Storing Energy Using Graphite

The Canberra Times recently published an article, rather misleadingly entitled "Generating solar energy in the dark", which looked at the use of purified graphite for thermal energy storage.

The company developing the technology is called Lloyd Energy Systems, and they are prototyping solar energy storage, a wind-to-heat plant and a small-scale plant that combines water treatment, energy storage and steam turbine generation.

The company has received a $5 million Federal Government grant as part of its advanced energy storage technology program in the western NSW town of Lake Cargelligo, with Country Energy agreeing to purchase the power generated. Lloyd Energy also has an agreement with Ergon Energy in Queensland to build a $30million plant at Cloncurry in Queensland, partially funded by the Queensland state government, which the Sydney Morning Herald reported on last year.


[Lloyd Energy CEO] Mr Hollis said large amounts of coal-fired energy were lost during long transmission to remote areas. As power loads built up over time, mainly because of demand for air-conditioners, the grid could no longer cope in peak periods. Towns at the end of the line suffered the most from power shortages.

"We're putting environmentally friendly generation out at the end of the branches of the tree if you like, so it can pump energy back in when the branches are in trouble," he said. "It actually serves three purposes. Firstly, it is a renewable energy replacement for coal. Secondly, it avoids the country energy authorities having to upgrade their transmission lines so they can get more power out in the peak." The third benefit was having an energy source at the end of the line that could return power into the grid.

Sixteen full-scale models would go to Lake Cargelligo and 54 to Cloncurry. The system's mobility and flexibility had caught the attention of key Australian mining companies, which use diesel and gas generators.

Mr Hollis said making renewable energy available when it was required added to the system's value. ... "You can store thermal energy in a lot of things, but high-purity graphite is an extremely efficient way of storing it it doesn't have any losses. You can move the heat in and out very quickly."

Graphite based storage does not seem to have been used anywhere else in the world thus far. Storage for renewable energy has usually been limited to compressing air underground (Compress Air Energy Storage or CAES), where it can later be released under pressure, or pumped hydro, where the power is used to pump water back up into dams that can generate hydro-electricity. While both techniques are effective, they require suitable locations and complex infrastructure to be put in place.

The Queensland project will make Cloncurry the first town in Australia to rely exclusively on solar power, produced by a concentrated solar power (CSP) system. The system contains almost 7200 mirrors, which will guide the sun's rays into holes in the bottoms of 54 elevated graphite cubes, heating them to 1800 degrees (C). The stored heat is then used to generate steam for turbines on demand. The company claims the turbine will use less water than falls in an average year on the power station's roof.

Wind to Heat on King Island

A third system using the graphite system is being planned by CBD Energy, which has licensed the Lloyd technology and will build a wind-powered version of the system on King Island. The island, in the Bass Strait north-west of Tasmania, currently relies primarily on diesel to generate power for its 1800 residents.

The joint venture with Hydro Tasmania is not expected to make the island wholly powered by renewable energy, but it will eliminate the need for 1.25 megalitres of diesel fuel a year, says CBD's chief engineer, John Giannasca.

CBD plans to install two megawatts of wind turbines to supplement existing systems along with six graphite blocks. The blocks are each the size of a standard shipping container, and will be heated to 800 degrees (C).

Some solar panels will be also be installed for periods when the island is without wind, and there are ongoing investigations into harnessing ocean current and tidal energy in the region.

CBD Energy is run by ex-Impulse Airlines chief Gerry McGowan, with the company partly owned by German clean energy company Solon. CBD is also looking to develop solar energy projects in Australia, with plans for the first operation to be set up in the northern NSW town of Moree.

Graphite energy storage in context

King Island received a lot of press attention for an earlier project to store energy using Vanadium Redox flow batteries that began in 2003.

The company involved in that initiative, Pinnacle VRB, has since changed name to Cougar Energy and doesn't seem to have any active VRB projects going.

Another Australian company developing a slightly different form of Vanadium based batteries (Vanadium Bromide) is VFuel, though there hasn't been much news from them in some time either. Both VFuel and Pinnacle/Cougar are using technology pioneered at the University of NSW.

What will happen to the flow battery installation isn't clear, though a visiting parliamentarian (pdf) reported in 2004 that "The vanadium batteries would appear to best suit the ironing out of the wind fluctuations rather than holding larger quantities of power. The battery is expensive and takes up considerable space" and that graphite was being considered as an alternative.

