I can't remember if I saw the argument here or on Reddit, but this is my preferred platform so it's going here.
Summary of argument: a user should have been using water for their thermal battery, not sand, because water has better heat capacity (4.18 joules per unit of mass person unit heat - 4.18/gK). Sand's thermal capacity is significantly lower (0.835J/gK).
Looking at these numbers alone in the post I understood why someone would say that; it also made me question why so much research is being done on sand batteries. The user who argued against sand batteries missed a crucial factor: material density. Water has a density of 1000kg per m^3. Dry sand (regular not pure quartz sand) has a density of 1730 kg per m^3. I found no satisfactry response to the argument in that thread, but that thread is now lost to me. I have also been curious about how much better regular sand is for heat batteries than water.
When designing large batteries, the goal is usually energy per volume. Let's compare 1m^3 of each (roughly 3.3ft cube) and how much heat it can hold before the next state change (which matters a lot when managing the pressure from steam).
Total stored energy = mass (g) * thermal capacity (J/gK) * heat (kelvin).
Water: 1,000,000 * 4.18 * 373.15 = 1,559,767,000J Sand: 1,730,000 * 0.835 * 1996.15 = 2,883,538,482.5J
Over 1 billion more joules per m^3. I hope this makes it clearer why sand batteries are such an area of interest lately. It certainly did to me.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert, so there may be mistakes. All the numbers and relevant equations were found on the internet.
I have superficially researched both options (with the conclusion that I cannot use either, since my installation would be too small, and would suffer from severe heat loss due to an unfavourable volume-to-surface ratio - it makes sense to design thermal stores for a city or neighbourhood, not a household).
I'd add a few notes:
A thermal store using silicate sand is not limited by the melting point of the sand, but the structural strength of the materials holding the sand. You can count on stainless steel up to approximately 600 C, more if you design with reserve strength and good understanding of thermal expansion/contraction. Definitely don't count on anything above 1000 C or forget the word "cheap". I have read about some folks designing a super-hot thermal store, but they plan to heat graphite (self-supporting solid material) in an inert gas environment.
Heat loss intensifies with higher temperatures, and the primary type of heat loss becomes radiative loss. Basically, stuff starts glowing. For example, the thermal conductivity of stone wool can be 0.04 W / mK at 10 C, and 0.18 W / mK at 600 C.
Water can be kept liquid beyond 100 C. The most recent thermal stores in Finland are about 100 meters below surface, where the pressure of the liquid column allows heating water to 140 C.
However, any plan of co-generation (making some electricity while extracting the stored heat) requires solid materials and high temperatures.
Thanks for the input! I've had several more thoughts:
You're absolutely right about the cost, but it could be contained with refractory cement and would not have to rely solely on metal casings. It seems like buying either in bulk has comparable pricing.
interest problem. I tried to find some info, but there's a lot of engineeting math (I'm an English teacher who also loves the sciences) I don't have the time to sort out right now. I think that using rock wool and refractory cement (see number 1) could help offset this energy loss.
I knew that water could be kept liquid under pressure, but for the purposes of citizen science and making tech more democratic, high pressure systems are a lot of risk and can be devastating when mistakes are made.
Absolutely. And that's the goal of my thoughts. Finding a cheap material that can hold high temperatures and remain solid. The transfer to electricity could be done by using the heated mass to heat a hot pumped liquid or using transfer rods made of a solid material with a high heat transfer coefficient.
Alternatively, heat can be extracted by pumping liquid metal (sodium, tin, low-temperature eutectic alloys) in a pipework of copper (if there is chemical compatibility with copper). But handling liquid metal with a magnetic pump isn't typically done on the DIY tech level.
To be honest, I tried a fair number of experiments on the subject, including low-temperature Stirling motors. They're difficult to build well. I would recommend plain old steam turbine. Steam means pressure, pressure means precautions (risk of bursting, risk of getting burned), but modern approaches to boilers try to minimize the amount of water in the system, so it couldn't flash to steam and explode.