Thermal battery with 6-8 times the energy density of lithium

[Carl White]

Molten silicon. Grid-level storage, not for vehicles. They claim 60%-80% the cost of lithium.

https://newatlas.com/cct-silicon-energy ... age/59098/

(not an April fools article)

[Aero]

I didn't see Rossi's picture in the article, but a thermal generator with only 3 moving parts? Suggests thermoelectric generator with efficiencies ranging from 6% to 15%, that doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.

[RERT]

If all they have done is increase the effective life an order of magnitude at constant outlay it seems quite significant.

Li-ion even at $100/kWh is 1-10 cents per kWh with a lifetime of 10,000-1,000 cycles. The bottom end of that range gives very expensive power. If they really can deliver 25 years of diurnal cycling, moving to the top end of the range, the cost of intermittency of renewables starts to look reasonable - provided annual maintenance for the (glowing red-hot) packages isn't too high....

FWIW 1.2 MWh in a shipping container is doesn't seem like 6-8 times Li-ion to me.

[paperburn1]

Climate Change Technologies, also known as CCT Energy Storage, has launched its TED (Thermal Energy Device) with a set of remarkable claims.

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof. I have yet to see either in this case.
Pumped hydro still remains the cheapest most economical way to store energy. IMHO
Sites abound but due to environmentalist and NIMBY (Not in my back yard) thinking this idea will never get off the ground.
Maybe we should start over and give the cockroaches a chance.

[Aero]

Climate Change Technologies, also known as CCT Energy Storage, has launched its TED (Thermal Energy Device) with a set of remarkable claims.

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof. I have yet to see either in this case.
Pumped hydro still remains the cheapest most economical way to store energy. IMHO
Sites abound but due to environmentalist and NIMBY (Not in my back yard) thinking this idea will never get off the ground.
Maybe we should start over and give the cockroaches a chance.

"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof." Yes, or at least some claims to be proven.

If this storage system has very low efficiency, (thermoelectric generator to recover power) then it would be very wasteful to store any kind of expensive generated power. Converting grid energy into heat then recovering 1W for every 6W stored seems excessively lossy to me.

[alexjrgreen]

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.

This is equivalent to "Unremarkable claims require little or no proof.", which is clearly false.

Claims require proof. There is only one standard.

[Carl White]

I didn't see Rossi's picture in the article, but a thermal generator with only 3 moving parts? Suggests thermoelectric generator with efficiencies ranging from 6% to 15%, that doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.

I guess that would depend on the inputs to the grid. If there's going to be a fair wind/solar component, I imagine (not an expert) that it's necessary to add enough so that there is generally an oversupply of power to ensure an undersupply is rare. So as long as the average oversupply exceeds the amount demanded of the battery by 1 over that 0.06 to 0.15, the relative costs of the batteries themselves would be what matters.

[hanelyp]

I didn't see Rossi's picture in the article, but a thermal generator with only 3 moving parts? Suggests thermoelectric generator with efficiencies ranging from 6% to 15%, that doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.

I've read of Stirling-electric generators with a grand total of 2 moving parts, not counting heat input and waste heat rejection.

[t_c]

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.

This is equivalent to "Unremarkable claims require little or no proof.", which is clearly false.

Claims require proof. There is only one standard.

lol, in your daily life I'm sure you aren't asking anyone for proof if they say they own a car, but you're gonna want evidence if they say they own the batmobile

[alexjrgreen]

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.

This is equivalent to "Unremarkable claims require little or no proof.", which is clearly false.

Claims require proof. There is only one standard.

lol, in your daily life I'm sure you aren't asking anyone for proof if they say they own a car, but you're gonna want evidence if they say they own the batmobile

In Science, there is only one standard.

In daily life, "there's one born every minute".

[paperburn1]

hmmm,,,, thermel electric seems to be the new gig.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/17/si ... ge-system/