TreeHugger noted last year that the advantage the Lloyd Energy graphite system has is that they have apparently managed to figure out how to refine low grade graphite into high quality crystalline graphite, and the storage capacity “ranges from around 300kWh (thermal) per tonne at a storage temperature of 750°C to around 1000kWh (thermal) per tonne at 1800°C.”.

The Australian Greenhouse Office has a review paper on Energy Storage Technologies (pdf), published in 2005, which includes a brief look at graphite in a section on thermal energy storage.

Thermal energy storage systems use material that can be kept at high temperatures in insulated containments. Heat recovered can then be applied for electricity generation using steam Rankine cycle or other heat engine cycles. Energy input can, in principle, be provided by electrical resistance heating but the overall round trip efficiency will be low. However, as with thermochemical energy storage, thermal systems have considerable advantages when integrated with Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies (ie parabolic troughs or dishes, central receiver/heliostat systems and Linear Fresnel systems).

Integration of thermal storage for several full load hours, together with new storage materials and advanced charging/discharging concepts, would allow for increased solar thermal electricity production without changing the power block size (ECOSTAR, Nov 2004). Provided that the storage is sufficiently inexpensive, this would lower the levelised energy cost, and additionally increase the dispatchability of the electricity generation.

The kind of storage system used for solar energy storage depends on the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology, the heat transfer medium used and the required temperature of operation. In general, high-temperature thermal storage development will need several scale-up steps over an extended development time before market acceptance will be achieved.

Storage systems for thermal energy storage need to:
• be efficient in terms of energy loss and temperature drops
• have low cost
• have a long service life
• have low parasitic power requirements.

The development of storage systems for high pressure steam and pressurized, high temperature air, is especially challenging. If or when developed, such storage systems would lead to a significant drop in CSP electricity costs. The high-temperature thermal storage technologies utilised or under development now are (ECOSTAR, Nov 2004):

Molten salt storage and Room Temperature Ionic Liquids (RTILs)

• State of the art is the 2-tank molten salt storage tested in the “Solar Two” Central Receiver Solar Power Plant demonstration project in California, combined with using molten salt as heat transfer fluid. The use of new, so called Room Temperature Ionic Liquids (RTILs) has recently been proposed. RTILs are organic salts with negligible vapour pressure in the relevant temperature range and a melting temperature below 25°C. Room temperature ionic liquids are new materials that have the potential to be stored at temperatures of many 100s of degrees without decomposing. It is not yet clear whether they are stable up to the temperature level required for CSP and also whether they may be produced at reasonable costs.

Concrete Storage

• The concept of using concrete or castable ceramics to store energy at high temperatures for parabolic trough power plants with synthetic oil as the heat transfer fluid (HTF) has been investigated in European projects. The implementation of a concrete storage system is claimed (ECOSTAR, Nov 2004) to be able to be realised within less than 5 years.

Phase Change Materials (PCM)

• Phase change materials are materials selected to have a phase change (usually solid to liquid) at a temperature matching the thermal input source. The high “latent heat” in a phase change offers the potential for higher energy storage densities than storage of non phase change high temperature materials. Because a solid/liquid phase change is involved, a heat transfer fluid is needed to move heat from source to PCM. At present, two principle approaches are being investigated:
- encapsulation of small amounts of PCM
- embedding of PCM in a matrix made of another solid material with high heat conduction.
• The first measure is based on the reduction of distances inside the PCM and the second one uses the enhancement of heat conduction by other materials (e.g. graphite). Storages based on PCM are in an early stage of development but the cost target is to stay below A$34/kWh based on the thermal capacity. Although the uncertainties and risks of the PCM storage technology are in a medium range, the technology time required for full development and commercial implementation is likely to be more than 10 years (ECOSTAR, Nov 2004).

Storage for air receivers using solid materials

• Storage types using solid material for sensible heat are normally used together with volumetric atmospheric or pressurized air systems. The heat has to be transferred to another medium, which may be any kind of solid with high density and heat capacity. Another innovation is to develop for pressurised closed-air receivers a storage container that has to be pressure resistant up to about 16-20 bar depending on the gas turbine pressure ratio.
• For both cases the time for development and implementation is considered to be between 5 to 10 years and the risks and uncertainties are in the medium range (ECOSTAR, Nov 2004).

