| Pages:
1
2 |
hexahydrate
Harmless
Posts: 15
Registered: 17-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Reversible reactions for energy storage
Hello, this is my first post on this board, although I've been a long time lurker here. I came across this site many months ago, when looking for
information about solar energy storage systems, as that topic interests me and I discovered lots of fascinating chemistry stuff, albeit unrelated to
my original search  . I spent many hours reading and even performed some simple
experiments (chlorate cell, elephant toothpaste, various salts). There is so much cool chemistry things discussed here, that I doubt I will ever be
able to understand and play with even 1% of it.
However, I decided to create a topic about things that originally sparked my interest in chemistry, that is storage of (mainly solar thermal) energy
using reversible chemical reactions. I think little on this topic has been discussed here, so let's start .
I read some papers (thanks sci-hub!) and basically, there are three main methods to store thermal energy:
1. sensible heat: basically heating a water tank. Cheap and easy, but not practical to store energy for a long time.
2. latent heat: using PCM (phase-change materials). Energy is stored by melting a material and released during solidification. For some materials,
energy density provided by latent heat is greater than can be stored by heating water. Many materials (especially salts) exhibit phenomenon known as
supercooling, that is material can be cooled well below its freezing point (i.e. to room temperature) and stay liquid and can be made to solidify (and
release heat) on demand. This makes long term energy storage more practical. Among the most heavily researched PCMs are: sodium acetate, sodium
sulphate, paraffins.
3. Thermochemical:
a.) sorption: mostly using salt hydration/dehydration process (most popular salts are: CaCl2, MgSO4, MgCl2). In theory this seems easy. Just use
heat from solar thermal collector to dehydrate salt in the summer, then store it in air tight container until winter, then let it absorb moisture and
release heat. However, most experiments run into problems with salts losing its structure, absorbing way less water than they theoretically could,
heat transfer problems etc.
b.) Chemical reactions: i.e. CaO + H2O -> Ca(OH)2 + heat, although temperature required to dehydrate it back to CaO is above 400C IIRC, so not
practical for typical flat solar collector. I've seen papers proposing some crazy ideas as well, like using process of concentration/dilution of
H2SO4.
There is also lots of research on converting sunlight to fuels (artificial photosynthesis), but most of the methods seem too advanced to be replicated
by the amateur.
All I have read on the topic so far, points to the conclusion that it's very hard to build a practical system. All of the above methods have several
drawbacks (I can post links to some interesting papers if someone is interested).
I'm curious, if mad scientists have any novel ideas, what reactions could be used for energy storage ? Ideal reaction has to be:
1. Reversible in the temperature range below 200C
2. Use cheap, possibly non-toxic and non-corrosive reactants.
3. Easily triggered on-demand
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Good topic...
That is great for one reason, because your parents won't complain about you doing something in home. That is advantage I see over using normal more
dangerous sources like fire or electric stoves...
But we must be aware that just making that something that will later be invisible, easier to hide, legal, less dangerous, we have to do something more
dangerous to make it...
So it depends on what we have and what we want. And we have to use something we don't want (later) just to make something we want later. For example
one way is if we have space open to sun or are we living underground or in prison or in institution where nobody will allow it. If we have personal
space like roof, garden, balcony, whatever, that is exposed to sun, then use that to collect sunlight and focus it into small dot that will allow
higher temperature, as you say up to 200.
I don't have exact idea because I am thinking about something else, but you get the idea. Remember that the more difficult is to make it, the more
energy will give it. That is universal rule. For example the higher decomposition temperature of hydroxide or hydrate is...
Your whole idea is similar to charging a smartphone and using it outside. You are like asking how to use smartphone outside without charger, but you
still use same energy of course. With a bit more losses, but it's unimportant. It has advantage.
[Edited on 30-3-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
hexahydrate
Harmless
Posts: 15
Registered: 17-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by RawWork  | Good topic...
That is great for one reason, because your parents won't complain about you doing something in home.
|
Haha, RawWork, I don't live with my parents. I have my own house with a big garden, so I can decide myself, what I do there . My house has central heating system powered by natural gas, that works very fine,
but I'm interested in renewable energy and I love DIY projects, so I plan to build this type of solar collector and use it to do some experiments with various methods of storing thermal energy. Maybe it will be just an experiment
with no useable outcome, but ideally I would like to build this year a small scale, proof-of-concept device, able to heat my house for just a few days
in the winter (so less than 100 kwh storage capacity). Just for fun, my own satisfaction and to learn something new .
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork |
For example one way is if we have space open to sun or are we living underground or in prison or in institution where nobody will allow it.
|
I have lots of space around my house and south facing roof, so that's not a problem.
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork |
Your whole idea is similar to charging a smartphone and using it outside. You are like asking how to use smartphone outside without charger, but you
still use same energy of course. With a bit more losses, but it's unimportant. It has advantage.
