4 ms·
What's the math look like for the side of a mountain or hill, where you pour a concrete channel and put wheels on the weight so it can be rolled up and down the
by malandrew 12y ago
What's the math look like for the side of a mountain or hill, where you pour a concrete channel and put wheels on the weight so it can be rolled up and down the hill. I'm just wondering if there are places like in the Rockies where this idea would be viable.
- fractalsea 12y agoI don't understand why they need to dig holes to do this. Why not build something equivalent onto the side of a cliff?
- jstanek 12y agoThe depth requirement is 500m to 1500m. Though cliffs can be much taller than this, they usually are not totally vertical and cannot accomodate this much depth. Disclaimer, not a geologist.
- fractalsea 12y agoTrue, although I wonder if doing it over even a 100m cliff, but with a much larger weight, would be cheaper than the drilling operation.
- dools 12y agoIt looks as though compressed air is a key component.
- dgemm 12y agoIt's not.
- tempestn 12y agoIt's not a key component, but it is a significant benefit of their system. The main reason though is that the primary benefit of this system is flexibility of placement. By locating grid storage close to where it's used most, you save significantly on transmission losses (and infrastructure). Finding sufficient vertical cliffs would be even more difficult than finding suitable locations for pumped hydro. Also if you expose the weight to open air and wind the whole system would be much trickier than using an enclosed shaft.
- Throwaway12928 12y agoOr what about the ocean? It's 4km deep on average, so why not just drop the weights there? No need for setting up tracks or carrying the weight up a mountain.