Storage for saturated water/steam

• The steam drum, which is a common part in many steam generators, is often used to provide process heat storage in industry. The main problem is the size of the steam vessel for larger storage capacity and the degradation of steam quality during discharging. However, this storage type is ideal as buffer storage for short time periods of several minutes, to compensate shading of the solar field by fast moving small clouds. Using appropriate encapsulated PCM inside the storage could enhance the storage capacity because the latent heat content can be used to slow down the temperature and pressure decrease and enable smaller storage vessels for the same thermal capacity.
• Recently, underground thermal energy storage has been proposed again as a lowcost solution to high-temperature, low-loss thermal storage for CSP systems (Mills et al, Nov 2004). It involves storage of water under pressure in deep metal lined caverns where the pressure is contained by the surrounding rock and the overburden weight.

High-purity graphite.

• This readily available material has the attractive property of increasing its heat storage capacity as the temperature of storage rises. However, the relatively low temperatures of solar thermal systems are not optimal for this storage medium unless the graphite storage blocks could be positioned at the very high temperature focus of a concentrating solar collector.

For another good description of a range of energy storage technologies, try Richard Baxter's book "Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide".

One obvious advantage for graphite is that carbon is extremely common, unlike some of the minerals used in various battery technologies and so there will be no meaningful material "limits" to the creation of these. Perhaps one day we'll see CO2 being sequestered in the form of graphite blocks, ready to be installed into CSP power stations.

On semi-related news, energy storage has also been getting some attention in The Economist lately, courtesy of EEStor's ultracapacitor technology.

(Crossposted from Peak Energy).

An interesting document that Energy Storage Technologies

I would like to see more emphasis on the solar chemical storage systems... eg the methane and ammonia reforming systems. The ammonia system I would have thought attractive as the required catalysts should just be a transplant from the ammonia synthesis industry. In fact most of the technology should be well understood.

See the bottom of page 20
One advantage of this kind of storage is that it is essentially 100% "efficient" after the reactants are separated, unlike heat which will always have losses.

see page 25-26 where both graphite and ammonia storage systems are described as being at incubation - early commercialisation compared to hydrogen which is still at R&D stage.

ANUs solar chemical storage page
A more recent report for NSW and Vic Govs

Thanks for those - must admit I've never looked into chemical storage for energy - I'll do some reading.

The Greenhouse Office paper is the best I've come across - but getting a little dated now.

A lot of their graphs came from the Energy Storage Association - which doesn't list chemical storage at all from what I can see.

http://www.electricitystorage.org/

The catalyst is a reduced iron oxide plus some common elements.

I wouldn't write off vanadium redox batteries just yet since while their performance is unspectacular at least they have been fully tested unlike these graphite blocks. No doubt a discussion will emerge on electrochemical vs stored heat vs phase shift chemical with no clear winner. End result burn more coal.

Re which if the King Island scheelite (tungsten) mine is re-opened I believe neither batteries nor hot blocks will get a look in. An underwater alternating current cable will probably send grid power to the island. In turn that grid will be partly supplied via Basslink HVDC cable. End result burn more coal.

King Island is in a great location to harness both wave and ocean current energy (as well as the copious wind) and there seems to be action on that front too.

With some solar and good energy storage, they may yet become the first fully renewable locale in Oz.

I'm glad they are trying graphite as well as the flow batteries - it will be good to see a like for like comparison.

I was discussing King Island with an ASPO colleague a few days ago. It'd be great to see them set a target to become Australia's first 100% renewable locale. When people see what can be done, they can envisage it being done on larger scale. King Island today, Tasmania tomorrow, then we'll takeover the whole globe!

Yep - start at the disconnected pieces, then move to the ends of the grid (places like Cloncurry) and slowly move inwards until everything has renewables backed by large scale storage and then we can just switch the coal fired stuff off.

I like the way that some of these out of the way places are prepared to experiment in order to rid themselves of diesel generators.

Heating hot carbon hotter is an interesting way to store energy. Magnesium oxide, the principal component of some varieties of firebrick, is an alternative with a little less heat capacity per kilogram-kelvin (but about the same per litre-kelvin) that might be preferable because it cannot burn. Getting concentrated sunlight onto the bottom of a C block would seem to require the sunlight to go through some kind of window.

Ammonia cracking has the difficulty that the cracked material is largely hydrogen, very bulky.

