Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

canarymedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 325 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#191

Post by alan-crowe »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #108
rdtwo wrote: post #39

In the 80s my grandfather used to do this for the former Soviet Union. Long story short they were pressuring a salt mine at night for energy storage and somebody failed to report a water leak during the day. They tried to depressurize the mine but it ended up blowing up anyway killing a couple people in The process. This shit can be really dangerous if done incorrectly.

How did the situation go from a water leak to an explosion?

The Lake Peigneur Drilling Accident is a tale of water getting into a salt mine from the lake above, due to drilling for oil in the wrong place. As the water dissolved the salt, the hole grew bigger and bigger, exponentially. The lake emptied into the salt mine, turning it into brine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Peigneur

So I'm picturing water leaking into a salt mine full of pressurized air. Naively it makes a hole, and a hole is just a leak. But if the water starts dissolving the salt in a process that runs away, then it is more like popping a balloon, but on a grand scale.

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#192

Post by nkurz »

ndm000 wrote: post #185
benreesman wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is an example of why I’ve become skeptical of the downvote button. It sounds like people read it, knew better, and politely pointed out that it was incorrect. Everyone who might have shared the same misapprehension learned something and the parent wasn’t being an asshole. Doesn’t that add to the discussion?

Side question - do you need to reach a certain level of membership with HN to see the downvote button? I may be missing something, but seems that's only allowed for certain individuals.

Yes, there's a minimum number of points required to downvote. I think it's currently 500. Here's an unofficial FAQ that give more information about the thresholds: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/blob/m...

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#193

Post by rpeden »

usrusr wrote: post #150
karmakaze wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the comment is more about being easy to do incorrectly/dangerously. Pumping water up into a reservoir seems easier/safer.

Water reservoirs for energy generation/storage have gone through accidents killing thousands. I suggest looking up Vajont on Wikipedia. The project mentioned in the article seems particularly safe to me as they seem to run it with constant pressure, defined by the hydrostatic head of their deeply dug cavities. They don't really have a pressure vessel, they have a flooded cavern where they create a bubble by pushing i…

Pumped storage is a bit different than an ordinary reservoir with a dam, though. You have more opportunity to build it in a place where it's less likely to cause harm is something goes wrong. It has been used pretty effectively on both sides of the border near Niagara Falls for 60+ years.

It's not perfect, of course. Accidents still happen, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_... although fortunately nobody was killed.

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#194

Post by mabbo »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #105

In early 20th century in London there was an alternative hydraulic "power grid" with plants (aka pumps), storages and an underground distribution network of pipes. A building, for example, could connect to high pressure water mains and use it to power elevators. Electricity eventually won, but it's interesting to see an idea coming back. Zeppelins next! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hydraulic_Power_Company

This sort of system is used today in many modern industrial facilities. Case in point: Amazon warehouses.

Lots of the mechanical automations inside some of those warehouses are powered by compressed air in open loop systems. As the conveyor pushes the item off, onto a different lane, there's a distinct hiss of air escaping. The movement of the machine was powered by compressed air.

Out in the parking lot in these facilities, you'll see a huge compressed air tank (or many), constantly being refilled. Tubes from these go into the building like arteries in a body. Often inside the building there will be buffer tanks to help ensure constant pressure.

Source: worked for a few years with guys who maintained these systems. Some of what I learned may be wrong, so feel free to correct me.

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#195

Post by toss1 »

nkurz wrote: post #180
ck2 wrote: post #146

Why not use spare energy to lift -really- heavy object(s) and let gravity power the generators when there is a shortage? Million tons of concrete isn't going to suffer any maintenance expenses over decades.

That's a really popular idea on the internet because it's very easy to grasp, but the numbers don't work out well. The weights you can actually lift aren't much compared to the volume of a reservoir of water, and the heights you can lift them are but a fraction of the thousands of meters being discussed here. Yes, the concrete isn't going to require much maintenance, but the gearboxes needed are a significant enginee…

Except it is already being done by multiple companies [0], Energy Vault in Switzerland [1], Gravitricity in Scotland [2], New Energy Lets go [3], and Gravity Power [4]. All have raised substantial funds and are building.

Sure, pumped hydro has advantages, but has serious geographic limitations - you need a fairly ideal site. The key is that these can be built almost anywhere.

[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-i... [1] https://www.energyvault.com/ [2] https://www.gravitricity.com/#about [3] https://n-e-l-g.de/ [4] https://www.gravitypower.net/

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#196

Post by javajosh »

xwdv wrote: post #190
javajosh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zeppelins with modern materials and technology would be very, very cool. I'd ride in one.

What would be even cooler is zeppelins with swimming pools and jacuzzis while you take in the views of the sky.

I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#197

Post by treyfitty »

I remember reading this article a few years ago that Goldman Sachs. It's paywalled but the basics was that GS stores energy during the night, and uses the energy during the day. I thought it was neat, but they're obviously not new to this concept.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-01/goldman-s...

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#198

Post by Melatonic »

javajosh wrote: post #166
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #105

In early 20th century in London there was an alternative hydraulic "power grid" with plants (aka pumps), storages and an underground distribution network of pipes. A building, for example, could connect to high pressure water mains and use it to power elevators. Electricity eventually won, but it's interesting to see an idea coming back. Zeppelins next! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hydraulic_Power_Company

Zeppelins with modern materials and technology would be very, very cool. I'd ride in one.

The military is actually doing a ton of work with blimp and zeppelin like things currently - you do not hear about it much but there is a a ton of testing and research being done.

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#199

Post by bootlooped »

robotresearcher wrote: post #109
blincoln wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My father once told me that a lot of machine shops used to be set up that way, except that the powered shaft ran along the ceiling instead of in a floor trench. "Just throw a belt up over the shaft" and attach it to the machine you want to use, was how he described it. I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be a fancy restaurant in the Eastlake part of Seattle that had started out that way, and still had…

Yes, the industrial revolution was powered this way. Water wheels and steam engines as central power plants, with power distributed mechanically.

My understanding is that this paradigm was incredibly dangerous, with a lot of workers losing hands and arms in accidents. Turning on or off a given machine involved physically putting the belt on or pulling it off, and you could easily get caught in it. A very clever system for the technology of the day, but it's good we don't use it anymore, at least without more advanced safety mechanisms and practices.

Re: Goldman Sachs invests $250M in compressed air energy storage

#200

Post by mygoodaccount »

toss1 wrote: post #177
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like a giant rotating wind turbine?

Yes, except with several orders of magnitude more energy and rotating mass. Wind turbine blades are engineered for minimum mass and inertia, are manufactured primarily from fiberglass and/or carbon fiber, are hollow, and the largest mass is in the center. In contrast, flywheels are engineered for the highest practical inertia, are manufactured from the highest density material that works, and concentrate that mass as…

[0] is a doctored video. Go frame by frame just before explosion and watch tracking of horses. [1],[2],[3] is real
Post reply on HN