5 ms·

The majority of the world’s economy is at or near the seaside. I find this approach more practical, similarly low tech (which is a good thing, simple and reliab

The majority of the world’s economy is at or near the seaside. I find this approach more practical, similarly low tech (which is a good thing, simple and reliable) but uses hydrostatic pressure instead of gravity. http://theliquidgrid.com/2016/12/27/marine-energy-storage/ http://theliquidgrid.com/2016/12/27/marine-energy-storage/ Sea floor is underutilized, but you can do a lot of things on a piece of land. Below certain small depth the sea is always calm, atmosphere is not, I anticipate catastrophic consequences with these tall cranes when hurricanes, tornados or lightnings.

CydeWeys 8y ago
That seems harder to me. Anything done deep underwater costs at least an order of magnitude more, plus they still have all the same concrete requirements because they need ballast to keep the air balloons from rising to the surface. Seems easier to just use that same mass on land with a crane.
- Const-me 8y ago
  > Anything done deep underwater costs at least an order of magnitude more They don’t need to do much underwater, only install. But I agree capital costs might be higher because of this. > all the same concrete requirements because they need ballast Depends on the geology of the sea bed. Where I live, the sea bottom is mostly solid rock, it’s possible to attach stuff to the bottom without putting much ballast. > use that same mass on land with a crane. The idea’s nice I just worry about disasters. I read in local news about falling construction cranes every couple of years, because stormy weather for a few months each year. It’s possible to make cranes strong enough even for bad weather (like bridges), but such weather proof cranes will become more expensive than regular ones.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    The installation process dominates overall effort, so if that's a lot harder then it ends up being a lot more expensive and thus a lot less cost competitive. It is absolutely insane how expensive an underwater oil well costs to tap compared to one on land, for example. > Depends on the geology of the sea bed. Where I live, the sea bottom is mostly solid rock, it’s possible to attach stuff to the bottom without putting much ballast. It's likely to be more expensive to attempt to attach to the sea floor than it is to just sink large weights. In fact, I'm not aware of any large structures that are anchored to the sea floor in a way that resists an upward force rather than a downwards one. It might be a wholly unsolved problem. > The idea’s nice I just worry about disasters. Falling construction cranes are dangerous because they tend to happen in inhabited areas, adjacent to other buildings. The energy storage cranes, on the other hand, would likely be in the middle of nowhere where land is cheap, so even if they do fall there's nothing to damage beyond the energy storage installation.
    - Const-me 8y ago
      > I'm not aware of any large structures that are anchored to the sea floor in a way that resists an upward force rather than a downwards one Marine vessels can be very large and helical screws are widely used, here’s an example https://helixmooring.com/square-shaft-anchors-2/ https://helixmooring.com/square-shaft-anchors-2/ > even if they do fall there's nothing to damage beyond the energy storage installation. Very expensive installation. Maybe they don’t need the reliability of bridges but they need to be able to withstand any weather.
      - stevespang 8y ago
        Actually, the deepest oil rig in the world called the Perdido rig, just off the Texas coast, at 2450 meters is anchored with hydraulically driven piles deep into the sea floor
  - gns24 8y ago
    Disasters are conceivable with ocean storage too. If a ship's anchor damaged the facility and caused the release of air, the rising air could well sink the ship.
    - Const-me 8y ago
      There’re many reasons why anchoring might be forbidden or not recommended in some areas. Global marine community has developed special signs to mark various locations on water, http://www.sailingissues.com/navcourse9.html http://www.sailingissues.com/navcourse9.html Captains normally follow these rules because the ships they’re controlling are often very expensive.

CydeWeys 8y ago

That seems harder to me. Anything done deep underwater costs at least an order of magnitude more, plus they still have all the same concrete requirements because they need ballast to keep the air balloons from rising to the surface. Seems easier to just use that same mass on land with a crane.

Const-me 8y ago
> Anything done deep underwater costs at least an order of magnitude more They don’t need to do much underwater, only install. But I agree capital costs might be higher because of this. > all the same concrete requirements because they need ballast Depends on the geology of the sea bed. Where I live, the sea bottom is mostly solid rock, it’s possible to attach stuff to the bottom without putting much ballast. > use that same mass on land with a crane. The idea’s nice I just worry about disasters. I read in local news about falling construction cranes every couple of years, because stormy weather for a few months each year. It’s possible to make cranes strong enough even for bad weather (like bridges), but such weather proof cranes will become more expensive than regular ones.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The installation process dominates overall effort, so if that's a lot harder then it ends up being a lot more expensive and thus a lot less cost competitive. It is absolutely insane how expensive an underwater oil well costs to tap compared to one on land, for example. > Depends on the geology of the sea bed. Where I live, the sea bottom is mostly solid rock, it’s possible to attach stuff to the bottom without putting much ballast. It's likely to be more expensive to attempt to attach to the sea floor than it is to just sink large weights. In fact, I'm not aware of any large structures that are anchored to the sea floor in a way that resists an upward force rather than a downwards one. It might be a wholly unsolved problem. > The idea’s nice I just worry about disasters. Falling construction cranes are dangerous because they tend to happen in inhabited areas, adjacent to other buildings. The energy storage cranes, on the other hand, would likely be in the middle of nowhere where land is cheap, so even if they do fall there's nothing to damage beyond the energy storage installation.
  - Const-me 8y ago
    > I'm not aware of any large structures that are anchored to the sea floor in a way that resists an upward force rather than a downwards one Marine vessels can be very large and helical screws are widely used, here’s an example https://helixmooring.com/square-shaft-anchors-2/ https://helixmooring.com/square-shaft-anchors-2/ > even if they do fall there's nothing to damage beyond the energy storage installation. Very expensive installation. Maybe they don’t need the reliability of bridges but they need to be able to withstand any weather.
    - stevespang 8y ago
      Actually, the deepest oil rig in the world called the Perdido rig, just off the Texas coast, at 2450 meters is anchored with hydraulically driven piles deep into the sea floor
- gns24 8y ago
  Disasters are conceivable with ocean storage too. If a ship's anchor damaged the facility and caused the release of air, the rising air could well sink the ship.
  - Const-me 8y ago
    There’re many reasons why anchoring might be forbidden or not recommended in some areas. Global marine community has developed special signs to mark various locations on water, http://www.sailingissues.com/navcourse9.html http://www.sailingissues.com/navcourse9.html Captains normally follow these rules because the ships they’re controlling are often very expensive.