4 ms·
> But sand is quite expensive so my question is, why sand and not water? The article says they will use a byproduct from a local industry, perhaps it's availab
by merelysounds 3y ago
> But sand is quite expensive so my question is, why sand and not water?
The article says they will use a byproduct from a local industry, perhaps it's available for cheaper.
"The sand itself will also be sustainably sourced – it’ll consist of crushed soapstone, which is a manufacturing byproduct of another local industry. This material can apparently conduct heat even better than regular old sand.".
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago> The article says they will use a byproduct from a local industry, perhaps it's available for cheaper. Cheaper than water?!
- lightedman 3y agoIf that water has to come from underground, yes, it would be cheaper and easier to just grab surface stone and crush it for material to make a heat battery. Also, water tends to make for a horrible heat battery as it is much more thermal-emissivity than rock particles. You need all sorts of additional insulation to retain the heat, whereas the sand will insulate itself.
- NathanKP 3y agoIt's the not the cost of obtaining the water that makes water less viable, it's the cost of storing superheated water. Water has this pesky ability to expand 1600 times larger when it goes over 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That means that if not handled carefully you get deadly steam explosions. Hot sand / crushed rock doesn't have the same problem. If you read in the linked article it says > with the sand heated to somewhere around 500-600 degrees Celsius (932-1112 °F). That would be extraordinarily hard to do with water as you'd need significant containment and safety measures.