Nucular Energy: Thoughts, Emerging Trends, Fears

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by xilman

In molten salt.

I hope you're not suggesting using wind or solar generated electricity to melt salt. Ignoring the heat losses out through insulation systems, it's likely only ~1/2 the work put into melting salt will be recoverable again as work via a Rankine cycle or Brayton cycle. It's a massive increase of entropy, to convert electricity (work) into heat. That's also an issue with all processes depending on combustion; converting chemical potential energy into heat dominates the irreversibilities present in most power production from fuels. And the same issue is present with most nuclear power proposals.
As far as I know, the most efficient "storage" is substitution; use the wind or solar power as it's produced, for powering industrial processes. For example, electrolysis to produce aluminum metal, or hydrogen for fuel or process inputs. This saves chemical fuels for the times when wind/solar are inadequate or unavailable.
Reversible fuel cells in stationary applications look interesting.
This source indicates reversible fuel cells are more economical for greater than 10-hour storage. It is however still more costly than local residential electrical rates. Cyclic storage efficiency only ~33-44%.

For students there is https://www.fuelcellstore.com/fuel-c...wable-set-t111

[xilman]

Originally Posted by kriesel

I hope you're not suggesting using wind or solar generated electricity to melt salt. Ignoring the heat losses out through insulation systems, it's likely only ~1/2 the work put into melting salt will be recoverable again as work

50% is better than 0%, all too often the current solution.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by retina

Then you get immediately back to the grid structure, and the monopolistic practices.

Not /necessarily/. Depends on the Generation, and the Interconnection agreements.

Although I would note that it is often useful to do intra-grid transmission in the DC. Converting back and forth is rather trivial nowadays. Losses are not that high.

Originally Posted by retina

I would like to know why chalsall thinks that "Storage is not actually all that difficult. Even at scale."? If it is so easy why don't people do it now, and why is the expensive and dangerous gigafactory a thing?

People *are* doing it now.

At the end of the day, if you have excess power the losses don't really enter the equation if you can store at least /some/ of the energy. It's the whole basis of demand pricing.

Heat things up. Cool things down. Spin things. Raise things. Charge things. Change the state of things. Etc et al...

Heck... During a recent week-long power outage I kept our freezer at ~ -10 C using only ice and salt.... I have that video somewhere...

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Although I would note that it is often useful to do intra-grid transmission in the DC. Converting back and forth is rather trivial nowadays. Losses are not that high.

Sorry everyone... This is mostly a "Note To Self" (NTS)...

Transmission should be high-voltage AC. Smaller cables.

Interconnection /might/ be AC to DC to AC for phase and power alignment.

This problem space is non-trivial.

And is unique for every circuit.

[pinhodecarlos]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Not /necessarily/. Depends on the Generation, and the Interconnection agreements.

Correct. DNO limitation and blockage. I try to avoid being part of projects with solar PV and energy storage, the former per si is already I nightmare, specially when in stake there is a guarantee and curtailment is often o blockage.

[storm5510]

The remnants of The Marble Hill Nuclear Plant site near Madison, IN. A local friend took these with a drone. I was surprised to see this much left.