4 ms·

"Also, we already have gravity-based systems, only nature does all the work of raising the payload for us in gaseous form, and we let it fall in liquid forms. B

"Also, we already have gravity-based systems, only nature does all the work of raising the payload for us in gaseous form, and we let it fall in liquid forms. But it takes so much dam place" We actually also do have self created gravity-based systems, where we also do the work by ourself, to have a energy storage on demand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit... They work reliable and with big capacity since the very beginning of electricity. The only problem is ... scale. You cannot just build them where you want them. You need rivers and height differences. Unless you create such systems completely artificial and there are plans to do so, but that will be very expensive. edit: here is a paper (in german) discussing such possibilities, to create a artificial pumped-storage out of the remains of surface mining https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7211/file/WP194.pdf https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/72... edit 2: and my opinion is, that I am not a fan of complicated solutions, like the originial solution from the article seems to be, which is also stated as "The technology is still “incredibly immature” There are solutions to make batteries without rare elements. They just don't reach the energy density of lithium based ones, but that is not really a problem, when you have them stationary. So if you could scale up production of these and in the end, have a big battery in every home/factory connected to the grid - you would have a stable grid without any need for gas- or coal powered backup.

dopidopHN 6y ago
Side note on what is currently existing with gravity. The suiss folks are gaming the west European energy market this way. When the French produce too much nuclear energy, the German have leftover and stop buying it 100%w Price go down. Swiss buy it cheap and pump water in their dam system with it. Inevitably, the french grid align and produce a bit less. Price goes up slightly. That when the suiss comes out, release the water into a turbine system and sell the energy for a higher price that what they bought it for to German, French and Italian grid. I can’t even be mad at them. They have the perfect setup. But you need the Swiss alp and climate to do what they are doing. And being freaking Swiss. Source/Context from a Swiss news paper : le temps, in French They describe that « system » and apparently it’s being disturb in recent years with the evolution of the German market. https://www.letemps.ch/economie/barrages-suisses-vendre-eston-arrive https://www.letemps.ch/economie/barrages-suisses-vendre-esto...
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Maybe I do not understand it fully (ne pas parle de francais), but where do they game the system? You buy cheap when you have storage and sell expensive when demand goes up. Pretty much how the market should work? This way there is incentive to balance it out (by creating storage) - and in this case stabilize the grid. When the grid would become more flexible, so even homeowners can do this with their solar panels and big batteries - then this should be net gain for everyone, no? Unless gaming it, with big money, destabilises it. So some safeguards probably should remain.
  - dopidopHN 6y ago
    You are correct, it's not gaming the system indeed. It's more something that they decided to do on their own, and rightfully so. It's a bit innervating for French tax payers to be on that side of the bargain. But at the same time, we have nuclear power plant, those cannot react that swiftly to market demands changes... it's all fair game. They actually provide some kind of buffer service.
  - bjourne 6y ago
    It's not gaming the system, it is arbitrage. However, it is pretty terrible for producers unable to exploit price swings. E.g a nuclear plant produces electricity at a fixed cost and may sell it at a loss when the price is low, but recoups the losses when the price is high. Since arbitrage smooth out the price peaks, it damages nuclear's profitability. One could say that's too bad for nuclear, others (nuclear lobbyists) say that regulation is needed to prevent electricity arbitrage.
    - xboxnolifes 6y ago
      If the fixed price nuclear uses is too low to be profitable, then it must be raised.
    - aquark 6y ago
      If nuclear can offer sustained cheaper than average generation then the market would allow a long term fixed price contract — they shouldn’t need to sell their full output at spot rates. Consumers that want predictability could buy on these contracts.

dopidopHN 6y ago

Side note on what is currently existing with gravity. The suiss folks are gaming the west European energy market this way. When the French produce too much nuclear energy, the German have leftover and stop buying it 100%w Price go down. Swiss buy it cheap and pump water in their dam system with it. Inevitably, the french grid align and produce a bit less. Price goes up slightly. That when the suiss comes out, release the water into a turbine system and sell the energy for a higher price that what they bought it for to German, French and Italian grid. I can’t even be mad at them. They have the perfect setup. But you need the Swiss alp and climate to do what they are doing. And being freaking Swiss. Source/Context from a Swiss news paper : le temps, in French They describe that « system » and apparently it’s being disturb in recent years with the evolution of the German market. https://www.letemps.ch/economie/barrages-suisses-vendre-eston-arrive https://www.letemps.ch/economie/barrages-suisses-vendre-esto...

hutzlibu 6y ago
Maybe I do not understand it fully (ne pas parle de francais), but where do they game the system? You buy cheap when you have storage and sell expensive when demand goes up. Pretty much how the market should work? This way there is incentive to balance it out (by creating storage) - and in this case stabilize the grid. When the grid would become more flexible, so even homeowners can do this with their solar panels and big batteries - then this should be net gain for everyone, no? Unless gaming it, with big money, destabilises it. So some safeguards probably should remain.
- dopidopHN 6y ago
  You are correct, it's not gaming the system indeed. It's more something that they decided to do on their own, and rightfully so. It's a bit innervating for French tax payers to be on that side of the bargain. But at the same time, we have nuclear power plant, those cannot react that swiftly to market demands changes... it's all fair game. They actually provide some kind of buffer service.
- bjourne 6y ago
  It's not gaming the system, it is arbitrage. However, it is pretty terrible for producers unable to exploit price swings. E.g a nuclear plant produces electricity at a fixed cost and may sell it at a loss when the price is low, but recoups the losses when the price is high. Since arbitrage smooth out the price peaks, it damages nuclear's profitability. One could say that's too bad for nuclear, others (nuclear lobbyists) say that regulation is needed to prevent electricity arbitrage.
  - xboxnolifes 6y ago
    If the fixed price nuclear uses is too low to be profitable, then it must be raised.
  - aquark 6y ago
    If nuclear can offer sustained cheaper than average generation then the market would allow a long term fixed price contract — they shouldn’t need to sell their full output at spot rates. Consumers that want predictability could buy on these contracts.