I keep seeing these (ahem) "revolutionary new" energy storage "batteries" that all sound to me like scaled up versions of the same things we've been using since the 1970s, or occasionally, dating...
I keep seeing these (ahem) "revolutionary new" energy storage "batteries" that all sound to me like scaled up versions of the same things we've been using since the 1970s, or occasionally, dating back to the Roman era or further.
Just saw another article for a Scandinavian "sand battery" project, storing excess summertime power in giant sand-filled silos, for cheap winter heating.
I'm thrilled that people are working on upscaling basic energy storage techniques we've known about for decades or centuries ... but they're not revolutionary or new.
Who's calling it revolutionary or new? Neither of those words come up in either of the two articles OP posted. And, why are you getting fired up over semantics?
Who's calling it revolutionary or new? Neither of those words come up in either of the two articles OP posted. And, why are you getting fired up over semantics?
Upscaling isn't as trivial as you make it out to be. Quantity has a quality all of its own, as they say. It often introduces new challenges and sometimes unlocks entirely new uses of the same...
Upscaling isn't as trivial as you make it out to be. Quantity has a quality all of its own, as they say. It often introduces new challenges and sometimes unlocks entirely new uses of the same technology. Sure, heating something up using electricity to use the heat later is an old concept. Storage heaters were very much a thing here decades ago. But if you scale that up, you can do things with it that you previously couldn't: Run it hotter and increase insulation, increasing efficiency. And if you run it hot enough, you can actually convert back to electricity via steam turbine by just running water through the silo. At small scales, that is completely nonviable. At large scales, that might just be the best way of getting the heat out. Just to throw some ideas out there of how scale affects things.
Related, more in-depth article from last year:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/inside-switzerland-s-giant-water-battery/46915530
I keep seeing these (ahem) "revolutionary new" energy storage "batteries" that all sound to me like scaled up versions of the same things we've been using since the 1970s, or occasionally, dating back to the Roman era or further.
Just saw another article for a Scandinavian "sand battery" project, storing excess summertime power in giant sand-filled silos, for cheap winter heating.
I'm thrilled that people are working on upscaling basic energy storage techniques we've known about for decades or centuries ... but they're not revolutionary or new.
Who's calling it revolutionary or new? Neither of those words come up in either of the two articles OP posted. And, why are you getting fired up over semantics?
Upscaling isn't as trivial as you make it out to be. Quantity has a quality all of its own, as they say. It often introduces new challenges and sometimes unlocks entirely new uses of the same technology. Sure, heating something up using electricity to use the heat later is an old concept. Storage heaters were very much a thing here decades ago. But if you scale that up, you can do things with it that you previously couldn't: Run it hotter and increase insulation, increasing efficiency. And if you run it hot enough, you can actually convert back to electricity via steam turbine by just running water through the silo. At small scales, that is completely nonviable. At large scales, that might just be the best way of getting the heat out. Just to throw some ideas out there of how scale affects things.