Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

bostonglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#21

Post by dimask »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #18
distortionfield wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve.

>They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone use them instead of the more efficient alternatives? For artistic reasons?

It should be enough to be cheaper if you include the environmental cost that fossil fuels cause to society and planet.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#22

Post by DoctorOetker »

kukkamario wrote: post #5
quaintdev wrote: post #4

But how efficient is it? I don't see that info in the article.

Well it is just a brick that can acts as a heating element. In terms of converting electricity to heat it is almost 100% efficient like every other electric heating element. I didn't spot any mention of voltage requirements for that so maybe it requires so high voltage that cause it to be a bit harder to actually use.

> In terms of converting electricity to heat it is almost 100% efficient like every other electric heating element.

except there are many types of heat pump in this world that routinely achieve well above 100% efficiency, since pumping heat from a cold heat bath to a hot one can cost significantly less energy than generating that heat resistively.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#23

Post by szvsw »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #18
distortionfield wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve.

>They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone use them instead of the more efficient alternatives? For artistic reasons?

you omitted the immediately following sentence...

>They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve.

this clearly indicates OP suggests they will become de facto cheaper once the traditionally externalized costs of environmental impact are accounted for.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#24

Post by s1artibartfast »

szvsw wrote: post #23
s1artibartfast wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone use them instead of the more efficient alternatives? For artistic reasons?

you omitted the immediately following sentence... >They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve. this clearly indicates OP suggests they will become de facto cheaper once the traditionally externalized costs of environmental impact are accounted for.

The alternatives are also carbon free, which is the point of the parent post.

The comparison is between this and carbon free solar-thermal for energy storage. Saying it doesnt have to be cheaper than solar-thermal simply isnt true.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#25

Post by s1artibartfast »

dimask wrote: post #21
s1artibartfast wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone use them instead of the more efficient alternatives? For artistic reasons?

It should be enough to be cheaper if you include the environmental cost that fossil fuels cause to society and planet.

Solar thermal energy storage isnt fossil fuels and carries no major environmental cost.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#26

Post by s1artibartfast »

Retric wrote: post #14
XorNot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just inefficient solar thermal though. If you want to do that you'd be better off using parabolic mirrors to heat regular fire bricks directly. These are unique it seems because they're durable electric heating elements that can hit industrial process temperatures and might be cheaper then alternatives?

It requires full sun to hit steal melting temperatures which is unreliable in many industrial areas. So you need a backup. You can also easily move electrical power long distances but parabolic mirrors are hard to integrate into existing industrial processes and locations. PV electricity is competitive with fossil fuels even if you ultimately just want heat. Solar thermal is far more viable for low grade heat. Especi…

This comment isnt about the industrial processing applications of this technology, but energy storage.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#27

Post by szvsw »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #24
szvsw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you omitted the immediately following sentence... >They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve. this clearly indicates OP suggests they will become de facto cheaper once the traditionally externalized costs of environmental impact are accounted for.

The alternatives are also carbon free, which is the point of the parent post. The comparison is between this and carbon free solar-thermal for energy storage. Saying it doesnt have to be cheaper than solar-thermal simply isnt true.

Fair fair. Unlike traditional solar thermal though, this can just function as regular node on the electric grid (or even a prosumer) so it is decoupled from the attendant variability. As such they are not quite comparable IMO.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#28

Post by Retric »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #26
Retric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires full sun to hit steal melting temperatures which is unreliable in many industrial areas. So you need a backup. You can also easily move electrical power long distances but parabolic mirrors are hard to integrate into existing industrial processes and locations. PV electricity is competitive with fossil fuels even if you ultimately just want heat. Solar thermal is far more viable for low grade heat. Especi…

This comment isnt about the industrial processing applications of this technology, but energy storage.

How exactly are you going to CHEAPLY collect and store energy for a 1400+C process using solar thermal?

It seems like an huge advantage to use an 80% thermal setup vs a 22% efficient panel, but we gave up on solar power towers for a bunch of reasons. With PV things are a lot more straightforward because you can reach nearly any temperature at equal efficiency.

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#29

Post by s1artibartfast »

Retric wrote: post #28
s1artibartfast wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment isnt about the industrial processing applications of this technology, but energy storage.

How exactly are you going to CHEAPLY collect and store energy for a 1400+C process using solar thermal? It seems like an huge advantage to use an 80% thermal setup vs a 22% efficient panel, but we gave up on solar power towers for a bunch of reasons. With PV things are a lot more straightforward because you can reach nearly any temperature at equal efficiency.

Maybe I dont understand. If your primary goal is thermal storage, why do you care about the peak temperature?

If we are talking primarily about storage, what are the advantages of a PV field + 1400 C brick storage vs parabolic + 500C storage?

Re: Electrically conductive bricks can replace fossil fuels in industrial processes

#30

Post by audunw »

Yeah, this is why I’m not too worried about the energy storage side of going 100% renewable energy in a scenario where we also decarbonise completely.

Storing energy as heat is dead simple, cheap, can let you store huge amounts of energy, and you can store for fairly long timespans.

It doesn’t matter that you can’t feed power back to the grid (well, maybe you can.. you can convert the light given off the heated block with photovoltaics.. but that won’t be a huge factor). If we decarbonise industrial heat it will create enough demand for renewables that the minimum output of renewables (over a larger area, I think it’s fair to assume some grid improvements over the next years) will be more than enough to cover base load needs. We will probably have quite a lot of batteries for frequency regulation and smoothing out the duck curve. Some of that will also help with dunkelflaute. But mainly there will just be so much renewables that the output never goes below what is needed on a given day.

There’s so many aspects of decarbonisation that makes balancing the grid easier. Electric cars is another example, where a lot of people will have flexibility of delaying or being proactive with charging based on electricity price forecasts. I expect most rental car companies will provide some grid balancing services, and in the near future you’ll have to pay extra to check out a car with 100% SoC.

Post reply on HN