4 ms·

Some industrial processes require very high temperatures, for which electrical generation is ill suited. Glass furnaces are one such case. Having an efficient l

Some industrial processes require very high temperatures, for which electrical generation is ill suited. Glass furnaces are one such case. Having an efficient local energy delivery mechanism that may be "recharged" with electricity is quite interesting. I don't imagine beer production requiring such high temperatures, but honestly I don't know anything about industrial beer production. Anyhow the tech presented in the article is very cool.

ahartmetz 6y ago
On the other hand, electricity can create almost "infinite temperature" with relative ease. Temperature is, roughly speaking, the average kinetic energy of a material's molecules, and you can accelerate particles to extremely kigh kinetic energy with electromagnetic fields. So if you need that kind of "temperature", electricity is very suitable, even though it's expensive per unit of energy. Another example for how electricity is a very valuable type of energy.
usrusr 6y ago
An asynchronous high intensity heat source, asynchronous in that it can be "charged" from electricity ahead of utilization time, whenever intermittent energy sources are high. According to the article at 80% efficiency, that's pretty good for a storage method that is cheap in capacity (think seasonal storage or beyond). It's not the universal storage solution to end all search for other storage solutions because it's only really applicable in a niche (heat consumption), but that niche might not be as small as people think. I think that besides applications that require high temperatures it could also be a very good match where a particularly high maximum temperature isn't required (so heat pumps and the like could be applicable) but peak power demand is of a rarely occurring, intermittent nature. It might even be applicable to once-in-a-lifetime heat applications if they can be designed for easy oxide recovery. What remains open is how cheap "charging" throughput can be built, as this is the weak spot of all other power-to-fuel concepts: the conversion facilities tend to be too expensive to remain idle outside of electricity oversupply times. And who knows, theoretically conversion throughput capacity might even turn out to be so exceptionally cheap (I certainly wouldn't expect that, but I'd be glad to be surprised) that even the inefficient electricity->fuel->heat->electricity might become competitive, once conversion outgrows direct heat applications. A market for inefficient but cheap long-term storage would definitely exist if there was any supply.
selectodude 6y ago
It doesn’t need those high temperatures but it takes a lot of energy to boil 10000 liters of water or whatever they end up using per batch.
- coward8675309 6y ago
  This is a much more plausible use for the energy produced by this method than on-site glass bottle manufacturing, alluded to elsewhere among the comments.
easton_s 6y ago
>Some industrial processes require very high temperatures, for which electrical generation is ill suited. Seems like an engineering challenge to me not an actual limitation.
- rocqua 6y ago
  It seems like the iron powder described in the article might meet this engineering challenge.
- yetihehe 6y ago
  It's simply due to cost. Heat is typically cheaper than electricity, but only because we use heat to generate electricity with some losses.
  - jmelloy 6y ago
    And also because externalities aren't priced in, like carbon amounts.
    - namibj 6y ago
      For industrial-scale methane/coal burning, sequestering 90% or maybe even more of the CO2 is still a lot cheaper than using electricity. Don't get me wrong: it costs around 10% of the thermal load in electricity (technically, driveshaft power for turbomachinery).

ahartmetz 6y ago

On the other hand, electricity can create almost "infinite temperature" with relative ease. Temperature is, roughly speaking, the average kinetic energy of a material's molecules, and you can accelerate particles to extremely kigh kinetic energy with electromagnetic fields. So if you need that kind of "temperature", electricity is very suitable, even though it's expensive per unit of energy. Another example for how electricity is a very valuable type of energy.

usrusr 6y ago

An asynchronous high intensity heat source, asynchronous in that it can be "charged" from electricity ahead of utilization time, whenever intermittent energy sources are high. According to the article at 80% efficiency, that's pretty good for a storage method that is cheap in capacity (think seasonal storage or beyond). It's not the universal storage solution to end all search for other storage solutions because it's only really applicable in a niche (heat consumption), but that niche might not be as small as people think. I think that besides applications that require high temperatures it could also be a very good match where a particularly high maximum temperature isn't required (so heat pumps and the like could be applicable) but peak power demand is of a rarely occurring, intermittent nature. It might even be applicable to once-in-a-lifetime heat applications if they can be designed for easy oxide recovery. What remains open is how cheap "charging" throughput can be built, as this is the weak spot of all other power-to-fuel concepts: the conversion facilities tend to be too expensive to remain idle outside of electricity oversupply times. And who knows, theoretically conversion throughput capacity might even turn out to be so exceptionally cheap (I certainly wouldn't expect that, but I'd be glad to be surprised) that even the inefficient electricity->fuel->heat->electricity might become competitive, once conversion outgrows direct heat applications. A market for inefficient but cheap long-term storage would definitely exist if there was any supply.

selectodude 6y ago

It doesn’t need those high temperatures but it takes a lot of energy to boil 10000 liters of water or whatever they end up using per batch.

coward8675309 6y ago
This is a much more plausible use for the energy produced by this method than on-site glass bottle manufacturing, alluded to elsewhere among the comments.

easton_s 6y ago

>Some industrial processes require very high temperatures, for which electrical generation is ill suited. Seems like an engineering challenge to me not an actual limitation.

rocqua 6y ago
It seems like the iron powder described in the article might meet this engineering challenge.
yetihehe 6y ago
It's simply due to cost. Heat is typically cheaper than electricity, but only because we use heat to generate electricity with some losses.
- jmelloy 6y ago
  And also because externalities aren't priced in, like carbon amounts.
  - namibj 6y ago
    For industrial-scale methane/coal burning, sequestering 90% or maybe even more of the CO2 is still a lot cheaper than using electricity. Don't get me wrong: it costs around 10% of the thermal load in electricity (technically, driveshaft power for turbomachinery).