I can't remember if I saw the argument here or on Reddit, but this is my preferred platform so it's going here.
Summary of argument: a user should have been using water for their thermal battery, not sand, because water has better heat capacity (4.18 joules per unit of mass person unit heat - 4.18/gK). Sand's thermal capacity is significantly lower (0.835J/gK).
Looking at these numbers alone in the post I understood why someone would say that; it also made me question why so much research is being done on sand batteries. The user who argued against sand batteries missed a crucial factor: material density. Water has a density of 1000kg per m^3. Dry sand (regular not pure quartz sand) has a density of 1730 kg per m^3. I found no satisfactry response to the argument in that thread, but that thread is now lost to me. I have also been curious about how much better regular sand is for heat batteries than water.
When designing large batteries, the goal is usually energy per volume. Let's compare 1m^3 of each (roughly 3.3ft cube) and how much heat it can hold before the next state change (which matters a lot when managing the pressure from steam).
Total stored energy = mass (g) * thermal capacity (J/gK) * heat (kelvin).
Water: 1,000,000 * 4.18 * 373.15 = 1,559,767,000J Sand: 1,730,000 * 0.835 * 1996.15 = 2,883,538,482.5J
Over 1 billion more joules per m^3. I hope this makes it clearer why sand batteries are such an area of interest lately. It certainly did to me.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert, so there may be mistakes. All the numbers and relevant equations were found on the internet.
You can fight a lot of that with bigger batteries. Surface area goes up by r^2, but volume goes up by r^3.
More expensive batteries will also warrant better insulation.
Combine those and sand batteries make decent sense.