[Edited on 30-3-2018 by RawWork] |
To give you some idea, what I'm talking about, here is the article about the system built by the researchers in the UK, using calcium chloride as a storage media, supported on vermiculite (to increase
water vapor permeability).
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3696
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Online
|
|
100 kW.h = 100,000 x 3,600 = 360 MJ energy storage.
The first thing to appreciate is that the stored energy is equivalent to 86 kg TNT !
Therefore, any storage system must be incapable of rapid/uncontrolled energy delivery to avoid explosion/fire etc.
The easiest way to store summer energy for winter is to
sell power to the grid in summer as it is produced,
and buy it back in winter when you need it.
I have built my own photo-voltaic collectors and even that puny quantity of energy requires non-trivial storage.
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Online
Mood: Bored
|
|
The idea of storing seasonal energy chemically isn't really viable, you would have to store an insane amount of energy or this to be of any use. If
you have a decent water source and some drop available you could look at hydroelectric storage.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Lead to lead sulfate and back is a popular one.
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
You just want space heating, not to generate electricity or heat water for your bathroom/kitchen?
How far North/South of equator are you?
Can you quantify your average winter time energy needs for space heating? Typical heating degree/days?
You have a substantial and largely unobstructed southern exposure? How many square meters facing South are you willing to invest in collector space?
Would you be willing to install more collector area if the collector looked like (and could be used as) an attached solarium/greenhouse rather than an
assembly of big black panels.
How many cubic meters would you be willing to devote to a thermal storage cell? Are you willing to dig a largish hole on the South side of your home?
[Edited on 31-3-2018 by Bert]
Attachment: sustainability-10-00191.pdf (6.6MB)
This file has been downloaded 701 times
|
|
|
sodium_stearate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 22-4-2011
Location: guard duty at the checkpoint
Member Is Offline
Mood: No mask.
|
|
How about using a woodburning stove to get some
heat? Wood has lots of stored energy which gets released
when it's burned.
Leave the energy storage portion to nature.
Then you get to release the energy when you burn the
wood.
"Opportunity is missed by most people
because it is dressed in overalls and it
looks like work" T.A. Edison
|
|
|
Swinfi2
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 19-2-2018
Location: England
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic
|
|
For the chemistry of it, redox flow battery?
Definitely probably way more expensive than a commercial option though.
Vanadium is the most common type but there are lots of options in the literature, lithium/tempo had a decent energy density iirc, things like
riboflavin and benzoquinone were done successfully in research too but iirc they weren't as good. Lots of metal complexes too, they had the most
potential but stability issues.
I want to do one of these eventually. Also while were on the subject what do you guys think would be the difficulty of making an arduino/raspberryPI
potentistat?
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
It doesn't have to be all chemistry if all you want is energy using something reversible, there are reversible electrical, magnetic, mechanical
reactions. Just use computer fan which is actually dc motor. If you can apply strong enough water flow accross it, it will give you dc voltage and
current, exactly same as it uses normally. Of course some modification may be needed, at least to isolate electric parts inside from water and
anything outside.
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3696
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Online
|
|
Hydroelectric, at 100% efficiency;
using E = m.g.h,
E = 360 MJ, g = 9.81, let h = 10m ... m = 3,670 metric tonnes of water.
Allowing for conversion efficiencies etc. you'd probably need 10,000 metric tonne (cubic metres) reservoir 10m above ground,
and a similar reservoir at ground level 
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman | probably need 10,000 metric tonne (cubic metres) reservoir 10m above ground,
and a similar reservoir at ground level |
What about doing recalculations? 
You only calculated energy. Probably only kinetic or potential.
If you didn't know energy has time dimension, which your doesn't.
Except if we plan to use all energy at once, and get temperature of few thousands degrees celsius.
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3696
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Online
|
|
No, power (Watts) is energy (joules) per unit time (second).
In the initial calculation 100 kW.h was requested ... a measure of energy.
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wrong. Energy is power per time like W=P/t or W=P*t, forgot exactly. My electric energy bill is for one month, it can't be timeless. Try sleeping more
to regain elementary school knowledge. Trust me, it helps.
I still remember that formula for electric energy. W=P*t. Or W/t. Forgot exactly. Since P=U*I, it is also W=U*I*t. Something like that.
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3696
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Online
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork | Wrong. Energy is power per time like W=P/t or W=P*t, forgot exactly. My electric energy bill is for one month, it can't be timeless. Try sleeping more
to regain elementary school knowledge. Trust me, it helps.
I still remember that formula for electric energy. W=P*t. Or W/t. Forgot exactly. Since P=U*I, it is also W=U*I*t. Something like that.
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by RawWork] |
You obviously did not pay attention to your schoolwork so I'm in no mood to teach you.
Please learn the difference between energy and power.
