Full Circle: Storing Renewably Harvested Energy In Bricks And Producing Steam Power...

[Fred Bloggs]

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/

Insulation should not be a major factor. Insulation is well understood. Large heat repositories require a lot less insulation per unit of storage because of the ratio of volume to surface as things get larger.

The problem is heat is a crappy form of energy. It is easy to produce, but hard to turn into other forms of energy. If you are starting with heat and want to use the stored energy as heat, the losses are acceptable. In any other situation, the losses will be high. This is only useful where heat is a starting point, and end point, or you have energy to waste and can suffer the losses.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/

At low temps, water is a far better heat storage medium than bricks.

What\'s the efficiency of using bricks at 1000c for electrical, battery
equivalent, storage?

This sounds goofy, like the concrete block gravity thing. It\'s to get
investment money from people who don\'t understand physics or
economics. If it worked, it would have been done 60 years ago.

 

[a a]

On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 15:31:43 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

ChatGPT-5 > low tech, no science, marketing fake, to never work, money waster

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/
At low temps, water is a far better heat storage medium than bricks.

That\'s right: specific heat of water 4.2 and brick is 0.9 in kJ/kg-oC

Problem is you can\'t heat water to 1000oC.

My guess is the kind of processes they have in mind can be directly powered by heat exchange with the bricks or convection or conduction of some medium through the bricks, making conversion losses low. A low temperature heat storage would require some kind of heat pump thermal cycle and more loss overhead.

What\'s the efficiency of using bricks at 1000c for electrical, battery
equivalent, storage?

Probably huge. A pile of bricks with some plumbing has to be way cheaper than some outsized battery, and there\'s the MTBF thing, which has to be infinite for practical purposes.

This sounds goofy, like the concrete block gravity thing. It\'s to get
investment money from people who don\'t understand physics or
economics. If it worked, it would have been done 60 years ago.

It wouldn\'t have made sense in the old days mainly because there was no such thing as renewable energy, only mains power with pretty good reliability.. Today there\'s renewable but it\'s intermittent and that\'s the main purpose, to overcome the intermittency problem, allowing the whole operation to be powered by renewable exclusively.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/
Insulation should not be a major factor. Insulation is well understood. Large heat repositories require a lot less insulation per unit of storage because of the ratio of volume to surface as things get larger.

The problem is heat is a crappy form of energy. It is easy to produce, but hard to turn into other forms of energy. If you are starting with heat and want to use the stored energy as heat, the losses are acceptable. In any other situation, the losses will be high. This is only useful where heat is a starting point, and end point, or you have energy to waste and can suffer the losses.

I\'m pretty sure that\'s the point. They\'re using the heat to produce heat, and they\'ve set the temperature at a workable value that doesn\'t require any further manipulation.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 10:38:48 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/
At low temps, water is a far better heat storage medium than bricks.

\"Better\" is subjective. This is an engineering decision.

What\'s the efficiency of using bricks at 1000c for electrical, battery
equivalent, storage?

This sounds goofy, like the concrete block gravity thing. It\'s to get
investment money from people who don\'t understand physics or
economics. If it worked, it would have been done 60 years ago.

It is used. I know of a utility that will install a resistance heating device full of bricks. You get a low rate if you allow them to turn off the unit at peak demand times.

Obviously someone thinks bricks are an ok way to store heat.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 10:38:48?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/
At low temps, water is a far better heat storage medium than bricks.

That\'s right: specific heat of water 4.2 and brick is 0.9 in kJ/kg-oC

Problem is you can\'t heat water to 1000oC.

My guess is the kind of processes they have in mind can be directly powered by heat exchange with the bricks or convection or conduction of some medium through the bricks, making conversion losses low. A low temperature heat storage would require some kind of heat pump thermal cycle and more loss overhead.


What\'s the efficiency of using bricks at 1000c for electrical, battery
equivalent, storage?

Probably huge.

Probably 20%.

>A pile of bricks with some plumbing has to be way cheaper than some outsized battery, and there\'s the MTBF thing, which has to be infinite for practical purposes.

Bricks don\'t deliver electricity. Batteries do.

The best place to store energy is in a natural gas pipeline.

This sounds goofy, like the concrete block gravity thing. It\'s to get
investment money from people who don\'t understand physics or
economics. If it worked, it would have been done 60 years ago.

It wouldn\'t have made sense in the old days mainly because there was no such thing as renewable energy, only mains power with pretty good reliability. Today there\'s renewable but it\'s intermittent and that\'s the main purpose, to overcome the intermittency problem, allowing the whole operation to be powered by renewable exclusively.

Right. Wind and solar power are free, so storage efficiency doesn\'t
matter.

 

[a a]

>

Yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa post.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 4:08:55 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 10:38:48?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

This California startup already has a pilot in operation at an ethanol plant. It needs to be scaled up like crazy but it definitely eliminates the intermittency drawback of renewable for the really big energy consumers in the process industries.

They\'re talking about heating the bricks to over 1,000oC so insulating against stored energy loss is a major challenge, but they think they have it working.

https://rondo.com/
At low temps, water is a far better heat storage medium than bricks.

That\'s right: specific heat of water 4.2 and brick is 0.9 in kJ/kg-oC

Problem is you can\'t heat water to 1000oC.

My guess is the kind of processes they have in mind can be directly powered by heat exchange with the bricks or convection or conduction of some medium through the bricks, making conversion losses low. A low temperature heat storage would require some kind of heat pump thermal cycle and more loss overhead.

What\'s the efficiency of using bricks at 1000c for electrical, battery equivalent, storage?

Probably huge.

Probably 20%.

If what you want is heat, rather than electricity, it\'s close to 100%.

A pile of bricks with some plumbing has to be way cheaper than some outsized battery, and there\'s the MTBF thing, which has to be infinite for practical purposes.

Bricks don\'t deliver electricity. Batteries do.

Electricity isn\'t what\'s required. The customer wanted heat. Swapping from heat to electricity and back to heat really doesn\'t make sense.,

> The best place to store energy is in a natural gas pipeline.

That\'s what the guys selling you natural gas will tell you. They will also tell that anthrogenic global warming is a myth. You;v got to be a gullible twit to belieive either lie.,

> >> This sounds goofy, like the concrete block gravity thing. It\'s to get investment money from people who don\'t understand physics or economics. If it worked, it would have been done 60 years ago.

When it wasn\'t needed?

It wouldn\'t have made sense in the old days mainly because there was no such thing as renewable energy, only mains power with pretty good reliability. Today there\'s renewable but it\'s intermittent and that\'s the main purpose, to overcome the intermittency problem, allowing the whole operation to be powered by renewable exclusively.

Right. Wind and solar power are free, so storage efficiency doesn\'t matter.

You keep on claiming this, but the wind farms and solar farms that capture that energy aren\'t free, so more efficient energy storage means that you can get away with spending less capital on smaller solar farms and wind farms..

As a satirical trope it\'s still lame.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 6:18:59 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:

Yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa post.

This is just a part of what is becoming a really big deal:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/industrial-heat-shot

Webinar link is a 1 hour marathon of engineering/ scientific presentation.