4 ms·

> The IIASA analysts noted that mines already have the basic infrastructure for such an endeavour, while also being connected to the power grid. “This significa

> The IIASA analysts noted that mines already have the basic infrastructure for such an endeavour, while also being connected to the power grid. “This significantly reduces the cost and facilities for the implementation of Underground Gravity Energy Storage (UGES) plants,” the study noted. Not that your wholly unsupported naysaying isn't compelling.

barbegal 3y ago
Connected to the grid yes but usually the interconnect is simply enough for running the mine not enough to cover many megawatts of storage capability. The battery storage companies have found that there is an abundance of fields and brownfield sites close to existing substations to place their batteries where the cost of connecting to the grid is minimal.
- jcrawfordor 3y ago
  The hoist at this mine is 2.5MW, there's typically some ore processing on site, mines end up requiring a lot of ventilation and cooling, dewatering, most of the work vehicles used in deep mines today are electric (and these aren't light battery vehicles but heavy equipment trailing high voltage cables), I think it's very conservative to say that the mine consumed over 5MW when it was fully operational.
- sophacles 3y ago
  > Connected to the grid yes but usually the interconnect is simply enough for running the mine not enough to cover many megawatts of storage capability Mines can use a LOT of electricity. I found a presentation from EPRI[1] talks about varoius electric vehicles and machines used in underground mining. One slide references a "mining system" that alone draws 5-10Mw. Even if you take that as "the whole mine uses 5-10MW", it means that it's grid connected well enough to handle Mw of storage. [1] EPRI is a respected R&D non-profit in the electricty sector. The slides: http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/1203/jkn2sd37zwh/d1_nde_d1-5_butts.pdf http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/1203/jkn2... the slide I reference is #14.
XorNot 3y ago
There are plenty of engineering projects which don't sound like a great idea, then turn out not to be a great idea [1]. (admittedly on that one I'm not really onboard with "oh lol why are we using wood for a bridge when we have steel" as an explanation, but conversely there were serious problems with engineering design of how wood was used on this bridge and it did collapse in the end - complexity of design versus known elements is an important consideration. A casual observation of "does this really make sense?" might've concluded that stepping so far out of bounds of normal design should have been more carefully treated or had exceptional requirements in the first place). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge
alvah 3y ago
Allow me to support the completely unsupported naysaying: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/16/gravity-storage-101-or-why-pumped-hydro-is-the-only-remotely-real-gravity-storage/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/16/gravity-storage-101-or-... Cliff's Notes: any currently-considered form of gravity storage that isn't pumped hydro is orders of magnitude more expensive and more stupid than a Tesla Megapack. Michael Barnard's abrasive tone aside, is he wrong?
- HPsquared 3y ago
  They aren't building it from scratch.
  - alvah 3y ago
    He addresses using existing mineshafts in the article.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  From your link: > The alternative idea is to put a lot of sand on a single elevator with huge winches that just goes up and down in a big, deep mine shaft. This one at least has the potential to be viable.
  - alvah 3y ago
    Did you read the part immediately after that?
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Yeah I did. He immediately dismisses the prospect, cuts the size of everything in half with a glorious hand wave, and then explains how that's not enough. I don't think it's viable either FYI. Just pointing out your rebuke acknowledges the feasibility.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  had to look up some price comparisons. Fengning Pumped Storage Power Station stores 40 GWh and cost 2 billion or 20 Wh/USD Tesla megapack 2 stores 3.8 Mwh = Costs 1.5 million, or approximately 2.6 Wh/USD It seems like pumped hydro is about an order of magnitude cheaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack

barbegal 3y ago

Connected to the grid yes but usually the interconnect is simply enough for running the mine not enough to cover many megawatts of storage capability. The battery storage companies have found that there is an abundance of fields and brownfield sites close to existing substations to place their batteries where the cost of connecting to the grid is minimal.

jcrawfordor 3y ago
The hoist at this mine is 2.5MW, there's typically some ore processing on site, mines end up requiring a lot of ventilation and cooling, dewatering, most of the work vehicles used in deep mines today are electric (and these aren't light battery vehicles but heavy equipment trailing high voltage cables), I think it's very conservative to say that the mine consumed over 5MW when it was fully operational.
sophacles 3y ago
> Connected to the grid yes but usually the interconnect is simply enough for running the mine not enough to cover many megawatts of storage capability Mines can use a LOT of electricity. I found a presentation from EPRI[1] talks about varoius electric vehicles and machines used in underground mining. One slide references a "mining system" that alone draws 5-10Mw. Even if you take that as "the whole mine uses 5-10MW", it means that it's grid connected well enough to handle Mw of storage. [1] EPRI is a respected R&D non-profit in the electricty sector. The slides: http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/1203/jkn2sd37zwh/d1_nde_d1-5_butts.pdf http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/publicmeetingmaterials/1203/jkn2... the slide I reference is #14.

XorNot 3y ago

There are plenty of engineering projects which don't sound like a great idea, then turn out not to be a great idea [1]. (admittedly on that one I'm not really onboard with "oh lol why are we using wood for a bridge when we have steel" as an explanation, but conversely there were serious problems with engineering design of how wood was used on this bridge and it did collapse in the end - complexity of design versus known elements is an important consideration. A casual observation of "does this really make sense?" might've concluded that stepping so far out of bounds of normal design should have been more carefully treated or had exceptional requirements in the first place). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretten_Bridge

alvah 3y ago

Allow me to support the completely unsupported naysaying: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/16/gravity-storage-101-or-why-pumped-hydro-is-the-only-remotely-real-gravity-storage/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/16/gravity-storage-101-or-... Cliff's Notes: any currently-considered form of gravity storage that isn't pumped hydro is orders of magnitude more expensive and more stupid than a Tesla Megapack. Michael Barnard's abrasive tone aside, is he wrong?

HPsquared 3y ago
They aren't building it from scratch.
- alvah 3y ago
  He addresses using existing mineshafts in the article.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
From your link: > The alternative idea is to put a lot of sand on a single elevator with huge winches that just goes up and down in a big, deep mine shaft. This one at least has the potential to be viable.
- alvah 3y ago
  Did you read the part immediately after that?
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Yeah I did. He immediately dismisses the prospect, cuts the size of everything in half with a glorious hand wave, and then explains how that's not enough. I don't think it's viable either FYI. Just pointing out your rebuke acknowledges the feasibility.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
had to look up some price comparisons. Fengning Pumped Storage Power Station stores 40 GWh and cost 2 billion or 20 Wh/USD Tesla megapack 2 stores 3.8 Mwh = Costs 1.5 million, or approximately 2.6 Wh/USD It seems like pumped hydro is about an order of magnitude cheaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Megapack