Talk:Storage tank

Regarding the revert of "steam tank as energy storage"

Could you elaborate why the steam tank advantages over accumulators does not belong on the steam tank page? -- SafwatHalaby (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: All the mentioned advantages are storage tank specific. - Except the last one regarding trains, but that kind of transportation always results in storing in a storage tank. - -- SafwatHalaby (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph in question:

There are several advantages to storing energy in storage tanks compared with storing it in an accumulator:

• The energy density of a storage tank tile is much higher than it is with accumulators.
  • For 165°C steam (produced with boilers), a single storage tank stores as much as 15 accumulators: 750MJ / 5MJ = 150
  • For 500°C steam (produced using heat exchangers), a single storage tank stores as much as 48 accumulators: 2400MJ / 5MJ = 480
• A nuclear reactor always fully burns a fuel cell, releasing 8GJ (or more with the multiple reactor bonus) even if power demand is lower. The excess energy can be stored as steam.
• A single accumulator's maximum discharge rate is 300kW. On a very heavy load (e.g. laser turret firing), a small accumulator array may not discharge fast enough, causing power disruptions. A steam engine can produce 900kW of energy from the stored steam (3 times faster discharge rate), and a turbine can produce 5800kW (6.4 times faster discharge rate). In other words, a number of turbines or steam engines with steam storage can cope with much higher bursts than the same number of accumulators.
• Steam can be transferred via trains and then consumed remotely via turbines or steam engines. This essentially "transports electricity" using trains.