I was impressed with the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using perforated pipes installed in rock beds, since there is no issue with sand running through pipes or other hardware. Air or water can flow through the pipes, out the perforations and through the rocks to the other pipes, with exceptionally good insulation helping prolong the duration of heat storage.
It would be interesting to hear more about how -- or IF -- this system manages to avoid destroying its heat exchangers from constant exposure to flowing abrasive sand. Sand might make for a decent heat sink, but it seems like a fundamentally bad material for a direct working component.
If they use abundant desert sand, where the grains are smooth and which is unsuitable for construction (whereas the sand with sharp grains needed for concrete is rapidly being used up), they would have much less abrasion.
@@ooooneeee Rounded desert sand is less abrasive than sharp ocean sand, but it would be a horrible material on a heat exchanger, a solid constantly rubbing against another solid with no lubricant. It would almost certainly work vastly better using an intermediary working substance like a liquid.... but this system isn't set up for that.
Wouldn't the sand be too abrasive on the components it flows through? Also if you have to run it through a steam turbine, you'd lose some efficiency converting it to another medium (sand > water > steam > mechanical input > electricity). At least the super critical carbon does not suffer this problem as much (super critical carbon > mechanical input > electricity). And the turbine for the carbon medium is much smaller with the output of power of a large turbine. Still I'm curious as to why they think sand is practical and I'd like to know the round trip efficiency of Carbon vs sand
how about steam consumers？they have full load steam at day time and 1/3 steam demand at night? would this application suit? if it could storage the energy at night, it will ease the boiler a lot!
Pushing sand through such a system seems quite energy intensive. I wonder if you have numbers on energy consumption of this approach. From your website, it seems that you are aware of this challenge, so you must have run some numbers. Are there any publications discussing this?
Why not only blowing air from the bottom of the heated sand storage to absorb energy and then routing the hot gas through a heat exchanger? Or just feed water pipes through the bed? This would cancel the abrasive effect of the sand completely.
Feeding Water through pipes will lower the advantages of the working material sand, as it lowers the working temperature. Also I think they chose sand because of its big surface area so they can have shorter charge / discharge cycles. You have a point, with the abrasiveness of the sand tho. Especially when thinking about the whole lifecycle of 25 years or so. What a pity not to talk about possible disadvantages in the video...
Compared to what, in what applications? How are you judging the cost? Compressed air is involved, I assume. Needs vary, and a less expensive (to install? To operate?) approach that does not meet the requirements for the application won't work.
@@scottwillis5434 The answer to your question, with regards to the applications mentioned in the video, concerns about 50 odd alternative combinations of passive techniques using sensible heat or even latent heat without using a fluidized bed set up. Cost is cost as calculated for every installation with a 20-100 year lifetime.
Found the britphobe. Brexit was a monumentally stupid decision of collective self harm, but it was a very close vote and the pro brexit camp heavily relied on voter manipulation, e.g. via Cambridge analytica. also hate for the eu had been fuelled by the Murdoch press for the to four decades before that. Hating on all the British for maybe half of them having been systematically gaslit (not everyone voted) is bs.
What was an efficiency? How much energy you put in go heat sand and how much you have got from steam turbines?
I was impressed with the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using perforated pipes installed in rock beds, since there is no issue with sand running through pipes or other hardware. Air or water can flow through the pipes, out the perforations and through the rocks to the other pipes, with exceptionally good insulation helping prolong the duration of heat storage.
It would be interesting to hear more about how -- or IF -- this system manages to avoid destroying its heat exchangers from constant exposure to flowing abrasive sand. Sand might make for a decent heat sink, but it seems like a fundamentally bad material for a direct working component.
If they use abundant desert sand, where the grains are smooth and which is unsuitable for construction (whereas the sand with sharp grains needed for concrete is rapidly being used up), they would have much less abrasion.
@@ooooneeee Rounded desert sand is less abrasive than sharp ocean sand, but it would be a horrible material on a heat exchanger, a solid constantly rubbing against another solid with no lubricant. It would almost certainly work vastly better using an intermediary working substance like a liquid.... but this system isn't set up for that.
Wouldn't the sand be too abrasive on the components it flows through? Also if you have to run it through a steam turbine, you'd lose some efficiency converting it to another medium (sand > water > steam > mechanical input > electricity). At least the super critical carbon does not suffer this problem as much (super critical carbon > mechanical input > electricity). And the turbine for the carbon medium is much smaller with the output of power of a large turbine.
Still I'm curious as to why they think sand is practical and I'd like to know the round trip efficiency of Carbon vs sand
you did not say any thing about efficiency of heat exchangers and powerplant
how about steam consumers？they have full load steam at day time and 1/3 steam demand at night? would this application suit? if it could storage the energy at night, it will ease the boiler a lot!
Pushing sand through such a system seems quite energy intensive. I wonder if you have numbers on energy consumption of this approach. From your website, it seems that you are aware of this challenge, so you must have run some numbers. Are there any publications discussing this?
I think sand is the mass, air is the working fluid
Why not only blowing air from the bottom of the heated sand storage to absorb energy and then routing the hot gas through a heat exchanger? Or just feed water pipes through the bed? This would cancel the abrasive effect of the sand completely.
You’re on to something! This was an idea I had as well.
Feeding Water through pipes will lower the advantages of the working material sand, as it lowers the working temperature. Also I think they chose sand because of its big surface area so they can have shorter charge / discharge cycles. You have a point, with the abrasiveness of the sand tho. Especially when thinking about the whole lifecycle of 25 years or so. What a pity not to talk about possible disadvantages in the video...
This is the most expensive and complex approach to putting heat into sand and getting it out of it again.
Compared to what, in what applications?
How are you judging the cost? Compressed air is involved, I assume.
Needs vary, and a less expensive (to install? To operate?) approach that does not meet the requirements for the application won't work.
@@scottwillis5434 The answer to your question, with regards to the applications mentioned in the video, concerns about 50 odd alternative combinations of passive techniques using sensible heat or even latent heat without using a fluidized bed set up. Cost is cost as calculated for every installation with a 20-100 year lifetime.
Jargon makes it very hard to understand any of this. I guess I’m not the target audience.
Nice
Too complicated vocabulary
Let me give you a tip- Never use a British voice for English videos for the Eu market- Brexit then get the fuk out all the way!
Found the britphobe. Brexit was a monumentally stupid decision of collective self harm, but it was a very close vote and the pro brexit camp heavily relied on voter manipulation, e.g. via Cambridge analytica. also hate for the eu had been fuelled by the Murdoch press for the to four decades before that. Hating on all the British for maybe half of them having been systematically gaslit (not everyone voted) is bs.
So much bullshit and lies its unbelievable i just had to sign in and dislike