Talk:Energy storage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sterlinda wrote on the main page: (...but this page should not be merged to that one and removed inasmuch as there are energy storage modalities that are independent of the grid) --Heron 19:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

I put a discussion comment at Talk:Grid energy storage Mackerm 05:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Retroflavors.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than electrical energy storage[edit]

This is a very small stub on a very huge topic and I wonder if it's possible to say anything useful in this article. Even if we confine it to energy stored for human use, the article should talk about mechanical storage, chemical energy storage, electrostatic storage, transport of stored energy from place to place, considerations in applying energy storage mechanisms to particular problems...and so on. --Wtshymanski 17:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of just deleting this article? I think a taxonomy of various kinds of storage could be useful (...but I don't want to work on it). I agree that trying to say anything about every particular one is impossible in 32KB, or even 200KB. Iain McClatchie 22:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity[edit]

What about clockwork storage/falling weight? Crimson30 04:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or winding a clock, storing energy in a spring? This article is a poorly worded version of grid energy storage. Anything related to grid energy storage should be moved to that article, leaving this article as a more universal explanation of the physics of energy storage. 199.125.109.37 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of energy[edit]

I am not sure why someone is splitting off thermal, which is a form of kinetic energy, and electrical, which is a form of potential energy, from simply stating that all energy is either potential or kinetic. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-based storage[edit]

Please look at following images:

These mention the storage of energy trough mass; this could be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.183.41 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steam storage[edit]

are steam accumulators the only type of steam storage that exist ? Check out http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19440/page1/ not sure what is used there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.49.74 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy usability[edit]

Add this line: Some energy sources have a higher energy value, meaning that more energy could potentially be extracted. Fuel types however, need a specific engine to extract their energy; of which some are highly inefficient, thus meaning that selecting a more energetic fuel does not always allow you to use more power.

Also, a table showing the energetic values for each energy source /1l could be handy. It would be best to make seperate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.192.180 (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source 13 (the one for boron as energy storage) sucks[edit]

It looks like it was thrown together by some kid in highschool or something. If we can't find a more professional resource for boron's use in energy storage, it shoudn't be in the article. 38.113.0.254 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storage Losses and Conversion Efficiencies[edit]

It would be useful to include a theoretical and empirical comparison of storage losses and conversion efficiencies of the various storage media. For example Electricity to Pumped Hydro Storage and back to Hydro-Electricity: how much energy is lost in the round-trip? I've yet to find a credible reference that is also exhaustive. 41.241.7.171 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water-activated battery[edit]

These aren't described, please include, see Water-activated_battery 91.182.45.110 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium-sulfur battery[edit]

Suggest addition of mention/link to the article on the Sodium-sulfur battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

already in use & development at industrial scales, and with significant advantages in energy density and constant charge/discharge rates.

J Park (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Fact[edit]

In the introduction of the article, it states that food is made from the same process as fossil fuels, but that's not true. Food is a producer or consumer that has not yet been decomposed. Fossil fuels are organisms that never decompose but go through burial and compaction and then fossil fuel formation (2 entirely distinct processes that food never goes through, unless for some reason oil or coal is considered food). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigold96 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underground compressed air is being taken very seriously[edit]

Please see this February 2012 peer reviewed literature review. —Cupco 19:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid cryogenic air[edit]

Can anyone tell if this is anything more than a guy in a garage? They claim 70% efficiency, which seems better than compressed air typically, but that figure certainly isn't peer reviewed. —Cupco 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.dearmanengine.com/ for where he's got to now. 85.210.170.156 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy storage[edit]

This section should not be placed in "Storage methods" because it's not one. Pi.r (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Energy storage[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Energy storage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RSC":

  • From Grid energy storage: Eberle, Ulrich; von Helmolt, Rittmar (14 May 2010). "Sustainable transportation based on electric vehicle concepts: a brief overview". Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 2010-06-08.
  • From Seasonal thermal energy storage: Paksoy, H.; Snijders, A.; Stiles, L. (2009), "Aquifer Thermal Energy Cold Storage System at Richard Stockton College" (PDF), EFFSTOCK 2009 (11th International) - Thermal Energy Storage for Efficiency and Sustainability, Stockholm. {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Energy storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

