Date: 27/04/2023 15:08:54
From: dv
ID: 2024435
Subject: Mechanical gravity storage
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:12:55
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 2024436
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I know someone who would be turning in his grave.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:14:21
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 2024437
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Tau.Neutrino said:
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I know someone who would be turning in his grave.
Seems unviable, maybe they looking for ways to improve it ?
Date: 27/04/2023 15:16:42
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2024438
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I guess they’re just not that engineeringly literate.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:20:26
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 2024440
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I guess they’re just not that engineeringly literate.
Well I guess there is nothing wrong with proof of concept.
and you have to build these things in order to look for improvements
The way it is looks unviable.
I wonder what hopes they have for it?
Date: 27/04/2023 15:21:03
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2024441
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I know someone who would be turning in his grave.
Seems unviable, maybe they looking for ways to improve it ?
They could try replacing the solid stuff with water, then build huge storage tanks at high and low levels by building dams across natural valleys.
Might work, but the greenies would never allow it.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:21:31
From: Woodie
ID: 2024442
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I guess they’re just not that engineeringly literate.
They should make it with 50 tonnes of feathers. That’d make the whole thing a lot lighter, and hence, a lot cheaper.
Or 50 tonnes of fresh air. Just think how cheap that’d be, hey what but. Fresh air!!! 50 tonnes of it!!
Date: 27/04/2023 15:29:07
From: Michael V
ID: 2024443
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Woodie said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
I guess they’re just not that engineeringly literate.
They should make it with 50 tonnes of feathers. That’d make the whole thing a lot lighter, and hence, a lot cheaper.
Or 50 tonnes of fresh air. Just think how cheap that’d be, hey what but. Fresh air!!! 50 tonnes of it!!
Seems as sensible as the proposers notion…
Date: 27/04/2023 15:32:08
From: Cymek
ID: 2024445
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Wouldn’t you negate any power generation by having to pull the weight up again or is it a one off deal
Date: 27/04/2023 15:33:16
From: dv
ID: 2024446
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Cymek said:
Wouldn’t you negate any power generation by having to pull the weight up again or is it a one off deal
It’s for power storage, not generation, for instance to balance load in an electrical grid.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:34:33
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024448
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
So it turns out that mechanical energy is like 10 binary orders of magnitude smaller than chemical or thermal energy, fucking imagine that.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:36:17
From: Woodie
ID: 2024449
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Cymek said:
Wouldn’t you negate any power generation by having to pull the weight up again or is it a one off deal
Nah…… Just tip it upside down again and again. You know, like one of them egg timer thingys.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:38:37
From: dv
ID: 2024451
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Woodie said:
Cymek said:
Wouldn’t you negate any power generation by having to pull the weight up again or is it a one off deal
Nah…… Just tip it upside down again and again. You know, like one of them egg timer thingys.
Date: 27/04/2023 15:40:39
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024453
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Cymek said:
Wouldn’t you negate any power generation by having to pull the weight up again or is it a one off deal
Wait Until They Get Started Talking About The Space Elevator
Date: 27/04/2023 16:40:47
From: becklefreckle
ID: 2024486
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Gravity storage has to be viable, otherwise we wouldn’t have pumped hydro. They’re just looking for a different way to store it. This particular setup doesn’t look very promising, but the concept is sound. Build it, identify the worst losses, tweak, try again… what’s wrong with that?
Date: 27/04/2023 16:48:22
From: dv
ID: 2024487
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
becklefreckle said:
Gravity storage has to be viable, otherwise we wouldn’t have pumped hydro. They’re just looking for a different way to store it. This particular setup doesn’t look very promising, but the concept is sound. Build it, identify the worst losses, tweak, try again… what’s wrong with that?
Pumped hydro relies on existing structures (mountains) and weighted material (water). You can literally store millions of kWh using equipment worth a few million dollars.
If you had to build the mountains and buy the water yourself if would not be viable.
Mechanical gravitational storage is currently about 10000 times too expensive to be viable. Being a generous soul I can imagine that in a major project with efficiencies of scale that could be improved 100 times
At which point it would be 100 times too expensive to be viable.
