3 ms·

I am legitimately curious as to why there is such an adverse acceptance to gravity storage? This is already done in the U.S. West in running large density mass

I am legitimately curious as to why there is such an adverse acceptance to gravity storage? This is already done in the U.S. West in running large density mass trains up hillsides and Gravitricity over the pond has a functioning model using old mine shafts. As an entrepreneurial tech founder I comprehend oh too well that until someone proves "it works" there will always be nonbelievers even though the math and physics agree. Maybe it is inherent human nature to not believe something until it is seen but in this era we also will have countless which do not believe even when it is proven. The planning is the easy part and the math checks out, mhg=pe, execution is what is difficult and all that matters.

ncmncm 4y ago
Pumped hydro is gravity storage. It works. Running train cars loaded with rock aggregate up and down disused mountain rail tracks could be a good idea, depending on how you get the power out (third rail?), but seems like it would be expensive to keep working. Running a multi-thousand-ton weight up and down a disused mineshaft seems a certain winner, anywhere you happen to have such a shaft at hand. Pumping air into a bag anchored to the ocean floor. Winching an air tank down to a pulley anchored to the ocean floor. Winners in energy storage will be distinguished from the field of failures along axes of cost, secondary usefulness, compatibility with existing infrastructure, service lifetime, energy capacity, power capacity, environmental impact, simplicity, and efficiency. For example, synthetic chemical and liquified air media excel at secondary usefulness, compatibility with existing gas turbines, and cheap tankage (unlimited capacity), at the expense of cost and efficiency. Their main cost is for synthesis capacity, measured in watts. Low efficiency is tolerable in exchange for other merits. Energy Vault is a certain failure on the basis of cost alone, even without considering its other low scores. Constructing condominiums for concrete blocks is just extremely expensive, even before counting predictably very high maintenance cost, for minuscule storage capacity. Simplicity is the most frequently neglected, but often most valuable quality. The best storage systems will have just one moving part used for both storing and extracting energy. Next best, two.
- bokohut 4y ago
  Thanks for your time in the succinct reply. They all work, you just need mass and height given a surplus of renewable power from any source. Last I checked we have junkyards filled with oxidizing metal that could be put to "potential" work as mass, not to mention all the other precious metals which could be reclaimed as people seem to forget we pulled them from the ground to begin with. Height is accomplished using the same materials salvaged from the junkyards to be used as structure in a different remanufactured form. Hopefully gravity doesn't change because then all of this is meaningless anyway. Efficiency doesn't really matter because nothing I am aware of is 100% efficient in energy and if the source is renewable then the loss is always made up in time, something people have no patience for today it seems. The CAPEX cost may be high but with correct design the OPEX cost will be low and functional unit lifetime correlates to the specific lift/generation device and that is where your simplicity reference is key. It always comes back around to cost but when the power goes out what are people willing to pay? I have contacts that lived through the Winter Texas outage and the stories impact deeply and it of course will not happen again. Oh wait, last week 6 plants totaling 2.6 GW went offline from the spike based on May heat and certainly June, July and August will be cooler. And what about all of those devices that require electricity to keep various mammals alive, humans included? My experiences reflect that few people on this planet are proactive, I can only hope those with crazy ideas working toward the energy problem find the needed traction in proving solutions that work to our global energy issues. If we do not solve the energy issue in a clean manner we are certain to be unable to solve the carbon issue which will need that very energy to return all the carbon we have already released and more. Your assertion of simplicity is correct and this is the best outcome I can hope for. I'll shoot for one, maybe two but whatever the outcome, simplicity will always be top of mind. I am no expert by any means yet thanks again for the motivating feedback.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The choice is never between this storage or no storage. It is always between this storage and all the other storage choices. Whichever is cheapest while matching local requirements best wins. Over time, the winner changes, so each time you add more storage, you choose over again, and may end up with several different kinds, which can be an advantage if they have different characteristics. There will be a hell of a lot of money made in meeting people's storage needs. I will be betting on producers of factories to synthesize ammonia.

ncmncm 4y ago

Pumped hydro is gravity storage. It works. Running train cars loaded with rock aggregate up and down disused mountain rail tracks could be a good idea, depending on how you get the power out (third rail?), but seems like it would be expensive to keep working. Running a multi-thousand-ton weight up and down a disused mineshaft seems a certain winner, anywhere you happen to have such a shaft at hand. Pumping air into a bag anchored to the ocean floor. Winching an air tank down to a pulley anchored to the ocean floor. Winners in energy storage will be distinguished from the field of failures along axes of cost, secondary usefulness, compatibility with existing infrastructure, service lifetime, energy capacity, power capacity, environmental impact, simplicity, and efficiency. For example, synthetic chemical and liquified air media excel at secondary usefulness, compatibility with existing gas turbines, and cheap tankage (unlimited capacity), at the expense of cost and efficiency. Their main cost is for synthesis capacity, measured in watts. Low efficiency is tolerable in exchange for other merits. Energy Vault is a certain failure on the basis of cost alone, even without considering its other low scores. Constructing condominiums for concrete blocks is just extremely expensive, even before counting predictably very high maintenance cost, for minuscule storage capacity. Simplicity is the most frequently neglected, but often most valuable quality. The best storage systems will have just one moving part used for both storing and extracting energy. Next best, two.

bokohut 4y ago
Thanks for your time in the succinct reply. They all work, you just need mass and height given a surplus of renewable power from any source. Last I checked we have junkyards filled with oxidizing metal that could be put to "potential" work as mass, not to mention all the other precious metals which could be reclaimed as people seem to forget we pulled them from the ground to begin with. Height is accomplished using the same materials salvaged from the junkyards to be used as structure in a different remanufactured form. Hopefully gravity doesn't change because then all of this is meaningless anyway. Efficiency doesn't really matter because nothing I am aware of is 100% efficient in energy and if the source is renewable then the loss is always made up in time, something people have no patience for today it seems. The CAPEX cost may be high but with correct design the OPEX cost will be low and functional unit lifetime correlates to the specific lift/generation device and that is where your simplicity reference is key. It always comes back around to cost but when the power goes out what are people willing to pay? I have contacts that lived through the Winter Texas outage and the stories impact deeply and it of course will not happen again. Oh wait, last week 6 plants totaling 2.6 GW went offline from the spike based on May heat and certainly June, July and August will be cooler. And what about all of those devices that require electricity to keep various mammals alive, humans included? My experiences reflect that few people on this planet are proactive, I can only hope those with crazy ideas working toward the energy problem find the needed traction in proving solutions that work to our global energy issues. If we do not solve the energy issue in a clean manner we are certain to be unable to solve the carbon issue which will need that very energy to return all the carbon we have already released and more. Your assertion of simplicity is correct and this is the best outcome I can hope for. I'll shoot for one, maybe two but whatever the outcome, simplicity will always be top of mind. I am no expert by any means yet thanks again for the motivating feedback.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The choice is never between this storage or no storage. It is always between this storage and all the other storage choices. Whichever is cheapest while matching local requirements best wins. Over time, the winner changes, so each time you add more storage, you choose over again, and may end up with several different kinds, which can be an advantage if they have different characteristics. There will be a hell of a lot of money made in meeting people's storage needs. I will be betting on producers of factories to synthesize ammonia.