H2 + (1/3) N2 <--> (2/3) NH3(l)
H2 + (1/2) O2 ---> H2O(l)

Looks as if these processes have deltas 'H' -41 kJ/mol and -286 kJ/mol: to get an erg of heat from the reaction of hydrogen with nitrogen, you must react seven times more of it than if you had reacted it with oxygen.

Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room

Since ammonia is of such enormous industrial importance(explosives and N-fertilizer in particular) and both electricity and ammonia are fungibles, why not just make ammonia from excess power and sell it? Then you can take the equivalent amount of natural gas(typically) that would otherwise have gone into ammonia production and use that for power production when it is nescessary. As long as people are using natural gas for power generation the end result will be the same; you saved some other source, typically coal or natural gas, that didn't have to go into either power or ammonia production.

ETA: Other sinks may be sodium/potassium hydroxide + chlorine gas or desalination of water. In essence find lucrative industrial end uses of power and integrate them as a variable load into your power generation scheme. Balance load instead of storing energy.

ammonia is a renewable, clean, combustible liquid fuel.

If you burn it you get back exactly what you had, only much less of it. If you keep it you have a valuable industrial and agricultural input.

you had at place you can't use it. in place you can't use it you can have it in over abundance and at much lower cost. you gain more in the first place and lose some later on, you can still be ahead.

ammonia as agriculture input degrades soil organicity, causes erosions and run-offs, generates strong GHG through soil interaction.

"you had at place you can't use it."

A frequent problem for cheap renewable power is that it's stranded out in the middle of a desert or up in the mountains somewhere.

Ammonia is actually fairly easy to transport and store; even more so if you produce end products like nitric acid or ammonium nitrate. If there are no transmission lines or the transmission lines are being used close to capacity it's certainly much easier to make ammonia or its derivates and transport them instead of transporting power.

"ammonia as agriculture input degrades soil organicity, causes erosions and run-offs, generates strong GHG through soil interaction."

And even so yields keep going up, farming still manages to be a carbon-sink according to every study I've seen on the subject and demand for "non-organic" food is still going strong.

As long as there's a market for explosives used in construction and mining and artificial N-fertilizer I don't see ammonia-derivatives being replaced anytime soon; you might as well make it with renewable energy rather than natural gas if it makes more economical sense than renewables for power.

even more so if you produce end products like nitric acid or ammonium nitrate.

one of the most cost effective way for transport is pipeline. ammonia can be transported via pipeline. can nitric acid or ammonium nitrate be transported in that way?

And even so yields keep going up, farming still manages to be a carbon-sink according to every study I've seen on the subject and demand for "non-organic" food is still going strong.

the question is for how long? performance enhance drug can do wonders for a short while but can kill the taker in the long run. farming sinks carbon but ammonia interacting with soil produces N2O which is a few hundred times stronger a GHG than CO2.

the point is that there is nothing in higher and more critical demand than renewable, clean and easily transportable liquid fuel. ammonia can play a much bigger role in this way than anything else.

no need to tell me the usefulness of NH3, since i am NH3 ;)

one of the most cost effective way for transport is pipeline. ammonia can be transported via pipeline. can nitric acid or ammonium nitrate be transported in that way?

Building pipelines or storage is a huge barrier to entry. I believe just shipping it via boat/train/truck(in that order of preference) is good enough to get things started while still making environmental sense.

Yes, you could ship ammonium nitrate via pipeline in solution if you wanted to, but it probably makes more sense to ship the ammonia without excess water if you have access to a pipeline.

the question is for how long? performance enhance drug can do wonders for a short while but can kill the taker in the long run. farming sinks carbon but ammonia interacting with soil produces N2O which is a few hundred times stronger a GHG than CO2.

I don't see this debate being settled in the near future. In the mean time, is it better to fix nitrogen using renewable energy sources instead of natural gas when and where it is practical?

N20 is also produced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria, urine, manure etc. Most if not all sources of N-fertilizer share this problem. Are you sure it does not just come down to how much N-fertilizer you use and how timely the application is?(fertilizer application should be scheduled according to the specific needs of the plant and in the nescessary amounts for best effect)?

the point is that there is nothing in higher and more critical demand than renewable, clean and easily transportable liquid fuel. ammonia can play a much bigger role in this way than anything else.

