This seems kind of inefficient, but I love all these large-scale energy storage attempts. And these people are a hell of a lot smarter than I am.
First of its kind 'energy dome' storage project takes another step forward in Wisconsin
Submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to energy@slrpnk.net
Comments
sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
hallettj@leminal.space 3 months ago
Inefficient compared to batteries? I found another article saying this company hopes that the energy dome will cost ⅔ the cost of a lithium-ion battery installation with the same energy capacity. popularmechanics.com/…/carbon-dioxide-energy-dome…
Gladaed@feddit.org 3 months ago
Every approach is inefficient. Gotta pick your losses. You have to keep in mind scalability (how many parts can be bought at what volume at what price). In particular if you are not planning many years ahead.
tunetardis@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Spent breakfast researching this:
- the plant would store 200 MWh
- given the 10-hour figure, one would assume it can feed up to 20 MW to the grid at any time
- they have already built a 4 MWh pilot plant in Italy
- the utility has also been building lithium-ion battery farms, so it stands to reason they see enough potential in this approach to continue pursuing it
- compressed CO2 storage has advantages over compressed air in that it can be stored indefinitely at ambient temperature and has a higher energy density in liquid form
- it has disadvantages in terms of plant safety
intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 months ago
So they’re literally using gas compression as a storage medium for energy? That’s genius.
evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 3 months ago
In case you are in this community but haven’t religiously read everything on Low Tech Mag.
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 3 months ago
I would have expected Ohio to have pioneered anything involving energy domes, not Wisconsin
cdf12345@lemm.ee 3 months ago
It looks like energy domes may be something for everybody
intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I for one can’t wait to see more energy domes
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Is pumped-hydro inefficient or something? All the arguments about flooding land and surveying geography seem bizarre if the alternative includes a big impermeable structure. We’ve got those, for water. They’re called pools. They’re nontrivial because you have to contain pressure that desperately wants to leak out, but holding compressed air is surely harder. Water also doesn’t change temperature when you move it uphill.
Why is this better than two reservoirs with a pipeline between them?
silence7@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
The main reason is you can site it in a lot of places you can’t put pumped hydro.
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
… what, just anywhere flat? Pumped hydro should be feasible wherever there’s a hill.
If we’re building big weird structures, even that is optional. You can put one pool above-ground and another in-ground. Deep and tall presumably beat wide.
DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 months ago
Don’t get me wrong, I love me a good pumped hydro solution, but they do come with a couple of disadvantages:
a) as others pointed out, you need a somewhat steep gradient between two places. Preferably for a bit of distance so as to increase efficiency by putting more turbines in. Their need for a gradient limits their use in flat locations such as the entire US Midwest, for example.
b) comparatively expensive and longer construction process than other storage forms.
c) usually you have to build the upper reservoir. That’s an environmental harm. IMHO not that big if a concern, but it’s there.
d) if you don’t build out a reservoir, but use an existing lake, you risk contaminating it with algae / cyanobacteria and wreaking havoc on fish and other wildlife.
credo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
A novel solution for energy storage that should directly help replace a coal power plant offline in 2026 by:
From a linked article discussing the proof of concept installation:
The DoE adds:
Compressed air energy storage currently tops out with round trip efficiencies of 67-71% in complex setups.
www.sciencedirect.com/…/S2666202723002045# Search: “Compared to other adiabatic systems”
en.wikipedia.org/…/Compressed-air_energy_storage#