3 ms·

Compare it to water energy storage. Water is 1kg/L. Concrete is 2.4kg/L. Therefore, the volume of concrete lifted is 40% the volume of water you would need to

Compare it to water energy storage. Water is 1kg/L. Concrete is 2.4kg/L. Therefore, the volume of concrete lifted is 40% the volume of water you would need to store the same amount of energy. Here's the biggest water energy storage facility in the US: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dominion+Bath+County+Pumped+Storage/@38.2077068,-79.8056835,15.29z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x884b61d899351679:0x7ad630ea3bb1e14f!8m2!3d38.2089249!4d-79.8000836 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dominion+Bath+County+Pumpe... Cost of the water for that facility? $0/L. Equivalent cost for concrete? $0.15/L (https://www.google.com/search?q=concrete%20cost https://www.google.com/search?q=concrete%20cost) That facility has 14GL of water. Replacing that water with concrete, you get $2.1 billion dollars. Which, ya know, actually compares favorably with the $4 billion (2022 $) that the pumped hydro facility costs. But then you have to remember that the pumped storage facility has like a half-dozen or dozen pumps, and that probably made up a big fraction of the cost. The equivalent lifting block thing would have... like thousands or tens of thousands of the motor/generator devices. I can't imagine the cost.

hinkley 4y ago
> like thousands or tens of thousands of the motor/generator devices. I can't imagine the cost. ? The number of motor/generator pairs is proportional to the charge/discharge rate of the system. I'm not saying that because I'm an insider or have any special knowledge, I'm saying that because nothing else makes sense. So the question is whether it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of cranes and miles of steel cable and pulleys or a water generator and pipes. And then things like how each responds to earthquakes and thunderstorms (water probably wins in the latter, but the former is a little more complicated).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You also need hundreds of motors to shunt the blocks from their penthouse apartments to the elevators and back. Hydro power dams and generating stations have been through thousands of serious earthquakes, worldwide, over more than a century. A condo penthouse packed with concrete blocks? Not so much. We have a lot of experience with earthquakes and stone blocks stacked high without mortar. The name for those is "ruins".
- flaviut 4y ago
  I was thinking of the CGI render at the top of this page: 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... You're right, linear may be a better use of resources, since you don't need thousands of towers, each with their own crane/generator system. I don't know. But this is a battle against cost, in an industry where the required 10x or 100x is impossible.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    The video shows roughly n^1/3 generators, which is still a little high but more manageable.

hinkley 4y ago

> like thousands or tens of thousands of the motor/generator devices. I can't imagine the cost. ? The number of motor/generator pairs is proportional to the charge/discharge rate of the system. I'm not saying that because I'm an insider or have any special knowledge, I'm saying that because nothing else makes sense. So the question is whether it's cheaper to maintain a bunch of cranes and miles of steel cable and pulleys or a water generator and pipes. And then things like how each responds to earthquakes and thunderstorms (water probably wins in the latter, but the former is a little more complicated).

ncmncm 4y ago
You also need hundreds of motors to shunt the blocks from their penthouse apartments to the elevators and back. Hydro power dams and generating stations have been through thousands of serious earthquakes, worldwide, over more than a century. A condo penthouse packed with concrete blocks? Not so much. We have a lot of experience with earthquakes and stone blocks stacked high without mortar. The name for those is "ruins".
flaviut 4y ago
I was thinking of the CGI render at the top of this page: 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... You're right, linear may be a better use of resources, since you don't need thousands of towers, each with their own crane/generator system. I don't know. But this is a battle against cost, in an industry where the required 10x or 100x is impossible.
- hinkley 4y ago
  The video shows roughly n^1/3 generators, which is still a little high but more manageable.