4 ms·

Honest question. Is there a reason to use a crane rarther than digging a hole? It seems all that needs to happen is for a weight to be lifted and then allowed t

Honest question. Is there a reason to use a crane rarther than digging a hole? It seems all that needs to happen is for a weight to be lifted and then allowed to fall. If that was done below ground, that would cut out the weather issues and I feel like the structure itself would be a lot more robust.

pharrington 8y ago
The general principle is converting kinetic energy -> potential energy (storage) and vice versa (consumption). My intuition is that using existing technology to lift a weight through lower atmosphere by >= X required meters is waaaaay more efficient than displacing ((X required meters of height) * required storage surface area) volume of Earth crust.
- tomelders 8y ago
  Cheers. I must be missing something, but once the hole is dug, it’s dug, and i’d have thought it was pretty low maintenance and more structuraly sound than a crane. So over time, would the costs of maintenance provide a benefit?
  - Qwertystop 8y ago
    You still need a crane to move the blocks from the bottom to the top and back. It might be a different type of crane, but I don't know that it would be any cheaper to maintain.
tantalor 8y ago
Holes are expensive
- adiusmus 8y ago
  Not all of them. Sometimes they are waste products of some other industry. Eg old mines / quarries.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Yes, you could use a pre-existing big hole, and carry concrete blocks from the bottom of the hole to the top of the hole. All you're really doing with this approach is swapping out the tower crane for a gantry crane though, for negligible savings. The hole's not really helping you out that much.
  - pas 8y ago
    Hard to scale them though. And they are not uniform/standardized.
tempestn 8y ago
It's certainly been considered: https://www.gravitricity.com/ https://www.gravitricity.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8646787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8646787 http://gravitybattery.info/ http://gravitybattery.info/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6739349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6739349

pharrington 8y ago

The general principle is converting kinetic energy -> potential energy (storage) and vice versa (consumption). My intuition is that using existing technology to lift a weight through lower atmosphere by >= X required meters is waaaaay more efficient than displacing ((X required meters of height) * required storage surface area) volume of Earth crust.

tomelders 8y ago
Cheers. I must be missing something, but once the hole is dug, it’s dug, and i’d have thought it was pretty low maintenance and more structuraly sound than a crane. So over time, would the costs of maintenance provide a benefit?
- Qwertystop 8y ago
  You still need a crane to move the blocks from the bottom to the top and back. It might be a different type of crane, but I don't know that it would be any cheaper to maintain.

tantalor 8y ago

Holes are expensive

adiusmus 8y ago
Not all of them. Sometimes they are waste products of some other industry. Eg old mines / quarries.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  Yes, you could use a pre-existing big hole, and carry concrete blocks from the bottom of the hole to the top of the hole. All you're really doing with this approach is swapping out the tower crane for a gantry crane though, for negligible savings. The hole's not really helping you out that much.
- pas 8y ago
  Hard to scale them though. And they are not uniform/standardized.

tempestn 8y ago

It's certainly been considered: https://www.gravitricity.com/ https://www.gravitricity.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8646787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8646787 http://gravitybattery.info/ http://gravitybattery.info/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6739349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6739349