19

Disclaimer: this video is sponsored by Toyota.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

well no storage can be 100% efficient but you are correct that thermal storage is very efficient if you want a thermal gradient to leverage for heating (cooling as well)

I am assuming you mean Pumped-storage hydroelectricity when you say PHES and no it also falls under F=ma, but when using the terrain is able to increase the amount of mass to a more industrial useful scale. The larger the scale the smaller the losses. Hence most economical when one has mountains for the storage of the water. (metal/plastic tanks on elevated platforms tend to be much less efficient and more expensive).

I guess it depends on what you mean by rare long duration events but yes one can imagine a situation where the burning of hydrogen is justified on an energy needs basis.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

well no storage can be 100% efficient but you are correct that thermal storage is very efficient if you want a thermal gradient to leverage for heating (cooling as well)

If I have a room, and I want it hotter than outside now, and hotter than outside later, then putting an insulated box in the room and heating the stuff inside the box, then adjusting the lid to heat the room at the rate I want is 100% efficient. There is no loss eitber in practice or in principle nor any mechanism for one. This is true so long as I want all of the heat, even if I stored high grade heat and run it through a heat engine to make work before heating the room with low grade heat (in which case I might even call it a coefficient of performance of 1.3 or "130%"). I will never match the COP of a similarly engineered heat pump if all I want is low grade though, so in this sense "efficiency" is <100%.

Carnot batteries (where I have a box but don't want heat now or later but do want work) are quite inefficient (10-50% + a time based loss that only becomes negligible at the GWh scale) , or thermal storage in unheated environments (time based loss) are much less efficient.

A separate heat and cold store from a heat pump feeding a combined heat and power generator is another variation (where a COP might come close to or exceed 1).

F=ma is a bit of a thought terminating cliche (as well as being poor communication and missing a term). E=Fh=mgh. As per my link there are plenty of suitable hills and gullies over about 90% of where people live. A human made structure to lift will always be questionable.

I guess it depends on what you mean by rare long duration events but yes one can imagine a situation where the burning of hydrogen is justified on an energy needs basis

A handful of hours of storage (3-12) can pretty trivially meet loads 90-99% of the time. The remainder tends to be events that are 50-200 hours. Pumped hydro and non-round-trip storage (such as delaying EV charging, overprovisioning an industrial drying step and running it when electricity is cheap, direct ammonia electrolysis for fertiliser during high production times, or storing domestic heat in a pond for winter) can cover most of these.

For the remainder (odd once-in-a-decade weather events or major infrastructure failures) the duration is even longer (100-1000 hours). One strategy is to just keep fossil gas generators around because 100 million tonnes of CO2 emitted and 1100 tonnes of CO2 removed that month may be easier than 0 and 1000. Another is to make something with electricity to burn (which could involve an electrolyser and could involve hydrogen gas storage but does not have to).

[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Yes in a scenario, which you are in a cold climate which it is always cold outside. Then yes, thermal energy storage would be an extremely efficient option.

It doesn't apply to most living humans but I grant you that special case.

yes, I did look at your link and noted all of sites are those near mountain ranges; which I certainly grant you is near (within 100 miles of) most human population centers.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes in a scenario, which you are in a cold climate which it is always cold outside. Then yes, thermal energy storage would be an extremely efficient option.

I'm not sure I follow why this is an edge case. Space heating indoor areas with surplus wind energy stored in september-november when it peaks is the absolute largest block of inflexible demand for >100 hour storage. With PCM or suitable risk management of high temp. sensible heat it represents the plurality of potential storage demand.

Batteries may still win due to flexibility and prevalence of solar, but I can't think of a better use case for thermal storage.

It's also probably the oldest storage tech by about 8000-100,000 years

[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

heating is not done year around (365.25 days/year) for the majority of the world's population.

Hence why places which need heating year around are generally considered an edge case.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(i edited above accidentally hit enter too soon)

Long duration storage isn't used year round. Charge with wind in autumn->don't burn stuff during jan/dec or dunkelflaute isn't an edge case, it's about 10% of all energy and the only real use case where renewables absolutely need LDES.

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
19 points (88.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5289 readers
883 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS