Researchers make a supercapacitor from water, cement, and carbon black
bbc.com
bbc.com
> The power output "may seem low compared to conventional batteries, [but] a foundation with 30-40 cubic metres (1,060-1,410 cubic feet) of concrete could be sufficient to meet the daily energy needs of a residential house", says Stefaniuk.
This made me suspicious, because it sounded too low. But it turns out it's true ... for an average British home that's heavily dependent on gas.
40 m^3 * 300 watt-hours/m^3 = 12 kwh. I.e. 500 watts for a whole day.
Apparently the average American residential electricity use is 10,791 kwh/year, which is ~1,231 watts, whereas the average British home is only 2,700 kwh/year which is ~308 watts. I had no idea that the difference was so large.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3
https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/guides/average-bill.html
Also, I'd be curious how much of this could be due to electric car usage increasing?
This of course is anecdata, but I think a large percentage of it might come down to the fact that UK houses don't seem to run AC nearly as much. I spent two weeks in York a few years ago, during an extremely hot summer, and I was missing my AC very very much.
* UK requires appliances to be eco friendly - that means for most appliances they only take a quarter of the energy to do the same job. Dishwasher/washing machine/etc.
* UK housing has really high insulation requirements for new builds. Your body heat will keep it warm most of the year. They are starting to require retrofits for old buildings too.
* Widespread use of LED lighting and expensive electricity
* Smaller houses - less rooms etc.
* Tumble driers aren't widespread (big energy user).
* Electric water heating is rare (most houses use gas or oil).
* Air conditioning isn't widespread, despite the climate kinda needing it in the middle of summer.And a fair chunk of that is the summer holiday season, when a lot of people won't be home anyway.
It is possible to mis-design houses and apartments to need it more than that (extreme sun traps essentially); schools/offices and public transport are a different case because of the number of human bodies in a small space.
But our homes need A/C so rarely that it's not worth it, same as most people don't have winter tyres or snow chains, or even know how to fit them. Materially significant amounts of snow for a few days one winter in three, unless you live in Scotland or the Pennines.
As a government, it's probably a good move to encourage installation of AC in your citizens homes even if it only gets used a couple of days a year simply for the productivity benefits.
Unfortunately, current UK policies on Heat Pumps specifically discourage installation of AC (you become ineligible for various grants if your heat pump system has a valve to allow use as an AC system).
Different story for badly built apartments, though. We used to live in a 1950s apartment, top floor with a flat roof. It reached 38C inside, when outside was 36C, and then wouldn't cool down at all during the night. It was unbearable, and we moved out!
Not much help if you buy an existing place whose builders didn't take hot summers into account though!
Many people forget that London (UK) has about the same latitude as Vancouver (Canada).
UK housing is mostly quite old - an average age of 50 years or so. Modern insulation requirements only became law in the last 20 years. Most houses aren't particularly well insulated - and most houses haven't had much retrofit work done. The UK is really far behind most of Northern Europe in this regard.
I think the rest of your reasons are valid. Average floor area is probably half that of a US house. Domestic air conditioning is almost unheard of. Almost everyone heats with natural gas.
Heating is a huge part of energy demand - around 25% of UK total energy goes into space heating - so if you're not doing that via electricity then average energy consumption per house will be much lower.
Electricity cost is currently running at about 28p/KWh. I presume that's a lot more than the US. Electric heating is indeed rarer because gas is about 1/3 of the cost.
I'm thinking your points about air conditioning is likely the major difference combined with the average US home being larger so more space to air-con. Few UK homes have air conditioners (offices do) as it doesn't usually get hot enough. Although this has started to change in the last few years and I'm seeing them occasionally popping up now on neighbours houses. I wouldn't have needed one this year at all so far. Last year, maybe for one week. I was thinking about it but by the time you've looked into organising something the heat has gone and you forget about it until next year. There is a push to move to heat pump heating instead of gas and those units often can do air-con as a byproduct so that may be a driver for change.
Tumble driers are easily available and definitely widespread in the UK. The lack of tumbler driers is a bizarre myth I see again and again on lists of differences between the US and UK. I have no idea how the authors of these lists come to this conclusion. The only idea I have is maybe people from the US who come to the UK rent a furnished house and the landlord cheaps out and decides not to supply one. I do have one and it runs to about 2KWh a load maybe? I don't think that would explain the difference in any case.
My 20 year old drier uses about twice amount of kwh as my 7 year old dishwasher (on actual clean mode, not "eco: everything is still dirty and you should do it by hand mode"). I also use it far less, so on average they are about the same.
Also in the USA you see gas-fired tumble dryers, which you never see in the UK, probably due to 240V all round.
I recall in my great grandparents old terrace house, the kitchen was set behind the neighbors fireplace. The only rational place for the fridge stand effectively copped 50-80 degrees from the neighbors fire, just radiating from the brick. This lead to the fridge running constantly and having an extremely short lifespan (and sometimes not functioning at all)
That said because it was old everything was air dried.
They have of course been retrofitted with electricity and plumbing and gas and modern insulation (usually), but exactly what you get depends on how recently it's been renovated. And "mid 20th century" is a very common answer.
So you have 70m² of wall, 49m² of roof and floor. Total 24.6 W/K. So, with the average UK electricity consumption (300 watts), plus the body heat of 3 people (300 watts) you have 600 watts of heating, which should keep that building 25 deg C above the outdoor temperature.
The UK in winter normally averages about 5C, so you'd have an indoor temperature of 30C - plenty toasty.
Obviously many buildings don't meet the required standards, people aren't home all day, there are air leaks, etc. But, for most buildings, heating is still not required most of the time.
Yes, it's small, but new houses are mostly very small because they try to be 'affordable'.
Most people with lots of money buy an older house which is bigger, sometimes knocking down and rebuilding the same house if you want to modernize (in many areas you have to rebuild something the same size, shape and appearance).
Average (well, median) US house size: 2000 ft^2
Average UK house size: 68 m^2 = 740 ft^2
That makes for a very, very different HVAC bill.
Numbers vary a lot by source but the relationship (2x+ larger in the US) holds. For example: https://www.zigguratrealestate.ph/post/how-big-is-a-house-av...
Over here it is mostly using radiators with water heated with natural gas (same gas that was used for cooking when fire stoves were common).
In the US and Canada it is very common to have a furnace that delivers heated air in residential houses.
Also there was just no HVAC there to begin with, so I guess even less of an HVAC bill.
Though York is a fairly rural town, and houses/apartments that small in rural America, as far as I am aware, are basically unheard of.
A small chunk of buildings built in the 60's use electricity because we thought that would be cheap in a post-nuclear world. We were wrong.
I would bet that the southern states skew the results quite a bit for the entire USA.
Electricity usage yes. Energy usage no. Household energy usage is lower in the warmer states, and higher in colder states. I would expect that CO household energy consumption would be higher than FL or TX.
I would argue that the USA as a whole generally has more climate variability than the UK in addition to larger housing to account for the overall energy usage as well.
that's quite the assertion, what makes you believe it to be true?
Well, American homes aren't built out of brick and concrete like European buildings are, instead they're made out of wood and cardboard which is barely insulating against heat (and doesn't hold up at all to major storms which is why you're seeing so much destruction after hurricanes), so they lose a lot of energy during winter and have to spend a lot of electricity on AC during the summer.
On top of that, their homes are (at least in suburbia) so much larger than European homes. Heat loss/influx is cubic-related to the footprint IIRC, so it makes for much more energy demand as well.
They main reason is that US has a higher percentage of all-electric homes. The average medium sized UK home uses 2700 kWh/year of electricity and 11500 kWh/year of gas. See that table in your second link.
What you want to compare is average household energy use excluding transportation. For the UK the numbers in your link give 9400 kWh/year for 1-2 people in a flat or 1-bedroom house, 14200 kWh/year for 2-3 people in a 3-bedroom house, and 21100 kWh/year for 4-5 people in a 5-bedroom house.
I'll leave it to someone else to find out how those are distributed to work out the average for the UK as a whole.
For the US, in 2011 [1], annual usage was 108 MBTU for single family detached houses, 89 MBTU for single family attached houses, and 54 MBTU for multi-family housing. In kWh that's 31700 kWh, 26100 kWh, and 15800 kWh.
I'll leave it for someone else to find the distribution so those can be combined, and to find later data. Almost all searches for household energy US of US households just return electricity usage and the 2011 document was the only thing I found that gave what I was looking for.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/lo...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36958531
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36993411
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36951089
While I'm fairly dubious about the proposed dual-purpose structural implementation of this material -- if this works at scale it would be a boon for low cost DIY local energy storage in the developing world and remote areas in other places.
The idea that someone with minimal education/training can construct a durable electrical storage solution using commonly available materials and techniques is an absolute game changer!!
45 cubic meter is a cube with side 3.56 meter. That is not large at all. Especially, if it can be sunk into the ground. I assume septic tanks are also about the same size.
Paper, if anyone interested: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2304318120?doi=10...
I imagine the benefit would be if you can use it to build your foundation and get energy storage for 'free' in which case that's quite a lot of foundation.
[1][https://buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-the-p...]
And even if you could have a super thin, delicate layer in the walls, and the builders don't break it putting it in, why not just roll it up tightly and put it safely in a can along with any electrolyte it needs in the first place?
The key feature of supercapacitors is that they exploit 3D effects (or rather a 2D effect around very tiny features in a 3D volume) that allow them to use the volume of the material, combined with a very tiny effective charge separation.
Capacitors need to be kept away from damage, so putting them on the foundation and sealed in concrete is a much safer approach.
I'm thinking fire hazards or shorts associated with, say, hanging a framed picture on the wall (or anything else that would involve drilling in the concrete)
Which is a good thing, as EV battery fires are nasty. A lot of stored energy there!
So depending on the design, electrical shorts might be something to worry about, but I have a hard time worrying about it as a significant fire hazard when compared to all of the other flammable things you might find in a house.
It's interesting but you can store a lot of thermal energy in concrete. The heat capacity is 1050 J/(kg.K). One cubic meter of concrete is about 2 400 kg and the heat capacity is roughly 1 x 10^3 J/(kg.K) so raising the temperature by just 1 degree C would store 2.4 x 10^6 J. That's 666 Wh.
Twice the energy storage for only one kelvin temperature rise with no technological breakthroughs needed. Granted it's not electricity but in temperate and colder climates a lot of the energy needed in a home is heat.
Still a very interesting idea and if it can be made to work cheaply enough even at the storage capacity they quote it would add a lot of flexibility to the energy system.
Could someone kindly explain to me how this works?
For example, if you had an empty lithium battery which can store X amount of power, and a fully charged supercapacitor which holds 10X, can you charge the lithium battery to full and leave 9X in the supercapacitor?
If no, why not and how do you (both safely and usefully) get energy out of a supercapacitor? Or if yes, could a relatively small battery between the SC and a house act as a buffer to stop it mattering that the SC discharges "too quickly and unsteadily"?
So on the other hand, super-capacitors are great at charging and discharging rapidly with low loss. So if you want to fire a high powered laser for a few femtoseconds then they work great. You can't get power into and out of a battery that quickly because chemical reactions take time, so super-capacitors have their applications. It's just that holding power for more than a few minutes is probably not it.