Date: 27/04/2023 17:26:33
From: Michael V
ID: 2024511
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
becklefreckle said:
Gravity storage has to be viable, otherwise we wouldn’t have pumped hydro. They’re just looking for a different way to store it. This particular setup doesn’t look very promising, but the concept is sound. Build it, identify the worst losses, tweak, try again… what’s wrong with that?
Pumped hydro relies on existing structures (mountains) and weighted material (water). You can literally store millions of kWh using equipment worth a few million dollars.
If you had to build the mountains and buy the water yourself if would not be viable.
Mechanical gravitational storage is currently about 10000 times too expensive to be viable. Being a generous soul I can imagine that in a major project with efficiencies of scale that could be improved 100 times
At which point it would be 100 times too expensive to be viable.
And one sydharb of water storage contains 562 million tons of water.
Date: 27/04/2023 17:30:52
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024514
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Michael V said:
dv said:
becklefreckle said:
Gravity storage has to be viable, otherwise we wouldn’t have pumped hydro. They’re just looking for a different way to store it. This particular setup doesn’t look very promising, but the concept is sound. Build it, identify the worst losses, tweak, try again… what’s wrong with that?
Pumped hydro relies on existing structures (mountains) and weighted material (water). You can literally store millions of kWh using equipment worth a few million dollars.
If you had to build the mountains and buy the water yourself if would not be viable.
Mechanical gravitational storage is currently about 10000 times too expensive to be viable. Being a generous soul I can imagine that in a major project with efficiencies of scale that could be improved 100 times
At which point it would be 100 times too expensive to be viable.
And one sydharb of water storage contains 562 million tons of water.
So what if the sun pumps the hydro up into the sky, and then the trickle down effects make it economic¿
Date: 27/04/2023 17:33:06
From: Michael V
ID: 2024517
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
SCIENCE said:
Michael V said:
dv said:
Pumped hydro relies on existing structures (mountains) and weighted material (water). You can literally store millions of kWh using equipment worth a few million dollars.
If you had to build the mountains and buy the water yourself if would not be viable.
Mechanical gravitational storage is currently about 10000 times too expensive to be viable. Being a generous soul I can imagine that in a major project with efficiencies of scale that could be improved 100 times
At which point it would be 100 times too expensive to be viable.
And one sydharb of water storage contains 562 million tons of water.
So what if the sun pumps the hydro up into the sky, and then the trickle down effects make it economic¿
LOL
That’s what happens here.
Date: 27/04/2023 17:41:44
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024524
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Tell you what though, seeing as some genius did mention that mechanical energy is like 10 binary orders of magnitude smaller than chemical or thermal energy,
even if filling up hydroelectric dams is the most reasonable form of mechanically gravitationally storing energy,
perhaps you end up exceeding capacity, or you don’t want to ecologically fuck up the local environment or something,
then hey there’s that other thing some genius mentioned as well which would also make use of the fact that user-side infrastructure already fully exists,
which is (imagine this) renewable hydrocarbon synthesis¡
—
Well all right, some time in the future when we have much better engineering than even The Rev Dodgson can offer, we’re all for fusing nuclei into Th-232 as a transportable fuel but for now we’re sticking with the above.
Date: 27/04/2023 17:44:54
From: becklefreckle
ID: 2024526
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Pumped hydro relies on existing structures (mountains) and weighted material (water). You can literally store millions of kWh using equipment worth a few million dollars.
Only partially. You still need to build the dam, the diversion channel, the generators, the transmission lines…. you don’t just stumble across one of these in nature:
One single tower lifting one single weight is an unstable and very inefficient structure. But if you were to build a 20×20 grid of these, all laced together, they would make 400 times the storage for around 100 times the structural cost. Sure that’s only a factor of 4, but that’s only the thing that I know about in this scenario. And we don’t have to rely on naturally well-formed well-fed river valleys, which is lucky because there aren’t that many on this continent.
Michael V said:
So what if the sun pumps the hydro up into the sky, and then the trickle down effects make it economic¿
Works beautifully when there’s enough water falling in the right place….
