4 ms·

> and you need the right geography to help. That's true of things like pumping water upstream, but I was thinking of something like this: https://qz.com/135567

> and you need the right geography to help. That's true of things like pumping water upstream, but I was thinking of something like this: https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/ https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surpris... I'm curious how much real estate it would take with that approach to equal the energy storage capacity of the Tesla battery.

magnetic 8y ago
Moving parts are a big downside.
IshKebab 8y ago
That thing is never going to be commercial viable. It doesn't have the energy density to be worthwhile, and comes with all the hassle that a moving mechanical system brings (maintenance etc). Plus I don't believe their 85% efficiency figure. That's ludicrously good. Also most of the $40m/year saving of this battery is that it can respond in 100 ms which means they don't have to spend so much money buying electricity from other people when demand or supply changes suddenly.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
That article says that one tower fully stacked is 20 MW, while the Tesla storage is 6 and a half times that. You can somewhat compare pictures between the articles to get a sense of scale. Seems to me the Tesla system would have a much lower total cost of ownership as its a solid state system (and perhaps even construction costs - getting that much concrete in one place for the tower system would be a large expense). Plus the batteries can respond much faster and more efficiently to changes in electricity needs.
simias 8y ago
I always heard that gravity was very poor for energy storage because it's such a relatively week energy. I haven't done the math so I'm not outright dismissing the idea but your article states: >A 120-meter (nearly 400-foot) tall, six-armed crane stands in the middle. In the discharged state, concrete cylinders weighing 35 metric tons each are neatly stacked around the crane far below the crane arms.[...] >The system is “fully charged” when the crane has created a tower of concrete blocks around it. The total energy that can be stored in the tower is 20 megawatt-hours (MWh), enough to power 2,000 Swiss homes for a whole day. That seems like a huge hassle for a relatively meager storage. You'd need more than 6 of these to match Tesla's giant battery. Sounds like it would be an eye-sore too, but that's always a bit subjective. Maintenance-wise it could be rather tricky too, the article mentions complex systems to lift the blocks.
TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
That's just a specific type of gravity battery. The primary issue is the low power to weight ratio. Consider that pumped water is also a gravity battery. Think of how much water is behind one of those dams.

magnetic 8y ago

Moving parts are a big downside.

IshKebab 8y ago

That thing is never going to be commercial viable. It doesn't have the energy density to be worthwhile, and comes with all the hassle that a moving mechanical system brings (maintenance etc). Plus I don't believe their 85% efficiency figure. That's ludicrously good. Also most of the $40m/year saving of this battery is that it can respond in 100 ms which means they don't have to spend so much money buying electricity from other people when demand or supply changes suddenly.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

That article says that one tower fully stacked is 20 MW, while the Tesla storage is 6 and a half times that. You can somewhat compare pictures between the articles to get a sense of scale. Seems to me the Tesla system would have a much lower total cost of ownership as its a solid state system (and perhaps even construction costs - getting that much concrete in one place for the tower system would be a large expense). Plus the batteries can respond much faster and more efficiently to changes in electricity needs.

simias 8y ago

I always heard that gravity was very poor for energy storage because it's such a relatively week energy. I haven't done the math so I'm not outright dismissing the idea but your article states: >A 120-meter (nearly 400-foot) tall, six-armed crane stands in the middle. In the discharged state, concrete cylinders weighing 35 metric tons each are neatly stacked around the crane far below the crane arms.[...] >The system is “fully charged” when the crane has created a tower of concrete blocks around it. The total energy that can be stored in the tower is 20 megawatt-hours (MWh), enough to power 2,000 Swiss homes for a whole day. That seems like a huge hassle for a relatively meager storage. You'd need more than 6 of these to match Tesla's giant battery. Sounds like it would be an eye-sore too, but that's always a bit subjective. Maintenance-wise it could be rather tricky too, the article mentions complex systems to lift the blocks.

TheLoneAdmin 8y ago

That's just a specific type of gravity battery. The primary issue is the low power to weight ratio. Consider that pumped water is also a gravity battery. Think of how much water is behind one of those dams.