Finnish City Inaugurates 1 MW/100 MWh Sand Battery

It doesn't list the advantages over water, which seems the most common in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage systems.

You'd think water would be easier to exchange heat with since it can slosh around the heat exchanger elements in the tank more easily. Which should translate to lower costs since you don't need as many exchanger structures in the medium.

Any guesses for the motivation in using sand? Maybe it's that you can heat it over 100C? But then big heat differences to the environment mean high conductive/radiation losses or heavier insulation requirements.

The Wikipedia article says:

"Rock, sand and concrete has a heat capacity about one third of water's. On the other hand, concrete can be heated to much higher temperatures (1200 °C) by for example electrical heating and therefore has a much higher overall volumetric capacity."

and

"Polar Night Energy installed a thermal battery in Finland that stores heat in a mass of sand. It was expected to reduce carbon emissions from the local heating network by as much as 70%. It is about 42 ft (13 m) tall and 50 ft (15 m) wide. It can store 100 MWh, with a round trip efficiency of 90%. Temperatures reach 1,112 ºF (600 ºC). The heat transfer medium is air, which can reach temperatures of 752 ºF (400 ºC) – can produce steam for industrial processes, or it can supply district heating using a heat exchanger."

I learnt some new concepts here, specific heat capacity vs overall volumetric, things I kind of understood intuitively, but now much clearer:

If I add some fixed amount heat to some fixed volume of water, it might rise by 1℃, while the same volume of concrete rises by 3℃. And by the same logic, on release, that fixed volume of water dropping by 1℃ releases 3x as much heat as when that fixed volume of concrete drops by 1℃.

So if you can max heat water to 100℃, and max heat concrete to 1200℃, and on release you let it go to 10℃ (probably the range is less in practice), then the water can drop 90℃ and the concrete 1190℃, so even if the water releases 3x the amount of heat per ℃, the water just releases 270 (per volume) while the concrete releases 1190 (per volume)

Also to add some practicals: you can drive a steam turbine with the concrete temps, but not with the water.

Also, looking at how hot water could theoretically get (decomposes between 2200-3300C), it looks like 1200C is an interesting limit. Above that and you get safety(practical) and cost issues with every material I could find (common salts, pure elements).

Sand just makes sense! Though, don't ever youtube sand battery.