this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
28 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37757 readers
680 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's a good article with lots of context on the issue.

However one thing is missing: round trip efficiency figures. The whole process of turning electricity into heat, then back into electricity, is probably low efficiency.

There is discussion of directly using heat for industrial processes or heating. That's probably a better use of energy since it avoid some energy conversation losses.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, large-scale power plants have an efficiency of maybe 55%. Small scale heat engines are pretty hard to make work better than 30%.

Storage with solid weights is probably competitive with this. Hopefully someone figures out a low-cost grid battery.

On the other hand, if you're running an electrically-heated concrete furnace, this is great. You heat when electricity is plentiful and coast for the rest of the time.

[–] Arcos@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is that efficency doesn't matter too much if this energy used is from intermittent sources like wind or solar and if there is too much energy at this moment and not everything can be used. So it is better to safe energy at lower efficiency than not saving anything at all.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yes and no.

Better store than loose energy.

But the choice isn't between heat storage+conversion and no storage. It's between differents type of storage (heat, chemical, gravity, electrolysis, freewheel), with multiple technology and chemistry to choose from for each type.

Since there's many options to choose from, it make sense to compare overall efficiency and cost.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes. The first commercial sand battery in Finland is doing just that. It's connected to the district heating. It doesn't convert back to electricity, but offsets the use of other fuels.

https://polarnightenergy.fi/sand-battery

[–] ShadowAether@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Science communication could use a few puns.

[–] ShadowAether@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Totally agree, I'm just suprised bc usually what I see from them is so dry

[–] edent@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

That's brilliant. I hope one day it becomes viable for in-home use. I have a small solar setup and sell a lot of electricity back to the grid. My 2kWh battery can't hold much.

load more comments
view more: next ›