All the more reason you should take the ammonia and use it instead of converting it back to electricity.

the sooner to stop using hydrocarbons for fuel or fertilizer feedstock the better.

ammonia as agriculture input degrades soil organicity, causes erosions and run-offs, generates strong GHG through soil interaction.

One could always apply it as a folar feed.

Without doing more reading, I suspect that the attraction of the ammonia system is that it is also easier to crack, over cheaper catalysts than the splitting of water.
And although you might have to react seven times as much material (in the forward direction) the central issue is the rate of the reverse step.

IE, if you can produce the N2 and H2 from NH3 faster than you can produce the H2 and O2 from H2O for a given energy input, this is the important rate limiting step for a storage system. I suspect that reacting them is not the problem.

As far as I'm aware, the catalysts for water splitting generally involve expensive precious metals (Au, Pt) (anyone know better?) that are easily poisoned.

Also, the splitting of NH3 uses heat directly, does such a system exist for water?

Storing split water will also have the bulky H2, but at least we dont also have the problem of having to separate and store reactive O2 as well. In fact from what I understand, for the NH3 system, the cracked reagents are all stored in the same bottle along with uncracked NH3.
(I think I've got that right...)

Apparently an ammonia based system also got a Greenhouse Office grant (Wizard Power in Whyalla) - I'll do some digging and write a post on them...

I wonder if this is a 'political' statement since that is also a potential site for the desal plant for the Olympic Dam expansion. One is talking perhaps 50MW peak power and the other maybe 500 MW continuous. If I'm right the purpose could be to say we don't need nukular look at the green energy. Or maybe it will be like the solar steam plant at Liddell coal station in NSW which no-one notices.

Pic from anti-Baxter prison site is of the pipeline to Whyalla carrying precious river water.

Maybe - Malcolm Turnbull has a page claiming credit for it on his web site.

I like to think these things are being trialled for purposes beyond simple PR - lets face it - 99% of the population neither knows nor cares about this stuff.

BTW - try and keep the image size down - people on dialup complain about that sort of thing...

the catalysts for water splitting generally involve expensive precious metals (Au, Pt) (anyone know better?) that are easily poisoned.

Also, the splitting of NH3 uses heat directly, does such a system exist for water?

Storing split water will also have the bulky H2, but at least we dont also have the problem of having to separate and store reactive O2 as well. In fact from what I understand, for the NH3 system, the cracked reagents are all stored in the same bottle along with uncracked NH3.

Yes, pressurized liquid NH3 under a gaseous mixture of NH3, H2, and N2.

Reactive O2 can be stored in the atmosphere. I'm reacting some right now.

At only a few hundred degrees Celsius, ammonia is less stable than
a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen, and catalysts can accelerate
its breakdown, which would inevitably occur eventually anyway.

There are no "catalysts for water splitting" because water is stabler
than a mixture of its elements. At a few hundred degrees Celsius,
unlike ammonia, it would not spontaneously dissociate, ever.

No heat that any solid material can endure will split water.
There are multi-step processes that split it a little at a time,
and can occur at temperatures that containers can contain.

Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room

Apparently there are catalysts for water splitting 1, 2, 3... but thru photo catalytic processes, not using heat.

RE the storage of oxygen... I guess this depends on whether you are going to burn the hydrogen in a fuel cell, in which case pure oxygen is preferred... and if it is a byproduct of any water splitting process you would probably store it.

(EDIT)
And by chance Nature has an article on this very topic.

Nature 451, 778-779 (14 February 2008)
Catalysis: The art of splitting water

Thomas J. Meyer1

Abstract

Plants produce oxygen from water, but the same chemical reaction is hard to achieve synthetically. A new family of catalysts could breathe fresh life into the quest for artificial photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis in plants underpins the existence of many life-forms on Earth. At its heart is a remarkable chemical reaction: the light-powered conversion of water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbohydrates. The development of an artificial version of this reaction, based on splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, is highly desirable, not least because of hydrogen's attraction as a fuel. Reporting in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Bernhard and colleagues1 describe the preparation of a new family of synthetic catalysts for the first part of this splitting reaction — water oxidation. The reactivity of the iridium-based catalysts that they have developed can be modified simply by varying the organic framework surrounding the metal.

