OK, I'm familiar with this tech. Its really just a form of battery for electrical energy storage.
To make a heat engine efficient, it needs the heat source to be very hot compared to the sink temperature (around 300K). There is no problem at all making heat at that temp using resistive heating. None.
Graphite is used because it is stable at very high temperatures (if it doesn't catch on fire), cheap, AND its low atomic mass and loose molecular structure give it very high specific heat per mass/volume. Its the hands down choice for a thermal storage material at high temps, just like water is a no brainer at 80°C.
In principle, such a system would have (1) no moving parts to wear out (2) no chemical reactions like a battery (and unlimited cycle life) and (3) be very scalable bc you just make the thermal mass as big as you want (and parasitic losses vanish when you scale up).
V nice in principle, bur far from ready for prime time. 40% efficiency means the 'battery' has a 40% round trip efficiency for electricity to electricity, way worse than a chemical (or flow) battery.
The article is exciting bc it is better than making hydrogen from electrolysis and turning it back into electricity using a fuel cell. That has about a 40% current efficiency also:
Hydrogen fuel cell efficiency falls short compared to lithium-ion batteries when it comes to forklift fleet; find out how in this helpful guide.
www.fluxpower.com
Similarly, compressed air energy storage (CAES) is also about 40% cycle efficiency, not counting useful waste heat.
en.wikipedia.org
So there you are... before saying that all three of these systems are crazy bc they have 40% efficiency, remember that that fleet of ICE vehicles you see swarming the streets world-wide has a well to wheels efficiency <25%.
As PV gets cheaper, overbuilding it by 2.5X will not be a big cost/deal. All three of these techs (heat battery/H2/CAES) will compete with each other based upon $/kWh stored.
What do I think will win? Batteries or flow batteries.
--CAES needs a very large high pressure storage tank. This is expensive, unless you have a suitable cave nearby. So its not super scalable in the same way pumped hydro is great if nature made you an elevated lake, but not if you have to build a giant tall water tank.
--I remain skeptical of Hydrogen, bc the electrolysers and fuel cells have been around for like 150 years, and they are still damned expensive. And in the end, even if they were free and 100% efficient, I still need to store a chit ton of gas at high pressure.... and its hydrogen (yikes).
--The high temp system as in this thread... cycle life is theoretically very high (bc there is no chemical change) BUT I think that is theory. In reality, these materials (and their connections) will also have to expand and contract during a temperature cycle (from 3000 to 2000 K), and engineering materials that have long SHELF (working) life at those temps is really hard. I mean, even your metal contacts are going to evaporate. Edison managed to find a filament for his light bulb that worked at those temps (but struggled famously), and 100 years later the suckers still burned out after 2000 hours.
I would support a moonshot for flow batteries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery