This article “Thermal blocks developed at Newcastle Uni could convert coal-fired power stations to run fossil-fuel free” caught my attention. It is another example of the poor standard of science research reporting. The subject matter is quite interesting however.
A much better explanation of how it works is given here. Unlike some efforts to utilise existing thermal power stations (like converting them to clean coal) this method seems to have the fundamentals right. It is a way of using thermal generators as demand power using stored heat without burning any FF to get it.
Whether either of these prove to be cost effective remains to be seen and the broader questions of the use of materials and possibilities of recycling have not been addressed yet.
Newcastle has come a long way from the “Bush campus” that was an offshoot of UNSW.
I agree. When I read the headline I thought it must be some sort of new fuel for a coal fired power station. I suggest that it is a click bait headline (which the ABC should know better) or the journalists doesn’t have an appreciation of heat storage technologies and didn’t fully understand the media release which landed on their desk from the Newcastle University.
The problem being that reporters appear to generally come from a narrow background. Not their fault. The value of someone with a relevant science or engineering background who knows how to write and communicate should not be underestimated.
We see great communicators like Norman Swan report on Covid-19, and others on economics. There are some well known scientific minds who have supported the ABC (Dr Karl et al). It’s disappointing, but likely one more sign the ABC will continue to suffer from a lack of support.
The storage strategy is not new. It could be a great solution. The innovation, how the thermal capacity is achieved and the research to support it is inspirational. The potential achieved combining high operating temperatures with the energy of the heat of transformation is significant.
I get that but basic journalism says you have to give the reader some sense of what is important about the topic and why. I don’t ask that all the technicalities of how the blocks work are explained, that would be a waste of time and some of this stuff is proprietary anyway.
Surely any non-technical person can read some of the background and ask the right questions so that the experts do the explaining for them. How hard would it be to ask the professor “How do the heat storage blocks fit into an existing thermal power station to produce backup power and where does the power come from?”
Unfortunately in the age that getting ‘news’ out first and beating others, causes many journalists to bypass traditional journalism where reasonable questions are asked and responses/answers provided. Getting it out first before others (as they would also have been email the media release) creates traffic (to improve revenue for commercial agencies), ratings and statistics justifying continued company/government support,
Often today, it is about rewording (sometimes not) media releases to dress them up as news…and not instigating a news article themselves by investigative questioning. If one reads the Newcastle University news release and the ABC news article in your original post, the similarities are remarkable.
Media Watch on the ABC has long exposee this practice and how it is to the detriment of quality journalism which the industry was once known for.
Long gone are the days were journos have many hours to prepare news for release to meet the nightly TV news or the overnight print run. News now can be almost created and published immediately in the 24 hour online news cycle. The ABC is following trends of other news agencies to get ‘news’ out first…a cultural issue throughout the industry. There are many journos in the ABC which have commercial news agency backgrounds and I believe their commercial news agency culture is changing ABC news.
Sounds similar to storing energy as heat in molten salt (NaCl) and then using that heat to turn water into steam to turn turbines to generate electricity.
Anything that allows large scale storage of energy for use when sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing is good.
Maybe the ‘ground breaking’ part of the Newcastle Uni idea is to use existing boilers and turbines for the water-to-steam-to-rotation-to-electricity.
Maybe but I would think any kind of heat storage would have that in mind.
This:
“It offers near to 100 per cent conversion of electricity to heat and the lowest levelised cost of storing electricity - a measure of the total lifecycle cost of a facility compared to the amount of energy it is capable of storing.”
The blocks are made from non-toxic, 100 per cent recyclable material so there is no risk of explosion or combustion in hazardous environments.
Made from materials with high thermal conductivity, MGA blocks work by storing heat energy.
Professor Kisi said the source of that energy could be concentrated heat directly from the Sun, surplus electricity on the grid, renewable energy, or from industrial heat or waste heat.
“The MGA blocks are made of two components. One component melts when heated to store huge amounts of energy, and the other acts as a matrix, keeping the block in solid form and embedding the melting particles,” Professor Kisi said.
says to me that they are competing on thermodynamic efficiency and sustainability too. We won’t know until the trial returns results.
Various methods of heat storage are compared here.