NB O2 in the atmosphere due to photosynthesis comes from water... not CO2 (as many seem to believe)

The electrodes of commercial alkaline electrolysis cells do have catalytic properties with respect to water splitting, although they obviously need the aid of an electric potential in order function efficiently. Nickel seems to be the preferred material rather than precious metals. Nevertheless electrolyzers are expensive, and the round trip efficiency of electricity==>chemical fuel==>electricity is low. I am skeptical that that fuel produced from electrolysis can support high levels of economic activity.

Other means of splitting water with sunlight are being pursued, including photo-catalytic splitting (as you mentioned) and thermochemical splitting. Also some people are now pursuing carbon dioxide splitting. If CO2 is split into CO and ½O2, then CO can be used to produce hydrogen via the water gas shift reaction CO + H2O ==> CO2 + H2. It is not immediately obvious that splitting CO2 is any easier than splitting H2O, but a number of people are pursing this option using photo catalytic methods, thermochemical splitting, and direct thermal splitting.

Los Alamos are doing some interesting work on using carbon dioxide for fuel, combined with more hydrogen:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/los-alamos-deve.html
Green Car Congress: Los Alamos Developing Process for CO2 Capture and Stripping from Air for Synthetic Fuels Production

http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/GreenFreedom.pdf
GreenFreedom.pdf

If they could really produce fuel at the cost they estimate, that is a game-changer - but of course the question is, can they?

It's not a game-changer.  The same reactor can produce somewhere between 4x and 6x the vehicle-miles via electric vehicles and PHEVs than the synthetic fuel process, and at far lower capital cost (no chemical plant required).  This is a diversion (see my comments in the GGC thread; this is a dead end just like H2CAR).

The same reactor can produce somewhere between 4x and 6x the vehicle-miles via electric vehicles and PHEVs than the synthetic fuel process, and at far lower capital cost (no chemical plant required).

I, too, am extremely skeptical about the idea of using electricity to produce chemical fuel. Nevertheless we should not for get the "H" in PHEV. These vehicles need hydrocarbon fuels to operate, especially for long distance trips. If 8 billion people want high levels of personal mobility then figuring out how to decarbonize passenger miles is a worthwhile endeavor.

We don't need hydrocarbons for PHEVs; alcohols will do.  If we can get sufficient carbon from wastes, non-food crop matter and so forth, it makes no sense to spend a couple billion to pull carbon from nuke plant cooling towers.

I regard alcohols as hydrocarbons even though they do have a bit of oxygen in them. If using plants to pull CO2 out of the atmoshere and H out of water is the cheapest option then naturally the market will choose that option. However, there is the small matter of the energy balance of biofuels and the opportunity cost associated with using land and water to produce fuel rather than food or ecological services.

If the materials involved are byproducts of things already being grown, the energy balance question is moot or nearly so; you're not going to reduce the energy input to a cornfield if you fail to make use of the corncobs.

I'm sceptical myself, but I don't rule it out.

If I've read this right there must be two types of graphite blocks. A smaller type has light absorbing holes and a larger type with resistance heating. The water tubes must be interlaced between the holes or coils. The steam turbine must be nearby. Straight away this says high capital cost and reduced efficiency. Of course if the light or electrical input is cheap this is not so much of a problem. Then there is the issue of flow, temperature and pressure regulation as the block cools. In a fuelburn system you just adjust the throttle to get this right while this is apparently not an issue with the redox battery.

Let's reserve judgement until we see it working trouble free for a year or so.

It's interesting to see all the new Green Tech coming online. Even in Oil and Gas rich Alaska, we are starting to use some alternative energy technologies.

it's all a convergence of high energy prices and knowledge of climate change. it's amazing what's happening.

The real problems will start when people know how to do stuff more efficiently but the capital costs of doing it cannot be met as credit has contracted too much... I often wonder who will be buying all these hybrids once TSHTF...

Nick.

The people buying hybrids will be those who won't to save tremendous amounts of money on gas. a family friend bought one and doubled his MPG.

take at look at MPG gains during the 70s. people will buy these cars.

Care to explain what this is ?

And how graphite compares to the other mediums in the graphic ?

BTW, carbon, as graphite, has been intensely studied because it was critical to nuclear piles, which involve very high heat and thermal stress.Further, the special case of effects of high neutron flux caused even more study.

Also, note that graphite has IIRC highest melting point of all solids and, just as fascinating, the lowest coefficient of thermal expansion [re minimal stress from heat-cool cycles].

I am keen with hope that its use for heat storage is workable. Or something like it... a ceramic? Zircon?

