Could a cutting-edge technology that harnesses one of the universe's fundamental forces help solve our energy storage challenge?

 

Could a cutting-edge technology that harnesses one of the universe's fundamental forces help solve our energy storage challenge?

Certainly it appears to be a viable alternate to present day batteries.

 

Could a cutting-edge technology that harnesses one of the universe's fundamental forces help solve our energy storage challenge?

Possibly, but we have been waiting for commercial fusion power generation for seven decades. The first tokamak was demonstrated in 1958, but that work was preceded by the 1950 letter from Lavrentiev. I'll remain skeptical for the time being.

 

Unfortunately as is commonly the case the laws of thermodynamics are against it. And, those laws you can't choose to break.

 

Could a cutting-edge technology that harnesses one of the universe's fundamental forces help solve our energy storage challenge?

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/energy-vault.184184/post-1697588

 

Could a cutting-edge technology that harnesses one of the universe's fundamental forces help solve our energy storage challenge?

Cutting edge? From 1968? The Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant was a load-leveling energy storage system for several nuclear power plants to lift water onto the cliff next to Lake Michigan overnight and fall back through the turbines during the day to supplement supply.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant

 

I don’t see anything difficult about moving weights up and letting them drop to get back the energy. In fact, I just lifted the weights in my 100 year old grandfather clock and it will run for a week now.

Bob

 

I don’t see anything difficult about moving weights up and letting them drop to get back the energy. In fact, I just lifted the weights in my 100 year old grandfather clock and it will run for a week now.

Bob

It's not the difficulty, it's the practicality. The cost compared to the very widely used pumped storage is very high and the amount of energy you can get from something you could manage to build (and maintain) is too low.

 

The cost compared to the very widely used pumped storage is very high

But where do you pump if if you have flat land?

the amount of energy you can get from something you could manage to build (and maintain) is too low.

Is that your opinion or do you have facts for that statement?

 

Let the market decide. IMO the engineering realities for this type of energy storage system are in the moon-shot category. Possible but not practical or financially justifiable.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NRGV/

https://www.energyvault.com/evx

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/04/2...0-market-cap-co2e-kwh-worse-than-natural-gas/

 

But where do you pump if if you have flat land?
Is that your opinion or do you have facts for that statement?

In the video I linked above he lays out the facts and math. It is about a different company, the one that proposed the building you see illustrating the article (which is just a rendering). The economics just doesn't add up.

 

Why not spin the mass instead of lifting it? It should be easier to to deal with rotation than linear vertical motion.

Bob

 

In the video I linked above he lays out the facts and math. It is about a different company, the one that proposed the building you see illustrating the article (which is just a rendering). The economics just doesn't add up.

So the companies proposing this scheme, didn't do any of those calculations?

 

Example using a non-fluid system
Load leveling a solar farm capable of producing 24MWh per day and you want to store just 6MW-hours of that energy for overnight use.

That is 6MWh * 3600 = 21.6 GJoules.
The potential energy would be equal to raising about 1200 fully loaded 18-wheelers (40-tons gross weight) to 50 meters.

So the companies proposing this scheme, didn't do any of those calculations?

I'm sure they do. They just hope investors don't do the calculations.

 

So the companies proposing this scheme, didn't do any of those calculations?

They appear to be funding scams. There are unfortunately too many examples of this. A company proposes something high tech, green, or some other trendy thing and they either get venture capital or use Kickstarter or similar sites to collect a bunch of money based on some CGI and vague technical blarf.

see: Solar Roadways, a few space proposals (hotels in space, etc.), and various "water from the air" schemes.

Also, Elon Musk concerning everything but SpaceX and the currently working Tesla cars.

 

Why not spin the mass instead of lifting it? It should be easier to to deal with rotation than linear vertical motion.

Bob

Flywheel-based UPSs exist and seem to work well. The general problem with all of these things, though, comes down to energy per dollar. If you need something for a local, special application that's one thing but for commodity power on the grid is has to be cheap or it is more costly than simply dumping excess capacity.

[EDIT: typo repair]

 

Flywheel-based UPSs exist and seem to work well. The general problem with all of these things, though, comes down to energy per dollar. If you need something for a local, special application that's one this but for commodity power on the grid is has to be cheap or it is more costly than simply dumping excess capacity.

Energy per dollar will become less and less a factor when we realize that sustainable (wind, solar, tidal) energy are the best solutions and storing that energy is critical to the health of the planet - then everyone will be ok with spending more per stored kWh than spending to generate a kWh.

 

Energy per dollar will become less and less a factor when we realize that sustainable (wind, solar, tidal) energy are the best solutions and storing that energy is critical to the health of the planet - then everyone will be ok with spending more per stored kWh than spending to generate a kWh.

We don't have infinite resources to maintain the health of the planet so cost will always be a critical factor. Pie in the sky storage ideas are not going to help. Base fission nuclear, cleaner utilization of existing fossil fuels, sustainable energy sources with practical energy storage will all be part of the mix.

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/1...ro-is-the-only-remotely-real-gravity-storage/

This triggered all of the people who think Energy Vault has a remotely sensible technology and the tiniest chance of delivering anything of value, the people who like the ARES rail-based gravity storage nonsense and probably the ones who think unused office elevators, water towers, and mines and big piles of sand are a massive source of untapped storage as well.

So it’s time, once again, for the basics and a bunch of examples so that people can stop fantasizing about elevators, cranes or trains and focus on water and existing hills instead.