GCM, in my opinion, still requires many years of testing in real life situations. For example, take 1414 Degrees' energy storage system which is far move advanced with years of actual operating projects and experience. While they use a silicon-based thermal energy storage system rather than a graphite-based system, the fundamental concerns remain the same: how the technology can maintain essential efficiency and reliability metrics within a particular system in order to be profitable. The challenge with 14D has been maintaining the temperature across the entire system and minimising losses. Expectations and reality must match up.
SourceWhile graphite may be stored at 1650 degrees, it discharges at a slower and less consistent rate which could be problematic. Also, I would expect graphite to cool more quickly due it its lower density. However, I admit I don't know enough, so I'm glad to be proven wrong. In principle however, I do support the fact that we must try all manner of things.
As a result, the risks are, in my opinion, better to be in the actual 'raw materials' itself which is the upstream starting point for supply chains. Especially given that securing new supply of raw materials outside of China will be a priority given the long lead times it takes to get online. So, preparing to move with manufacturers as they prepare for a Trump Administration within the coming weeks – as I think DC has alluded to in
@TenX post above – is a real SP catalyst.
Clearly, Australia is ready to be responsive because we are a stable country, with solid infrastructure and large deposits. Therefore, the supply chains will be able to easily trace our material in order to meet the demands of the new administration, whatever they be.
IMO, DYOR, GLTA(Patient)H