It seems that the reference for the claim that Norway has 25-30 GW pumped storage doesn't support the claim. Rather, the reference says: "the current total capacity for electricity production in Norway is between 25-30 GW." According to http://lvk.no/LVK/Fagomrader/Vannkraftproduksjon/Nokkeltall---Oversikt-over-konsesjonssystemet-for it is 30 960 MW, so this is accurate. That does not imply that the pumped storage capacity is of that order though. Actually, I don't know what it is even though I've been trying to follow that. I have seen it being said that it would be quite straightforward to establish 20 GW pumped storage capacity, but I doubt much has been installed as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources, Norway gets almost all its power from hydroelectricity, which can be readily adapted to pumped storage. So the text is not incorrect.--agr (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually found the actual numbers, it was just 1392 MW, which is not that impressive, there are single power stations that are larger than that. The idea of Norway is Europe's battery is an interesting one, but quite controversial, and although it wouldn't be terribly difficult to build a 20 GW pumped storage capacity, suggesting that it would happen or is already in place is misleading. --Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Energy storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

addition does not match reference[edit]

User:Robertiki added this [edit] where the reference given later is "Thermal Storage Concept" bears no relationship to the addition to the page, although my fist thought was to remove the whole thing, I'll ask here first - please come up with a genuine reference. Dougmcdonell (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source about capacity. The hour unit approach is implicit in page 15 of the NREL document. I have modified the wording to reflect that it is not unique. Example of usage of the definition is in the power station infobox as in Solana Generating Station, at Storage capacity = 6 hours. I could move the definition to Thermal energy storage and make it more specific. I am open to any suggestions. --Robertiki (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Robertiki, I have brought up the issue of your work lacking sources twice, you might look at WP:CITE. Twice you haven't provided a source verifying your additions, so I'll try to be clear about what needs verification. Your original additions to the article are underlined.
Storage capacity you've added a definition of "capacity" under the section heading "Use cases". It would read well as a use case, but that's not how it's written. If you'd prefer to keep it as a definition, it does not belong under "Use cases". Storage capacity is the amount of energy a power plant energy storage system can store; in the case of thermal plant, it isn't the capacity of plant to "store" its energy that's used, it's the capacity to use that storage to "produce" electricity ie:MWh, it;s the same for pumped hydro, no one refers to what was stored, the capacity is what comes out. may be given in number of hours of electricity production at power plant nameplate capacity; when storage is of primary type (i.e., thermal or pumped potential energy), The plants nameplate capacity may be different from the production from storage and I am not aware of any example of a power producing project that included "pumped potential energy", probably because there is no need - electricity travels well to off-site pumped storage. time span is calculated with input The "span|text=" referred to is part of the [needed] function, not the article. sourced only with energy from the power plant embedded storage system. It's not unusual to have natural gas as a secondary heat source with thermal plants, if it is chemical storage, inputs from the grid would be useful, "sourced only" is doubtful. Storage may be of chemical, kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal or other type. what is "potential energy" referring to? In short this would be more suitable as a "use case" specifically about solar thermal storage or as a definition at Heat storage to stabilize solar. I still lean towards removing anything that is dubious and un-verified, please provide a source that uses a similar definition of terms, rather than your own logic WP:ORIGINAL. Dougmcdonell (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I answered to this section to get feedback. Thank you for giving it. Some definitions don't need sources if the are an obvious and acceptable interpretation of the source data (there are two), provided there is consensus among editors. I don't want to impose any original logic, and that is explicit in my wording: I am open to any suggestions. Any help is appreciated.
Storage capacity is not under the section "Use cases" (which is #4); it has it's own heading (#5).
First source, page 23: Economic storage capacity is in the range of 3 – 15 full load hours shows an alternate form of capacity measurement. And besides, the logic is the same as per definition of that unlucky unit that is kW·h: a derived unit defined for technician's convenience. Following SI the capacity should be given in MJ. Anyway, that's the world. The convenience is that defining the storage capacity in hours, it is straightforward to redefine the unit capacity factor by simple addition. Read on page 23: The Andasol plants in Spain will have ~7.5 hrs (1010 MWh) storage capacity. Where you have a rosetta stone local conversion between simple hours and MW·h.
The second source is a set of examples of defining storage in terms of usefull hour output and not the initial energy content of the storage section. You simply take account of the conversion losses. It is always the capacity is what comes out as in your wording, what changes is what you use as a base unit: MW or power plant nominal power output.
Sure, The plants nameplate capacity may be different from the production from storage, but that may happen only if the storage is of the same type of output energy (i.e. electrity, as in battery systems). But if storage is of the primary type (as in pumped hydro or thermal storage), the plant nameplate capacity is the only power capacity you have (i.e. the storage section has no own electicity output capacity). You write: I am not aware of any example of a power producing project that included "pumped potential energy", but that is true only for PURE pumped storage plants. Any mixed pumped storage plant (pump-back plants) utilize a combination of pumped storage and conventional hydro. The turbine-generator groups give the nominal nameplate capacity, and the energy comes alternately from the natural inflows or from the stored (pumped) water. The same happens in a solar (not PV!) plant with storage: heat may come from the natural sun inflow or from the stored heat (overnight). The primary source storage system supplements the capacity of the power plant. The storage may lay aside energy from the natural inflow (the chemical battery storage in PV systems is also of that type) as backwards from the power grid (as in pumped hydro storage or chemical battery storage systems).