While you are at it, you probably should look at heat vs. temperature too,
because if you are confusing one, you may be confusing the other also.
P.S. sorry for feeding the Troll, it seems that some people are incapable of learning.
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by Sulaiman]
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Please, please consider relearning elementary school knowledge, at least from physics. It doesn't take long to learn.
Let's take example with electricity, power is P[W]=U[V]*I[A]. Energy is W[Ws]=P[W]*t[s]. Which can be converted to [Wh] or [kWh]. We all see who is
troll here, and who is too lazy to learn even only this.
What works for electric energy should work for any other energy too. I know you think about energy like kJ/mol which can be converted to kWh/mol, and
many other examples. But it's not practical. Energy is used OVER TIME!
Your advice is too dangerous. You should be banned. If op tried to use all energy all at once, he would not only get burns, but immediately die. 
Oh, let's make a conclusion that we know the difference between W (in some countries probably E) and P: power is timeless dimension, both practically
and theoretically. While energy can be timeless only theoretically as in kJ/mol, but not practically.
Oh, and if you didn't know, the only thing that prevents or slows me down from succeeding, for example from making my first youtube video is time.
Time is something that should be considered in everything. If we satisfy our time demands, we can hope to satisfy our other demands like energy, mass,
power, quantity, temperature...
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Online
Mood: Bored
|
|
Wait, what? You can't remember if you should multiply or divide, yet you try to school others on the topic? Really?
Sulaiman is correct, you're wrong. If you're wondering why, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Calm down, I mean practically. Such energy can be stored like that "just energy". But it can't be used without time. It's used over time, like per
second or per day. Op planned to use it per winter. Or per 3 months. And I already read whole wikipedia few months ago, thanks. OK?
|
|
|
happyfooddance
National Hazard
Posts: 530
Registered: 9-11-2017
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork | | Calm down, I mean practically. Such energy can be stored like that "just energy". But it can't be used without time. It's used over time, like per
second or per day. Op planned to use it per winter. Or per 3 months. And I already read whole wikipedia few months ago, thanks. OK?
|
Maybe read it again.
Also, I don't think anyone needs reminding that work takes time in this world. Saying that Sulaiman is dangerous and should be banned is the stupidest
thing you've said, and you've said some stupid things in this thread.
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well, maybe he is not dangerous, maybe he is just some small weak guy or girl. But "3,670 metric tonnes of water" is. It's huge difference between
them being used at once and over 3 months, how long winter is. Time is not a small thing that should be only reminded occassionally. But things that
has to be used in calculations. In the end it's wrong that we'll "need 10,000 metric tonne (cubic metres) reservoir 10m above ground, and a similar
reservoir at ground level ".
It's better to be banned than to end up in prison. Few years ago two construction workers killed 3rd one, because they miscalculated something. Now
both are sentenced to over a year in prison. That isn't the place where you and Sulaiman want to end up, is it? Just because of miscalculation and
ignorance that you "don't think anyone needs reminding".
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Online
Mood: Bored
|
|
Stop digging, you've already hit rock bottom.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
happyfooddance
National Hazard
Posts: 530
Registered: 9-11-2017
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork | | Well, maybe he is not dangerous, maybe he is just some small weak guy or girl. But "3,670 metric tonnes of water" is. It's huge difference between
them being used at once and over 3 months, how long winter is. |
The only person in this thread that has even mentioned the ridiculous idea of releasing 100kw hours instantaneously is YOU. Sorry, but for people with
practical knowledge and experience with these things (which Sulaiman clearly has and you clearly don't), such warnings don't need mentioning.
|
|
|
RawWork
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 10-2-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
OK then, you build your extremely large 10 m reservoir above ground and similar size below...
I'm gonna build my much smaller one, that can be put in pocket. I think it'll satisfy my demands.
And he didn't say "No, power (Watts) is energy (joules) per unit time (second)."?
If you agree with this theory then you must have access to some science fiction version of wikipedia?
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by RawWork]
|
|
|
OldNubbins
Hazard to Others
Posts: 136
Registered: 2-2-2017
Location: CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Comfortably Numb
|
|
It makes me sad to see so much willful ignorance in this world despite a wealth of knowledge freely available to almost anyone.
Overcoming natural selection will be humanity's downfall. Kind of ironic...
|
|
|
happyfooddance
National Hazard
Posts: 530
Registered: 9-11-2017
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RawWork |
And he didn't say "No, power (Watts) is energy (joules) per unit time (second)."?
If you agree with this theory then you must have access to some science fiction version of wikipedia?
[Edited on 2-4-2018 by RawWork] |
Actually, that is pretty much exactly what wikipedia shows me. Also, I think you meant "didn't he say" because you put a question mark, and because
"he didn't say" is an easily disproven falsehood.
Are you looking at the english wikipedia? Maybe you are not understanding it.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
