, you tend to lose a lot of it as heat. Physics just loves to use heat as the final destination for all sorts of energies, so it only makes sense to aim for utilizing it instead of treating it as a byproduct.