Date: 27/04/2023 18:03:15
From: dv
ID: 2024536
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Sorry to come in swinging on this, might seem closed-minded, but to my mind it’s just not even close.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:09:56
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024541
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Sorry to come in swinging on this, might seem closed-minded, but to my mind it’s just not even close.
Good point, maybe they’d do better by using periodic mechanical gravity storage id est pendulums, we wonder if that’s even been done before, we’d say more about it but damn look at the time we’d best be clocking off.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:12:39
From: JudgeMental
ID: 2024544
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
Sorry to come in swinging on this, might seem closed-minded, but to my mind it’s just not even close.
Good point, maybe they’d do better by using periodic mechanical gravity storage id est pendulums, we wonder if that’s even been done before, we’d say more about it but damn look at the time we’d best be clocking off.
don’t forget to put your tag on the board.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:13:16
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024546
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
JudgeMental said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
Sorry to come in swinging on this, might seem closed-minded, but to my mind it’s just not even close.
Good point, maybe they’d do better by using periodic mechanical gravity storage id est pendulums, we wonder if that’s even been done before, we’d say more about it but damn look at the time we’d best be clocking off.
don’t forget to put your tag on the board.
Don’t worry we were just winding yous all up, we’re still here.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:17:10
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 2024552
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
I have some questions.
It doesn’t seem to say how much green energy is required to send the weight to the top. ?
What is its efficiency ?
Could flowing water power it ?
Date: 27/04/2023 18:22:34
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024554
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Tau.Neutrino said:
I have some questions.
1. It doesn’t seem to say how much green energy is required to send the weight to the top. ?
2. What is its efficiency ?
3. Could flowing water power it ?
(numbers added)
1. Should all be the same, regardless of the source of energy, the ideal case is given by expression for gravitational potential which as far as they go is pretty simple dU = mg dh.
2. We didn’t build it but pure electromechanical shit is usually pretty good, usually well above 0.5.
3. Sure, you can use water to push things upwards.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:24:25
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 2024556
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
How come we don’t see many water powered generators on rivers?
Date: 27/04/2023 18:38:49
From: dv
ID: 2024561
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Just to emphasise further… you can carry a Li-ion battery to replace the tower in the OP, in a suitcase. Weighs about 4 kg.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:42:06
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024567
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Just to emphasise further… you can carry a Li-ion battery to replace the tower in the OP, in a suitcase. Weighs about 4 kg.
So basically that piece of shi… solid material there is as good as what’s powering our laptop.
LOL
Date: 27/04/2023 18:52:03
From: dv
ID: 2024572
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
Just to emphasise further… you can carry a Li-ion battery to replace the tower in the OP, in a suitcase. Weighs about 4 kg.
So basically that piece of shi… solid material there is as good as what’s powering our laptop.
LOL
Laptop batteries are typically only around 60 Wh so you’d need like 12 of them to replicate that tower of mysteries.
Date: 27/04/2023 18:58:02
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 2024575
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Mechanical energy storage using compressed gas is better.
And so is mechanical energy storage using a flywheel.
Hydro dams use gravity-powered mechanical energy storage when they pump water uphill.
There are also accumulators on hydro systems that use gravity on the rise and fall of water in a tall column-shaped tank to easy out pressure fluctuations in the supply.
What they are promoting here is a less useful version of a water tower.
Date: 27/04/2023 23:22:34
From: Ogmog
ID: 2024627
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
Sorry to come in swinging on this, might seem closed-minded, but to my mind it’s just not even close.
Good point, maybe they’d do better by using periodic mechanical gravity storage id est pendulums, we wonder if that’s even been done before, we’d say more about it but damn look at the time we’d best be clocking off.
+1
I’d been waiting for roughie to clock in on this one
by pointing out that the energy stored in the MainSpring of a clock
which propels the rhythmic motion of every pendulum driven grandfather clock.
Date: 28/04/2023 03:41:21
From: Ogmog
ID: 2024648
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Ogmog said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
Sorry to come in swinging on this, might seem closed-minded, but to my mind it’s just not even close.
Good point, maybe they’d do better by using periodic mechanical gravity storage id est pendulums, we wonder if that’s even been done before, we’d say more about it but damn look at the time we’d best be clocking off.
