Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
iii@mander.xyz 1 month agoPumped storage is a thing yeah. But might just as well go full hydro, if you’re doing the engineering anyways.
Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
iii@mander.xyz 1 month agoPumped storage is a thing yeah. But might just as well go full hydro, if you’re doing the engineering anyways.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I feel like we’re missing the part about “push carts up a hill”, which involves virtually no serious engineering difficulties aside from “which hill” and “let’s make sure the tracks run smoothly”. See: the ARES project in Nevada
iii@mander.xyz 1 month ago
Yeah, that’s 50MW, storing power for 15 minutes, so 20MWh. (1).
There’s also a similar company: gravicity.
They’re a fun academic endeavour. But if gravity provides the potential, water beats them per dollar spend.
So do regular batteries.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
A fair point, but given how the best places to build solar infrastructure tend to not have easily accessible large volumes of water, I should think that economies of scale can apply if we were to put actual investment into scaling up the gravitational potential. Sure, it’s not a power law like for kinetic energy, but greater height and greater mass are both trivial quantities to scale in places with large empty areas. I’m simply pointing out that we’ve never invested in that obvious possibility as a civilization.
iii@mander.xyz 1 month ago
Transportation of electrical power is quite efficient. I think that colocation of generation amd storage are economically rarely a technical necessity.
I can see it work in terms of national security, but then again, regular li-ion have better economics.
The biggest problem with gravitational potential is P=mgh, that is, potential energy only grows linearly in mass and height.