3 ms·
5000 tons at 1500m is ~20MWh [1], assuming 100% efficiency (frictionless free fall). That means that the theoretical maximum is 50x (!) less than 1 nuclear rea
by steeve 6y ago
5000 tons at 1500m is ~20MWh [1], assuming 100% efficiency (frictionless free fall).
That means that the theoretical maximum is 50x (!) less than 1 nuclear reactor can do in 1 hour (1000 MW for 18 months or 13 140 000 MWh). Put it differently, you'd need to dig 50 of these to output the equivalent of 1 nuclear reactor (and nuclear plants have 2 or more reactors) for one hour.
That's also assuming digging a hole this deep in a stable manner.
[1]. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5000+tons+*+9.8m%2Fs%2Fs+*+1500m https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5000+tons+*+9.8m%2Fs%2...
- LordHeini 6y agoYou are completely mixing up MWh and MW which are two different things.
- steeve 6y agoYou are right. The actual number for a nuclear reactor is 13 140 000 MWh. (1000MW * 18 months). But I figure people would get the idea better.
- novaleaf 6y agoDifferent categories/uses. This is storage and on-demand production. Also, I would assume that 50x of these wells is cheaper than 1x nuclear (especially operational costs). But again, not in the same category.