+1
I’d been waiting for roughie to clock in on this one
by pointing out that the energy stored in the MainSpring of a clock
which propels the rhythmic motion of every pendulum driven grandfather clock.
Potential Energy
Date: 28/04/2023 06:13:19
From: roughbarked
ID: 2024655
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Too many clock jokes in here already. ;)
Date: 28/04/2023 06:39:51
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024658
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
roughbarked said:
Too many clock jokes in here already. ;)
We Second That
Date: 28/04/2023 06:49:32
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024661
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Ogmog said:
Ogmog said:
SCIENCE said:
Good point, maybe they’d do better by using periodic mechanical gravity storage id est pendulums, we wonder if that’s even been done before, we’d say more about it but damn look at the time we’d best be clocking off.
+1
I’d been waiting for roughie to clock in on this one
by pointing out that the energy stored in the MainSpring of a clock
which propels the rhythmic motion of every pendulum driven grandfather clock.
Potential Energy
Actually excellent point, this is hilarious, beautiful¡ Immediately on landing at link above you get this
but check out the caption, they miss the biggest potential store of energy there if only the balloon didn’t stretch, so it was all gas work.
We suppose the problem then becomes how to get useful work back out, because the efficiency is apparently generally shithouse.
Date: 28/04/2023 09:13:34
From: Ogmog
ID: 2024696
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
Too many clock jokes in here already. ;)
We Second That
nuthin’ to get yerself all wound up over <-;
Date: 28/04/2023 09:17:55
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2024697
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Ogmog said:
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
Too many clock jokes in here already. ;)
We Second That
nuthin’ to get yerself all wound up over <-;
Let’s face it, we’re only just getting started…
Date: 29/04/2023 10:39:34
From: Ogmog
ID: 2025054
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
SCIENCE said:
Ogmog said:
SCIENCE said:
We Second That
nuthin’ to get yerself all wound up over <-;
Let’s face it, we’re only just getting started…
that’s coo~coo
Date: 29/04/2023 15:38:15
From: Kingy
ID: 2025200
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
Assuming that the mine shafts are already there and unused now, they will already have a mine shaft head and pulley system connected to a winch/motor shed which is already connected to the grid. Some modifications to install a generator to the motor, and fill the mineshaft car with water, and you are not far off your $40,000.
It won’t be a huge energy storage but it’s doable.
Date: 29/04/2023 15:46:23
From: becklefreckle
ID: 2025207
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Kingy said:
Assuming that the mine shafts are already there and unused now, they will already have a mine shaft head and pulley system connected to a winch/motor shed which is already connected to the grid. Some modifications to install a generator to the motor, and fill the mineshaft car with water, and you are not far off your $40,000.
It won’t be a huge energy storage but it’s doable.
Good point, and especially when a lot of mining towns and minesites are remote and have self-contained power generation. Moving away from the diesel generator and using solar power instead means they need a good storage system. If you can scale this system up to put in a dis-used mineshaft, it’ll only give a little, but that might be all you need.
Date: 29/04/2023 15:46:45
From: dv
ID: 2025208
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Kingy said:
dv said:
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
Assuming that the mine shafts are already there and unused now, they will already have a mine shaft head and pulley system connected to a winch/motor shed which is already connected to the grid. Some modifications to install a generator to the motor, and fill the mineshaft car with water, and you are not far off your $40,000.
It won’t be a huge energy storage but it’s doable.
Completely disagree. Any minor changes to existing mines cost millions of dollars to even get started in my experience.
Date: 29/04/2023 16:11:18
From: Kingy
ID: 2025231
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Kingy said:
dv said:
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
Assuming that the mine shafts are already there and unused now, they will already have a mine shaft head and pulley system connected to a winch/motor shed which is already connected to the grid. Some modifications to install a generator to the motor, and fill the mineshaft car with water, and you are not far off your $40,000.
It won’t be a huge energy storage but it’s doable.
Completely disagree. Any minor changes to existing mines cost millions of dollars to even get started in my experience.
But without your consulting fees, it would be about $40,000. :)
But seriously, a generator to suit would be about $10,000, Grid tie inverter and Installation $10,000, Drums of water in the car for $1000, Safety inspections and engineering $10,000. Job Done.
