Using a particle accelerator as a battery?

[falcon32]

We all know electrical energy is wasted when generators work to provide a voltage potential that goes used. Many different approaches to saving the energy have been proposed (and are being experimented on), such as storing the energy in a rotating drum, or in a superconducting coil.

But what about storing it in a particle accelerator? Since it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate a charged particle the closer to the speed of light it gets, couldn't we just accelerate particles with the grid energy, keep them traveling in a loop, and decelerate them whenever we need the energy back?

Appreciate any thoughts, like practical limits from nuclear physicists...

 

[CompuChip]

As explained in this recent thread, accelerating charged particles only costs you energy in friction and radiation.

In a superconducting coil, you can store the energy without any frictional losses at all, so that is much more convenient. (The only problem at this time is that the coil has to be cooled to far below 0 degrees Celcius, which probably annihilates the profit you make by not losing energy in the storage).

 

[ZapperZ]

We all know electrical energy is wasted when generators work to provide a voltage potential that goes used. Many different approaches to saving the energy have been proposed (and are being experimented on), such as storing the energy in a rotating drum, or in a superconducting coil.

But what about storing it in a particle accelerator? Since it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate a charged particle the closer to the speed of light it gets, couldn't we just accelerate particles with the grid energy, keep them traveling in a loop, and decelerate them whenever we need the energy back?

Appreciate any thoughts, like practical limits from nuclear physicists...

Actually, you need info from accelerator physicists, not "nuclear physicist".

I would suggest that you go to a synchrotron center facility. That is what such a facility does, i.e. electron storage ring. But pay attention to how difficult it is to contain minuscule amount of such charge going around such a ring. You are forgetting that (i) the accelerating structure uses RF sources, and thus, such sources have to be generated and transported to the structures (you need to keep accelerating it since it loses energy going around in circles via synchrotron radiation, etc.), and (ii) space-charge effects that continues to want to cause the electron beam to expand outwards, thus needed a series of magnets (and hence, extra energy cost) to keep them contained. No synchrotron center anywhere in the world is even close to 100% efficient (wall-plug efficiency at these places are not even above 50%).

Zz.

 

[f95toli]

In a superconducting coil, you can store the energy without any frictional losses at all, so that is much more convenient. (The only problem at this time is that the coil has to be cooled to far below 0 degrees Celcius, which probably annihilates the profit you make by not losing energy in the storage).

Nope, there are actually (now commercially available) devices that do just that. They are known as SMES (google it) and are used to improve power quality (i.e. to avoid "brown outs").

It is a common misconception that it is expensive to cool things down to cryogenic temperatures, it used to be true but modern cryocoolers (which are basically work like good refrigerators) are reasonably cheap (in comparison to the cost of what they are used to cool, a few thousand dollars), are more or less plug-and-play devices and are extremely reliable (they are used in base stations in some mobile communications networks).
It is only when you need to go down well below 10K that it starts to become expensive (you need a two-state cryocooler, better insulation, compressors etc) but there is no need for that if you use a high-temperature superconductor.

 

[falcon32]

No synchrotron center anywhere in the world is even close to 100% efficient (wall-plug efficiency at these places are not even above 50%).

Zz.

Thanks, that's a great answer.

 

[Curl]

We all know electrical energy is wasted when generators work to provide a voltage potential that goes used.
.

This is incorrect.

 

[falcon32]

This is incorrect.

Right I think we all know I mean to say 'unused'...

 

[Curl]

It takes no work to maintain a potential difference unless charges are moving from high potential to low potential.

A turbine will require much less pressure difference to maintain a given RPM if the voltage is "unused", so you can just burn less fuel. You need to study Faraday's Law.