4 ms·

Eh. (imho) Hydro pumping is way more simple, and is just limited by the fact that you can't have it wherever you want. Also concrete is not exactly environment

Eh. (imho) Hydro pumping is way more simple, and is just limited by the fact that you can't have it wherever you want. Also concrete is not exactly environmentally friendly to make.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The category of solution I didn't seem to be hearing much about was "move a dense, solid mass uphill". I wasn't thinking specifically about concrete.
- criley2 8y ago
  To be fair, the gold standard is "move a dense, liquid mass uphill" so doing it with solids is kind of a novel approach.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Also concrete is not exactly environmentally friendly to make. Anything heavy will work. I wonder about bags of stones & rubble, or earth itself. The challenge would be making such bags not break apart due to fall.
- knodi123 8y ago
  > not break apart due to fall. If they're falling and there's an impact at the end, something has already gone wrong. When operating correctly, the descent is a smooth glide.
tomatotomato37 8y ago
This actually seems like the more ecological design, as the concrete used for weight here would be less than the amount used for a dam, and you wouldn't also have to pervert the flow of a river in order to build it. Besides, one time costs are trivial compared to running costs of industrial processes in terms of the environment, especially in terms of power production.
- konschubert 8y ago
  > as the concrete used for weight here would be less than the amount used for a dam Think that through. A dam probably holds 100 or 1000 tons of water for every ton of dam material. A concrete weight holds exactly on ton of concrete for one ton of concrete weight material. And "amount of weight helt", be it water or concrete, is Exactly what matters here.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  >... and you wouldn't also have to pervert the flow of a river in order to build it. You don't necessarily need a river to be involved at all for pumped storage. Just build two reservoirs at different heights.

Eh. (imho) Hydro pumping is way more simple, and is just limited by the fact that you can't have it wherever you want. Also concrete is not exactly environmentally friendly to make.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The category of solution I didn't seem to be hearing much about was "move a dense, solid mass uphill". I wasn't thinking specifically about concrete.

criley2 8y ago
To be fair, the gold standard is "move a dense, liquid mass uphill" so doing it with solids is kind of a novel approach.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> Also concrete is not exactly environmentally friendly to make. Anything heavy will work. I wonder about bags of stones & rubble, or earth itself. The challenge would be making such bags not break apart due to fall.

knodi123 8y ago
> not break apart due to fall. If they're falling and there's an impact at the end, something has already gone wrong. When operating correctly, the descent is a smooth glide.

tomatotomato37 8y ago

This actually seems like the more ecological design, as the concrete used for weight here would be less than the amount used for a dam, and you wouldn't also have to pervert the flow of a river in order to build it. Besides, one time costs are trivial compared to running costs of industrial processes in terms of the environment, especially in terms of power production.

konschubert 8y ago
> as the concrete used for weight here would be less than the amount used for a dam Think that through. A dam probably holds 100 or 1000 tons of water for every ton of dam material. A concrete weight holds exactly on ton of concrete for one ton of concrete weight material. And "amount of weight helt", be it water or concrete, is Exactly what matters here.
0xffff2 8y ago
>... and you wouldn't also have to pervert the flow of a river in order to build it. You don't necessarily need a river to be involved at all for pumped storage. Just build two reservoirs at different heights.