You write: It's not unusual to have natural gas as a secondary heat source with thermal plants, but that is off the subject. You need a boiler to convert natural gas to heat, i.e. no simple storage but a different logic sub-system.
You ask: what is "potential energy" referring to?: it is the energy in the natural inflows of water, or, in your own wording, of pumped potential energy.
I would say that the question revolves around using MW·h or [implied plant nameplate capacity]·h units. I added " may be given " to reflect that. --Robertiki (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perusing NREL database was the initial source of the definition in terms of hours of plant output. As an example where you read: Storage Capacity: 6 hours. Always thermal storage capacity is stated in hours of power plant output. Only sometimes, has here, NREL adds the equivalence in MWh; 7.5 hours and 1010 MWh yields 1010/7.5 = 135 MWth that has to be multiplied with the efficiency of 37-38% to yield the corresponding electric power. From there you may get 375 MWhe total capacity; not very intuitive to the layman (and annoying calculation for the technical knower). --Robertiki (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Robertiki, My apologies re:Use cases, you're correct, my mistake.
page 23 "full load hours as an alternate form of capacity measurement"[1] - Yes this applies perfectly to a thermal solar storage, it doesn't apply to chemical storage ie:amonia would be stored then sold, or pumped storage is always sized for peaking capacity with no relationship to the capacity of the electricity source. The second issue with this is using the plant capacity as a unit of measurement, so it reads as "plant capacity X hours" as the figure for storage. It's significantly more popular & recognized to use MWh. It's a stretch for me to imagine alternate forms of measurement being helpful in a definition, if the meaning isn't being conveyed in a manner that people can understand, it's a poor definition. capacity factor by simple addition, the capacity factor isn't daily, ie: the Andasol plants in Spain will have ~7.5 hrs of storage "on their best day". if storage is of the primary type (as in pumped hydro or thermal storage), the plant nameplate capacity is the only power capacity you have This would be true for thermal storage, but if a thermal plant uses pumped hydro, how is the capacity of the pumped hydro related to the nameplate capacity of the thermal plant ? The primary source storage system supplements the capacity of the power plant. In the case of pure pumped-hydro the primary source is for instance solar PV, there is only one source of electricity, but there are two plants with different capacities producing power. Again the way they're commonly referred to is in MWh. natural gas as a secondary heat source with thermal plants, but that is off the subject. If the subject is a description of thermal plant storage, then expand the subject to include the plants presently in use. You need a boiler to convert natural gas to heat Thermal plants already use boilers, this is just another one, not a whole new system. in your own wording, of pumped potential energy That's not my wording, rather yours, that's why it was in quotes, I put it into Google Search, and it is not a popular phrase. Always thermal storage capacity is stated in hours of power plant output. the article isn't about "thermal storage", if it was things would be way simpler. Thank you for volunteering your dislike of MWh, your intention is way easier for me to understand. Do you have any objection to making this about thermal storage, since that's the only primary energy I can think of that is stored in the same plant without being converted to something else? Dougmcdonell (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, let us focus only on plants in which the storage sub-system is integrated (and not a separate self working system), like in solar thermal plants and hydroelectric plants. In both examples, without the rest of the plant, the storage is of no use for power delivering. Second, let us focus on plants in which the storage sub-system has no other use, but for the power plant (i.e. ammonia storage is only for plant use, ammonia not taken out to be sold). So, please, drop all your combinations of different technologies and sources.
You write: "It's significantly more popular & recognized to use MWh.". In science and technology, an encyclopedia chooses definitions from reputable sources instead of popular ones. NREL is an authority on renewable energy. And recognizability is provided by definitions, as in the Section under discussion. If you don't agree, let us look at your sources in which a database of CSP plants is given other ways. Besides, "Andasol plants in Spain will have ~7.5 hrs of storage "on their best day" " is by definition of storage capacity. The same happens with hydroelectric plants: their nominal capacity is that "on their best day".
Your write "Do you have any objection to making this about thermal storage, since that's the only primary energy I can think of that is stored in the same plant without being converted to something else?", but that happens also in hydroelectric plants, in any mixed pumped storage plant (pump-back plants). --Robertiki (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to "drop all your combinations of different technologies and sources", just limit this description to thermal storage and hydroelectric dams that have their own storage. Your use of sourced only with energy from the power plant embedded storage system is not true for sources like tidal, wind and solar PV that output to Grid energy storage where the storage is not embedded with the power plant. In short, if you'd like to write about power plants that use "embedded storage", please name them, or if you'd like a broader description of "storage capacity", include more than "embedded storage", either way is fine by me. I'm also good with doing it myself, I'm trying to get get a consensus on what your contribution is about. Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:
Storage capacity is the amount of energy a power plant energy storage system can store; usually measured in joules or kilowatt-hours and their multiples, it may be given in number of hours of electricity production at power plant nameplate capacity; when storage is of primary type (i.e., thermal or pumped potential energy), time span is calculated with input sourced only with energy from the power plant embedded storage system.[2][3]
I have dropped the last sentence (Storage may be of chemical, kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal or other type.) because already described in the article. --Robertiki (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Proposal:
Storage capacity is the amount of energy extracted from a power plant energy storage system; usually measured in joules or kilowatt-hours and their multiples, it may be given in number of hours of electricity production at power plant nameplate capacity; when storage is of primary type (i.e., thermal or pumped-water), output is sourced only with the power plant embedded storage system.

