h a l f b a k e r yAssume a hemispherical cow.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I'm not sure how this is different from, or better than, existing sand-based heat batteries. |
|
| |
Sand is stupid in this context. A Shipping container is useful because its a standardized unit of the movement of physical things. They have a weight limit of ~65,000lb or 30 metric tons and a volume of ~67 cubic meters. Filling it with sand would put it ~3x over its max weight limit. |
|
| |
Then there's the thermal performance of sand ~ 800J/kg/C vs water at 4200J/kg/C. So per ton, sand is ~ 8 fold worse than water at thermal storage. |
|
| |
Much better to go with a phase change material, water/ice are outstanding at this at 334,000J/kg/C but with an inconvenient temperature. Sodium sulfate in water can be around 200,000J/kg/C at ~40C or so. That's 250 fold better than sand. |
|
| |
So you can replace your unmovable shipping container full of sand with a garbage can of sodium sulfate/water. You could even get one of those dollies so that you could wheel the thing where you needed. |
|
| |
Sodium sulfate is decidedly less plentiful than sand. At least so the inhabitants of the Sahara tell me. I'd pick something less expensive. |
|
| |
@bs0u0155: Google Gemini suggests Paraffins are the best candidate materials for a home-scale thermal storage battery, and that's because they offer good latent heat of phase change. I was suggesting sand because it's cheap. What ultimately matters is J/dollar more than J/kg. Per-unit-mass isn't that important, when it's a stationary power source. |
|
| |
//Google Gemini suggests Paraffins are the best candidate materials for a home-scale thermal storage battery,// |
|
| |
There are even smarter applications [link] if you put in more effort than the average AI. |
|
| |