... hope that its use for heat storage is workable. Or something like it... a ceramic? Zircon?

Zircon's formula can be written ZrO2SiO2. ZrO2 is rare compared to silica, so why not use silica (quartz). Or MgO, as above said.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

Fascinating stuff.

Thermal mass is proposed as an energy storage system for captured solar energy. The thermal mass is then used to heat water, which generates electricity, which is transmitted to end users, who run it through resisting elements to heat their homes... and run those computers and refrigerators.

And the question I have about all that is whether the advantages of concentrating energy collection and doing high temperture storage could outweigh the advantages of collecting that thermal energy at the point of use in homes with high thermal mass, like this one http://users.chartertn.net/dhrivnak/mass.htm and like many many other designs that you can find out there.

Systems like that load balance over days, require no distribution system at all. Now granted, homes need electricity for things other than heating. But that only means we need to pose the question of local photovoltaic on the roof versus the whole centralized solar concentrating thermal mass to steam to electricity to the grid to the home set up.

There are a million questions that I can't answer about the relative costs and energy losses of these 2 approaches... but from a 100 miles up I look down and wonder whether centralized systems relying on high temperatures (fascinating as they are in a technological sense) are really necessary, or whether highly distributed lower energy and lower temperature systems cannot potentially meet most home needs.

I love the idea of thermal mass being used throughout an energy system... I wonder whether high temperature thermal mass in centralized locations is more useful than low temperature thermal mass distributed throughout an energy architecture.

... I wonder whether high temperature thermal mass in centralized locations is more useful than low temperature thermal mass distributed throughout an energy architecture.

A large hot object leaks less of its heat per unit time than a small hot object with the same initial temperature. If the extent of centralization is such that 10^(4 to 8) households share the same hot object, it can leak a smaller percentage per day even if its initial 'T' is much higher than that of the single-household hot thing.

Why shouldn't every household have its own steel mill, cement kiln, etc.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

Why shouldn't every household have its own steel mill, cement kiln, etc.

This is the interesting question that our societies, as currently structured, face. What is the optimal scale for transformative industries/processes? Especially in light of rising energy and/or material costs.

While it is clearly not feasible or practical for every household to have its own steel mill, is it optimal for them "all" to be located in China ;-) ?

A similar question could be asked of all the electric power tools located in the back shed of every home handyperson - for that rare occasion when the $50 GMC drill bought on special at Bunnings will suddenly become "useful".

But that only means we need to pose the question of local photovoltaic on the roof versus the whole centralized solar concentrating thermal mass to steam to electricity to the grid to the home set up.

I guess I don't see it as an either/or proposition.

Distributed energy generation is both useful and valuable - I encourage people to install solar PV panels wherever they can practically do so.

However - centralised, large scale CSP solar can be located in optimal locations (frequently in desert locations where large groups of people don't choose to live) - the power can then be distributed to homes (which could also have their own PV and energy efficient designs to capture solar heat) and to industry (which often can't power its processes using anything other than some large scale, remote energy source).

For your back of the envelope calculating pleasure these charts show how the heat capacity of graphite rises with temperature.

I'm not sure why new developments are needed for heat storage. Use the cheap ways that have been around for a century. Insulated pits with gravel. Firebrick with holes in it. Engineers have been doing stuff like this for half of forever.

TJ -

I was thinking along the same lines.

While graphite is no doubt superior to plain ol' bricks and rocks in terms of heat capacity, ability to withstand thermal stresses, etc., the real basis of comparision should be which one is more cost effective, largely from a capital investment standpoint.

For even a medium size power generating system, the amount of thermal storage will have to be huge, i.e., hundreds and perhaps thousands of tons on material. I don't know what price high-quality graphite blocks is these days, but I'm pretty certain they are more than just a bit more expensive than bricks or rocks. So, unless there is some sort of critical space constraint (and for stationary power systems there usually is not), it might be far more cost-effective to use a larger, less efficient, but cheaper heat storage system based on bricks or rocks rather than graphite blocks.

Some people lose sight of the fact that efficiency and effectiveness are not always the same thing.

A lot of people here will probably disagree with me, but it is my view that some of these schemes involving the conversion of electricity generated by solar or wind power into heat energy is retrograde and and step in the wrong direction (except perhaps under special circumstances, such as on an isolated island).

