Two massive gravity batteries are nearing completion

originally posted by: fernalley
The China project is designed to have an energy storage capacity of 100 megawatt-hours, which can power 3,400 homes for a day, Not very many homes really and what is the cost?

Gravity Power returns energy to the grid at about 4¢ per KWh, less than half the cost of lithium ion, including the cost of energy lost in the round trip. The big difference is in CapEx. Gravity Power is the only storage solution that achieves dramatic economies of scale.

www.gravitypower.net...#:~:text=Gravity%20Power%20returns%20energy%20to,achieves%20dramatic%20economies%20of%20scale.

Delete

According to scientists at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), abandoned mines could provide a solution. They claim that turning decommissioned mines into vast “gravity batteries” could provide up to 70 terawatts of energy storage.Mar 29, 2023

www.euronews.com...#:~:text=According%20to %20scientists%20at%20the,70%20terawatts%20of%20energy%20storage.

How bout just harvesting the energy directly from the solar panels instead

Busted by a physicist about a year ago.



It is as useful as plugging a power strip into itself. Too many energy loses in the process.

a reply to: Spacespider

What do you do at night? It is dark and solar panels don't like that.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
Busted by a physicist about a year ago.

It is as useful as plugging a power strip into itself. Too many energy loses in the process.

I've been seeing a lot of articles saying this same thing. Oddly they are all older. Once you get around 2020 they start to become positive articles. 🤔

originally posted by: Spacespider
How bout just harvesting the energy directly from the solar panels instead

Read my reply at the beginning of this thread.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
Busted by a physicist about a year ago.

It is as useful as plugging a power strip into itself. Too many energy loses in the process.

They are claiming 80% efficiency with the current design. That means that it'll take only 20% of the total energy it generates to power itself.

I'd that figure is accurate, i think it could work.

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: Spacespider
How bout just harvesting the energy directly from the solar panels instead

Read my reply at the beginning of this thread.

You've been a big help here, incoserv. You helped me grasp the concept. I really didn't understand any of it when I posted OP. But this quick study we did here has helped me to understand what this was about and how it worked. The videos posted gave me the final visual I needed to grasp this pretty well now.
I appreciate the help to the thread and OP.

originally posted by: BodhisattvaStyle

So, I'm not even going to pretend to understand this. If anyone can help out with breaking this down as to what exactly it is going on with this gravity battery thing.

I'm of the understanding they 'charge the battery machine ' when electricity is cheaper, at night for example. Then they discharge the 'battery machine' when the electricity is more expensive, during the day for example.

It's been done at Electric Mountain in Wales. In this case they pump water up the mountain at night and use the gravity of the water to turn turbines to generate the electricty during the day..

www.fhc.co.uk... ----- official website

www.youtube.com... ..... explanation of how it works.

A surplus of power, owing to sunlight or wind, is utilized to power a mechanical crane to lift the blocks 35 stories into the air.

Wow. I wonder if the power companies will develop attractive exteriors to mask the cranes. I would think they would want the cranes shielded from weather in any case.

Cheers

The only thing that I took as a bit important is the part that they say "where they build them does not need any topography". Apart from that it's just the materials because UK energy has a generator on the same principal that has been working for over a decade. If you would care to look they have hollowed out a mountain in Wales, made 2 chamber, one above the other. In low usage energy periods they pump the water to the higher chamber and when they want the power they release the water through turbines. Exactly the same process as these "batteries", but with different materials.

a reply to: BodhisattvaStyle

It looks from reading through the thread that you now have a better understanding but if I can take a moment to add a little humour ...

It should work like Clockwork

It's all about the type of energy storage rather than about where the initial energy comes from or what is powered by the stored capacity.

There are a great many similar concepts used for all kinds of interesting things such as the Gyrobus which is a technology from the 1940s which in recent years is being revisited in a new way (Mechanical flywheel driven tram).

A have a (dim and distant 70s/80s) memory of a flywheel bus or tram that was towed to the top of a steep hill each night when power was plentiful and as it ran down the hill the next morning it put energy into the flywheel to be used to drive it around its route ... Sadly I cannot find anything about it online anywhere.

Compressed Air Energy Storage is another area for exploration alongside the faux hydro type methods referred to by MCurns

It really irritates me when all the Government & MSM talk focuses so heavily on battery power whilst there's a huge number of other readily available and more cost efficient technologies just waiting to be utilised. After all it takes a mixture of all types of solutions to deal with such a complex area.

a reply to: fernalley

A quick calculation on those numbers provides for an average daily consumption of ~30KWh per household ...
My household with 2 teens & 3 adults all constantly on their tech with seemingly every other electronic device on at the same time uses an average of 22KWh/day so the number of households given is quite conservative, it could be 5000+.

Now, imagine that you're building a new 20 story tower block with 50 housing units per floor and you put a smaller version of this gravity battery tech in the equivalent of a lift shaft in the middle of the building and you begin to see how the very simplicity could give rise to benefits for all living in and around that block, for example negating potential issues with unreliable power infrastructure & blackouts.

It works like a cuckoo clock, to "wind" it you pull a chain that raises the acorn shaped weight. I have one with a big rock.
Then as the weight pulls on the chain the gears rotate, slower from the gear ratio & the escapement interruptions so it lasts 8 hours.

So you could build a "forever" clock that winds itself everyday with solar power, and runs through the night. Over & over.

The drawback is this battery is not very portable. Gasoline is still the highest density energy storage method we have. Nothing else gets you farther than the 7 lbs or so 1 gallon of gas weighs.

a reply to: bounder

Gasoline You absolute Bounder Sir!


Of course it's not portable but that's not the point here is it and if we're going to be silly then how about we start raiding the plastic surgery clinics for Waste Human Body Fat (or other potential sources) and use that to provide more portable power ...
It contains the same energy as Gasoline on a per Litre basis (Energy density by weight). As you'll see in the chart Gasoline is not quite what you claim, diesel is the better direct equivalent and hydrogen makes it look pathetic.

Anyway until they come up with a way of converting excess electrical energy into Gasoline (which is never) it doesn't help ... I'm not against Gasoline (I'm a major motor sports fan) I'm just looking at this from a perspective of wasted renewable power reduction.

In case of (unintended) offence:

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

It really irritates me when all the Government & MSM talk focuses so heavily on battery power whilst there's a huge number of other readily available and more cost efficient technologies just waiting to be utilised. After all it takes a mixture of all types of solutions to deal with such a complex area.

Isn't it just, and always just about making as much money off of it by charging us as much as humanly possible for the service of electricity.

Ultra uncool.
✌️
😎

OKay, the highest PRACTICAL method, since you have embrittlement with hydrogen and apparently deisel has some other drawback or we'd be using in everything. a reply to: AllAnIllusion

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
I wonder if the power companies will develop attractive exteriors to mask the cranes.

I'd prefer something like a giant Rube Goldberg machine.