4 ms·
This reminds of Energy Vault [1], which is based on the same principle, just above ground. Doing this above ground seems to make a lot more sense when you consi
by klunger 6y ago
This reminds of Energy Vault [1], which is based on the same principle, just above ground. Doing this above ground seems to make a lot more sense when you consider all of the additional costs associated with digging and maintain massive shafts. I am not clear why the underground approach is at all appealing. Can anyone explain?
[1] https://energyvault.com/ https://energyvault.com/
- kijin 6y agoAn underground facility is arguably less unsightly than a tower. You might also be able to repurpose an unused mine shaft, though I'm not sure how common that scenario is going to be.
- gameswithgo 6y agois digging a shaft more expensive than building a tower taller than the sears tower that can hold 5,000 tons?
- syllable_studio 6y agoYeah, very similar. The main reason is that you can get about 10x more height underground. You can dig about a mile deep. An Energy Vault tower is about 500 feet tall. And as mentioned below in other comments, adding more height gives you more storage per weight, so it's super important. Adding more height and weight scales quadratically while just adding more weight (in side by side towers) only scales linearly. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17FI-jrI9RWS3q7Ng44YhiHs7il8JvnxK-cV6_g_-cGo/edit#slide=id.g844fb8814b_1_136 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17FI-jrI9RWS3q7Ng44Yh...
- klunger 6y agoWow, I see you have already thought about this exact question a great deal. This was a clear and compelling answer. Your pitch deck is impressive. Good luck!
- syllable_studio 6y agothx!