Electricity is the highest and most usable form of energy, which is why it is usually the most expensive. One of the conceptual schemes appears to involve converting electricity from solar or wind power into heat and then storing that heat in a medium such as graphite, then extracting that heat to make steam to run a turbine and (finally) to turn a generator to make electricity. As the overall efficiency (from heat to electricity) of a steam turbine powered generator is only on the order of 35%, that means that such an energy storage scheme will essentially lose about 65% of the energy put into it.

This is why I believe that i) if you have already made electricity via solar or wind, then that electricity should be stored only as electricity, and ii) thermal storage should be used only if you are generating heat in the first place, such as from solar concentrators supplying the heat for steam turbine driven generator or for space heating.

Otherwise, going from electricity to heat and back to electricity strikes me as the thermodynamic equivalent of digging a hole, filling it back up, and then digging it again.

Once you have electricity, it would be nuts to do anything but use it right away or store it in some sort of high efficiency return, such as pumped hydro or any battery with high return ratio.

But if you turn electricity -100% available energy- into heat - carnot efficiency limited at the very best- you lose a good hunk of it. Not a smart idea, as any thermo prof will be happy to tell you.

On the other hand, if you put the solar energy from a concentrator into a hunk of graphite, and then use that nice stable stored heat to run my favorite high efficiency, very very reliable, low cost free piston stirling engine, sitting by the millions out in some desert, then you have a world-saver.

BTW, I am not talking abut storing the heat overnight- way too big. Just enough graphite to smooth out the solar flux variation over the day so the stirling hot end has a peaceful life and doesn't get blasted by local hot spots.

This is an old idea-even older than I am. Lots of people have talked about it, It is a very good idea- one that hasn't been talked about nearly enough here. So I would appreciate some of you technically qualified people taking a bit of time to criticize the hell out of this idea- using proper science, of course, not mere peeve or prejudice. I am betting It will survive your heaviest artillery.

... I am not talking abut storing the heat overnight- way too big. Just enough graphite to smooth out the solar flux variation over the day

What solar power really needs is storage with which to smooth over winter. I can't see heated refractory fulfilling that need, but for overnight, I think it is in fact not too big. Liquid (Na, K)(NO2, NO3) has been demonstrated for this. It can't burn but it can support combustion.

This is an old idea-even older than I am.... .I would appreciate some of you technically qualified people taking a bit of time to criticize the hell out of this idea- using proper science, of course, not mere peeve or prejudice. I am betting It will survive your heaviest artillery.

Lots of things survive as goodish ideas. I recall as a second-millennium high-school chemistry student hearing my teacher talk about ammonia as fuel and immediately asking, wouldn't you get a lot of oxides of nitrogen?

The heated refractory has to be an oxide, not carbon, because then sunlight can come to it through air. A window to protect a non-fireproof refractory adds complexity and loses some of the light. We cannot use c-c-Carbon b-because it is Bad.

Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?

Long Term storage of Solar Energy
>What solar power really needs is storage with which to smooth over winter.

I remember back in the 1980s I think there was a special advertising supplement in Scientific American that covered heat pumps and their technology in Sweden and as I recall they were extracting heat from the water near the lake bottoms and returning it a bit colder. The working temperature was actually quite low.

But the point made was that this was essentially heat stored from the summer months by the lake.

I think the same issue also covered solar thermal ponds in Israel which were of high salinity increasing with depth but with higher temperatures toward the bottom. I recall it saying the heat could be stored for weeks.

Between these two concepts, there surely must be something useful at some scale.

Or you could just use different power sources where they were most appropriate and cost effective, solar where it is sunny pretty much all of the time ( I disagree that overnight storage will not be possible, either thermally or perhaps in future in the batteries of electric cars, feeding the mains).

You then use nuclear or geothermal where it ain't sunny in the winter, top it with a dash of wind turbines where it is windy, and voila! you are done! cost effective, carbon-free energy everywhere, simply by working with the grain instead of trying to go against it.

This is why I believe that i) if you have already made electricity via solar or wind, then that electricity should be stored only as electricity, and ii) thermal storage should be used only if you are generating heat in the first place, such as from solar concentrators supplying the heat for steam turbine driven generator or for space heating.

Well - the main example in the post is storing heat from solar concentrators before converting to electricity, not after.

In the wind->electricity->heat->electricity example, it sounds like the losses are less (or at least more cost effective) than the large batteries currently being used, so the losses presumably aren't prohibitive.