I will not speculate. As projects similar to the Uni of Newcastle research approach pilot plant stage!
It’s usual to see some optimistic forecasts about the technical performance and economic outlook. A bit more than a quick look at how green it is over there, and please leave some money here to help the pilot plant on it’s way.
It looks as if the Uni of Newcastle with the first batch of blocks is well on it’s way to a practical demonstration.
P.S.
I await some more detail, such as to the guesstimate of the cost per MJ of recoverable energy, thermal conversion efficiency, storage loss rate, and the all important cost guesstimates/forecasts at scale.
In the interim it joins the queue in a long list of options. The high operating temperature and modular elements do set it in a rather unique space. It’s a producible and scalable commodity if it all works, one day.
I read about this on ABC yesterday, it appears to be yet another approach to thermal energy storage, a space (as they say these days) in which https://1414degrees.com.au/ has been working in for some time.
If we can minimise the science, and note the efficiency of converting thermal energy to electricity is poor. Between 35% and 45% typical for electricity generation from coal.
Removing the coal from the energy source does not significantly change the thermal efficiency of the same generating solution. There are also some losses in transmission and converting a clean source to thermal storage. The overall - trip efficiency will be lower.
The result. To get 1KWh of clean energy out the system will need to put in 3 to 4 times the clean energy at source.
The mind spins at the thought of the size of the thermal storage source required for 24hrs operation of a medium sized thermal plant. EG Liddell 2,000MW.
P.S.
Some more reading that might help understand the scale of the solutions.
On current technology a 2,000MW capacity thermal powered generator might need 20,000Tonnes of thermal storage per hour of operation. Perhaps a bit more, perhaps a bit less, who knows, it will be really really great? Apologies to DT.
ScienceAlert. The place to go when you want real science. Not!
It is just a class A clickbait site. Just the place where Seniors Advantage might lurk. And yes, there it was. Along with “look at this celebrity now” links.
99.9% of the time it is also possible to find the same material on a far more reliable and useful source. In this instance it’s possible to go to the Lancaster University home page. A simple search for MOF energy storage will readily return the original news release on the University hosted web site. All mostly add free, unless you are looking to enrol.
An added bonus is being the original source and owner of the content, it is often possible to find more content on the same item or topic. For the more enquiring mind?
‘ScienceAleft! Our product marketing experience may contain traces of science.
Another way to store energy. There are several applications of CO2 that make use of captured gas in a positive way. It is used as a refrigerant gas in some heat pumps. On a significantly larger scale energy is captured and released in the conversion CO2 between a gas and liquid.
Describing systems that use CO2 for energy storage as a battery though stretches the imagination into marketing spin. Two more views on the prospects.
COP 26 in Glasgow saw the formation of a Council specifically targeting long term energy storage. McKinsey & Co have provided a supporting report on the prospects.
The time line suggested is more ambitious than the AEMO has in it’s most recent draft plan for the NEM. The scope of the AEMO plan limits assumptions to existing technology proven at scale. The CSIRO modelling options provided to the AEMO include faster time lines. Advice not favoured by the majority consulted by the AEMO.
Australia is sprinting towards 100 per cent renewable energy, 24/7, 365 days a year, but very few are ready for it, least of all the coal industry and its subsidiary, the Morrison government.
How naughty of Mr Kohler to be so snarky about our fearless leaders.
The way that private enterprise is rushing towards decarbonisation now that it is clear that it will be profitable makes me wonder where we would be if they had been given encouragement instead of obstacles and chop-and-change for the last 30 years.
The best place to locate them, he says, will be where high-voltage transmission lines already exist, such as the Latrobe Valley and the Hunter Valley …
So when will Scotty and Co begin to talk about ‘a just transition’ to the miners? So far it has been impossible because it would mean accepting in public that coal will go.
Sometime there has to be a pivot towards “We have always known this must happen and now here is the best way to do it under our careful planning”.
I hope I am not being unduly optimistic but I am predicting it will be in the next election platform. If he doesn’t and they do poorly in the polls he will leave a Tomorrow’s Urban Revolutionary Disaster in his successor’s inbox. It comes down to how long he thinks he can hang on with the current position. Which is hardly a way to run a county but that’s how it goes.