Date: 29/04/2023 16:22:27
From: becklefreckle
ID: 2025243
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Kingy said:
But without your consulting fees, it would be about $40,000. :)
Teehehe. It’s true, everything on a minesite or a government building takes $100,000 to even think about. But that’s true of every type of power system in that place.
Date: 29/04/2023 16:27:03
From: dv
ID: 2025247
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
Kingy said:
dv said:
Kingy said:
Assuming that the mine shafts are already there and unused now, they will already have a mine shaft head and pulley system connected to a winch/motor shed which is already connected to the grid. Some modifications to install a generator to the motor, and fill the mineshaft car with water, and you are not far off your $40,000.
It won’t be a huge energy storage but it’s doable.
Completely disagree. Any minor changes to existing mines cost millions of dollars to even get started in my experience.
But without your consulting fees, it would be about $40,000. :)
But seriously, a generator to suit would be about $10,000, Grid tie inverter and Installation $10,000, Drums of water in the car for $1000, Safety inspections and engineering $10,000. Job Done.
You’re dreaming. The refit of the shaft will run to 7 figures. Just building the 500 tonne weight and pullies will go over $40000 already.
Date: 29/04/2023 16:41:36
From: Kingy
ID: 2025256
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Kingy said:
dv said:
Completely disagree. Any minor changes to existing mines cost millions of dollars to even get started in my experience.
But without your consulting fees, it would be about $40,000. :)
But seriously, a generator to suit would be about $10,000, Grid tie inverter and Installation $10,000, Drums of water in the car for $1000, Safety inspections and engineering $10,000. Job Done.
You’re dreaming. The refit of the shaft will run to 7 figures. Just building the 500 tonne weight and pullies will go over $40000 already.
I’m not talking about upgrading everything, just using whats already there. It’s the only way to get it close to Lithium Ion pricing. I’m just using your budget of $40,000 and trying to make it work. No government bureaucracy involved.
Assuming that it is a privately owned defunct mineshaft, next to a small town, just load up the existing car to maximum weight, bolt a generator to the motor and wire it up. Depending on the depth of the shaft, a few of them should power a small town/village overnight till the solar panels fire up again the next day.
Date: 29/04/2023 18:50:26
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2025313
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
becklefreckle said:
Kingy said:
But without your consulting fees, it would be about $40,000. :)
Teehehe. It’s true, everything on a minesite or a government building takes $100,000 to even think about. But that’s true of every type of power system in that place.
Fuck, even just thinking about raising a flag costs like $5000000, let alone 50 tonnes of shit.
Date: 5/05/2023 14:44:27
From: Kothos
ID: 2027698
Subject: re: Mechanical gravity storage
dv said:
Folks keep sharing this damned article on mechanical gravity storage.
https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts
There are some glaring errors in the piece, e.g. stating the price of lithium ion storage is $367 per kWh, whereas it averages more like $151 at present.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/
But that’s beside the point.
Look at this thing. It’s their pilot project. It moves a 50 tonne weight up and down.
It’s whole storage capacity is less than a kilowatt hour. About 0.76 kWh.
That’s about $120 in lithium ion battery packs.
Look at that fucking thing. It’s bigger than a three story house, has winches and regulators and pulleys… what would it have cost to build? $100000? Let alone ongoing costs for maintenance and operation.
It’s just so far outside the realm of viability that it’s a joke. Why does this persist?
Okay, this is a pilot, they are talking about using mine shafts.
So suppose they up this thing to a hundred tonnes and set it up on a 1 km mine shaft.
What do you think that would cost to install and operate? Just fitting out the mine shaft would run to millions, let alone the motors, or the cost of labour for its maintenance and operation.
Because that would, even ignoring inefficiencies, be able to store 270 kWh of energy.
You could do it with $40000 worth of lithium ion battery packs at bulk prices.
It’s just so many orders of magnitude away from feasible that I don’t get why anyone had been willing to fund it, or why my scientifically literate pals keep sharing it.
What if you could dual or triple use the structure space?
I wouldn’t mind living in a giant room that goes up and down all day.