3 ms·
The whole thing seems so inefficient but I am not an expert. Can anyone here expand on this?
by htk 4y ago
The whole thing seems so inefficient but I am not an expert.
Can anyone here expand on this?
- gebruikersnaam 4y agoThey are using waste heat that otherwise would just disappear. 50% efficient is still better than 100% not used.
- wikfwikf 4y agoThey are not using waste heat but low-cost electricity. A system heated to 500C is not running on waste heat.
- UberFly 4y agoThere are lots of websites online that explain it more like: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520
- rightbyte 4y agoYou can sink solar power into it in the summer and use the heat in the winter. With intermittent power like solar and wind you probably want to be able to sink it somewhere useful.
- ars 4y agoIt has 80 hours of storage - that's not enough summer/winter shifting. At most it's day/night.
- epistasis 4y agoIf it discharges continually, it will discharge for 80 hours. 8000kWh / 100kW, capacity divided by discharge rate This is a different number than the amount of energy lost when it is not discharging. However I would suspect that this particular unit is not designed to store heat for six months. However there are plenty of underground systems designed for seasonal storage, and the storage capacity is relatively cheap. The problem is getting enough neighbors together to meet the minimum scale.
- rr808 4y agoThere are times in Europe during the summer when power is free, due to excess wind and sun power. Meanwhile winters are dark and cold. If you could keep the heat for 6 months that is very useful.