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? All the mentioned advantages are storage tank specific. -- SafwatHalaby (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I see your point. Technically one could use a fluid wagon rather than a storage tank to achieve the same advantages. Then perhaps the calculations should be moved out of this page into the electric system page as well. -- SafwatHalaby (talk) 14:18, 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.