I think this is more readable, feel free to use it or not, in particular, I'm inclined to delete/change pumped potential energy if you don't provide a reference to the phrase. Dougmcdonell (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Note: I restored the old title and removed the {{hidden}} template; I don't agree on changing the talk title and making part of it inaccessible, because it breaks future reference. Talk pages should preferably not be edited, only archived. Per WP:Talk, cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. You haven't directly removed comments, but making them inaccessible has the same effect. --Robertiki (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20160402190815/http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/nava_andasol_storage_system.pdf pg23
  2. ^ Herrman, Ulf; Nava, Paul (13 February 2016). "Thermal Storage Concept for a 50 MW Trough Power Plant in Spain" (PDF). www.nrel.gov. NREL. Archived from the original (pdf) on 2 April 2016. Retrieved 13 February 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Doetsch, Christian (6 November 2014). "Electric Storage Devices – "Definition" of Storage Capacity, Power, Efficiency" (PDF). www.iea-eces.org. Archived from the original (pdf) on 13 February 2017. Retrieved 13 February 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Energy storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Energy storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Outline of energy storage[edit]

I'm proposing that the article Outline of energy storage is merged here. The outline article is basically a subset of the list of types of energy storage already in this article. It doesn't add anything that isn't already here, or should be here. It seems unnecessary. Railfan23 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Duh, that outline provides nothing of value. Reywas92Talk 08:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical Limits[edit]

Unless I haven't found the specific WP article on battery theoretical limits, it would seem appropriate to add such a section. See: https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/

"The maximum theoretical potential of advanced lithium-ion batteries that haven’t yet been demonstrated to work is still only about 6 percent of crude oil."

"This means hydrocarbons–including both fossil carbon and biofuels–are still a factor of 10 better than the physical upper bound, and they’re likely to be 25 times better than lithium batteries will ever be."

"The bottom line is that nature has given us hydrocarbons in the form of fossil carbon and biomass, and their energy-mass and energy-volume densities are superior to the thermodynamic limits of nearly all conceivable alternatives."

Charles Juvon (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing IEE ref[edit]

@Elysia (AR): it looks like you forgot to fill in the reference "IEE Conference Publication 2019". -- Fyrael (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrael, thank you, I went to correct but another editor beat me to it. I had mistyped "IEEE Conference Publication 2019" as "IEE Conference Publication 2019" (forgetting the last "E"), causing the undefined reference error. Elysia (AR) (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear storage[edit]

What about a nuclear storage?

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-energy-storage-advanced-reactor-developers-trying-to-expand-nuclea/573570/ Grillofrances (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't nuclear storage (and it's debatable if such a thing as "nuclear storage" actually exists), that's thermal energy storage as mentioned already in the article, specifically the molten salt version. Esoteric bearcat (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that calling it "nuclear storage" is very misleading. @Esoteric bearcat Digital27 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is missing the distinction between short-term & long-term energy storage[edit]

The article is missing the distinction between short-duration & long-duration energy storage.

The sorts of technologies that work best for short-duration energy storage (huge Li-ion battery banks, etc.) than what works well for long-duration energy storage (like pumped hydro, etc.).

The article would be improved if we could explicate the distinction. N2e (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_storage&oldid=1212966073"