4 ms·

Seawater erodes everything it touches. It isn’t impossible to build hardware that touches it, but it’s more expensive and needs more maintenance. Fresh water m

Seawater erodes everything it touches. It isn’t impossible to build hardware that touches it, but it’s more expensive and needs more maintenance. Fresh water makes the entire project much cheaper.

Sharlin 3y ago
(Edit: this is wrong – see comments) And this water is supposed to be fed directly into the homes of hundreds of thousands of customers through the existing district heating network which obviously isn't built with seawater in mind. A seawater storage facility would at the very least require a heat exchanger which would decrease efficiency.
- michpoch 3y ago
  I don't think they'll be pumping that water directly into the heat distribution system. My understanding is that it'll be used as a heat reservoir and there will be some sort of heat exchanger to get the heat out of it.
  - lazide 3y ago
    It would be more efficient without the heat exchanger, but you’re almost certainly right - the reservoir water would probably be too oxygenated/mineralized for direct use if being stored in contact with the rock, at least without a lot of additional treatment. Don’t want to kill all those underground pipes with mineral buildup as things precipitate out as it cools.
    - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      > It would be more efficient without the heat exchanger, No, the only cost really is the cost of heat exchanger and maybe energy to pump water through the heat exchanger. Heat exchange approaches 100% thermal efficiency with large enough heat exchanger.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > It would be more efficient without the heat exchanger Not really, heat pumps as a transfer method can achieve better total efficiency and make distribution of the heat easier.
      - lazide 3y ago
        That is an interesting thought, but seems like the capex and ongoing electrical costs of the heat pump would be too high? They’re looking to make cheap use of the existing waste heat, after all, which while ‘low quality’ is high enough quality for district heating already.
    - Filligree 3y ago
      Counterflow heat exchangers easily approach 100% efficiency. It needs to be large enough, and needs sensors to control the flow, but both of those are trivial at this scale.
      - lazide 3y ago
        They’ll need to move 2x the volume of water, and have more infrastructure to maintain - even if it was actually 100% thermally efficient. Not counting capital costs. Which I’d count as efficiency issues. The water pumping and maintenance costs are likely going to be their largest ongoing costs, no?
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    Ah, on second thought you're probably right.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  There is a heat exchanger. https://www.slideshare.net/HelsinginEnergia/innovation-and-smart-city https://www.slideshare.net/HelsinginEnergia/innovation-and-s... (slide 21)
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  I don't think it is this water that is going to be fed directly to homes. More likely there is going to be systems of heat exchangers. They mention they are recovering heat from waste water. Obviously, they aren't pumping waste water into the system but rather use heat exchange to extract energy.

Sharlin 3y ago

(Edit: this is wrong – see comments) And this water is supposed to be fed directly into the homes of hundreds of thousands of customers through the existing district heating network which obviously isn't built with seawater in mind. A seawater storage facility would at the very least require a heat exchanger which would decrease efficiency.

michpoch 3y ago
I don't think they'll be pumping that water directly into the heat distribution system. My understanding is that it'll be used as a heat reservoir and there will be some sort of heat exchanger to get the heat out of it.
- lazide 3y ago
  It would be more efficient without the heat exchanger, but you’re almost certainly right - the reservoir water would probably be too oxygenated/mineralized for direct use if being stored in contact with the rock, at least without a lot of additional treatment. Don’t want to kill all those underground pipes with mineral buildup as things precipitate out as it cools.
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    > It would be more efficient without the heat exchanger, No, the only cost really is the cost of heat exchanger and maybe energy to pump water through the heat exchanger. Heat exchange approaches 100% thermal efficiency with large enough heat exchanger.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > It would be more efficient without the heat exchanger Not really, heat pumps as a transfer method can achieve better total efficiency and make distribution of the heat easier.
    - lazide 3y ago
      That is an interesting thought, but seems like the capex and ongoing electrical costs of the heat pump would be too high? They’re looking to make cheap use of the existing waste heat, after all, which while ‘low quality’ is high enough quality for district heating already.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    Counterflow heat exchangers easily approach 100% efficiency. It needs to be large enough, and needs sensors to control the flow, but both of those are trivial at this scale.
    - lazide 3y ago
      They’ll need to move 2x the volume of water, and have more infrastructure to maintain - even if it was actually 100% thermally efficient. Not counting capital costs. Which I’d count as efficiency issues. The water pumping and maintenance costs are likely going to be their largest ongoing costs, no?
- Sharlin 3y ago
  Ah, on second thought you're probably right.
Hamuko 3y ago
There is a heat exchanger. https://www.slideshare.net/HelsinginEnergia/innovation-and-smart-city https://www.slideshare.net/HelsinginEnergia/innovation-and-s... (slide 21)
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
I don't think it is this water that is going to be fed directly to homes. More likely there is going to be systems of heat exchangers. They mention they are recovering heat from waste water. Obviously, they aren't pumping waste water into the system but rather use heat exchange to extract energy.