What factors determine the energy storage capacity of compressed gases?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the factors that determine the energy storage capacity of compressed gases, exploring concepts such as compressibility, ideal gas behavior, and the thermodynamic processes involved in gas compression and expansion. Participants examine theoretical aspects, practical applications, and the implications of different gas behaviors under varying conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the role of the compressibility coefficient in determining energy storage in gases and whether certain gases can store more energy than air.
  • One participant suggests that the specific gas constant, derived from atomic number and molar mass, is relevant to energy storage capacity.
  • It is noted that at low pressures, all gases have the same molar volume and energy per mole, but differences arise at higher pressures due to intermolecular interactions.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of isothermal versus adiabatic processes, with one stating that an ideal gas does not store more energy when compressed isothermally, as internal energy depends solely on temperature.
  • Another participant challenges the isothermal assumption, arguing that real-world applications, such as pumps and air motors, operate adiabatically, affecting energy transfer and efficiency.
  • Concerns are raised about the efficiency of energy storage and transfer in practical scenarios, with references to heat flow and temperature changes during compression and expansion processes.
  • One participant proposes a design consideration where the temperature of compressed air is allowed to rise, suggesting that this could enhance energy output in certain applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of energy storage in compressed gases, particularly regarding the assumptions of isothermal versus adiabatic processes. There is no consensus on the best approach or model for understanding energy storage capacity, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their discussions, such as the dependence on ideal gas assumptions and the complexities introduced by real-world applications. The discussion reflects a range of theoretical and practical considerations without resolving the nuances involved.

  • #31
I wonder if anyone can see a closeness to Maxwell's thought experiment ?
If the compressor is equal to the Demon function and the receiver transmits energy back to the compressor, the force of gravity is an added component not considered by Maxwell's thought experiment.
Just a thought.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Why we can store much more energy in compressed gas than in compressed spring? Is it because gas is more compressible than spring?
What relation exist between matter deformability and energy storage?
 
  • #33
Again I re-iterate (from post 4) that you're not storing energy in compressed air unless your method of storage involves raising the temperature of the air (and then, to use the energy, letting it cool again).

But, moving on, what does it mean to say that more energy is stored is stored in a gas than a spring? How much gas are you comparing with how much spring? Please note, I'm not trying to nitpick. I genuinely don't know how one would make a quantitative comparison.
 
  • #34
Philip Wood said:
Again I re-iterate (from post 4) that you're not storing energy in compressed air unless your method of storage involves raising the temperature of the air (and then, to use the energy, letting it cool again).

But, moving on, what does it mean to say that more energy is stored is stored in a gas than a spring? How much gas are you comparing with how much spring? Please note, I'm not trying to nitpick. I genuinely don't know how one would make a quantitative comparison.
It really depend on spring.
Carbon nanotube springs
are springs made of carbon nanotubes (CNTs). They are an alternate form of high density, lightweight, reversible energy storage based on the elastic deformations of CNTs. Many previous studies on the mechanical properties of CNTs have revealed that they possesses high stiffness, strength and flexibility. The Young's modulus of CNTs is 1 TPa and they have the ability to sustain reversible tensile strains of 6%[1] and the mechanical springs based on these structures are likely to surpass the current energy storage capabilities of existing steel springs and provide a viable alternative to electrochemical batteries. The obtainable energy density is predicted to be highest under tensile loading, with an energy density in the springs themselves about 2500 times greater than the energy density that can be reached in steel springs, and 10 times greater than the energy density of lithium-ion batteries..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube_springs
So, why carbon nanotube springs have better energy density than steel springs?
 
  • #35
Stanley514 said:
Why we can store much more energy in compressed gas than in compressed spring? Is it because gas is more compressible than spring?
What relation exist between matter deformability and energy storage?
You will find weight might be the biggest factor in why either would be considered for a particular function.
 
  • #36
Stanley514 said:
So, why carbon nanotube springs have better energy density than steel springs?

The energy stored due to tensile stress per unit volume of solid is u = \frac{1}{2}Y \epsilon^2 in which Y is the Young modulus and \epsilon is the strain.

Both factors, Y and maximum possible elastic \epsilon are different for the two materials. The carbon-carbon covalent bonds exert more force per unit increase in separation of the atoms than the metallically bonded atoms in steel, leading to the nanotubes having a greater Young modulus than steel. Also, much larger strains can be suffered by the nanotubes than by steel before the material ceases to deform elastically. This is because the metallic bonding (pooled electrons) in the steel allows planes of atoms in crystals to slip over each other (promoted by the presence of dislocations) under moderate stress. This can't happen in the covalently bonded nanotubes, though they do break eventually under VERY large stress.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K