11–20 of 118 posts
The phrase "2 MW of energy" makes no sense based on units. Shouldn't writers (and editors) be required to at least take high school physics or chemistry?
This must be orders of magnitude more expensive than pumped hydro and I would expect more expensive than lithium batteries. And unless the mine is close to an existing high voltage substation then there will be significant costs hooking it up to the grid. The pilot will be a 2MW generator but you can fit a 2MW inverter and a 2MWh battery into a single shipping container so the scale is really minimal.
Mines are heavy industrial electrical consumers already, so generally have strong grid ties.
I actually wondered if it might be possible to reapply the main hoist at a mine for this kind of application, many already have some energy recovery. But I don't think it would be practical in that many situations because these deep mines often have other "tenants" (this one has a cosmic ray observatory for example) that will want to continue use of the main hoist---and of course it is appealing to install this type of system in operational mines when there's a disused shaft.
The basic problem is that your heaviest, cheapest weight is concrete or stone which is only about 2.5 times as dense as water. But the cost you pay for that is you can no longer pump or flow it so by definition you're limited.
This must be orders of magnitude more expensive than pumped hydro and I would expect more expensive than lithium batteries. And unless the mine is close to an existing high voltage substation then there will be significant costs hooking it up to the grid. The pilot will be a 2MW generator but you can fit a 2MW inverter and a 2MWh battery into a single shipping container so the scale is really minimal.
> The IIASA analysts noted that mines already have the basic infrastructure for such an endeavour, while also being connected to the power grid. “This significantly reduces the cost and facilities for the implementation of Underground Gravity Energy Storage (UGES) plants,” the study noted. Not that your wholly unsupported naysaying isn't compelling.
(admittedly on that one I'm not really onboard with "oh lol why are we using wood for a bridge when we have steel" as an explanation, but conversely there were serious problems with engineering design of how wood was used on this bridge and it did collapse in the end - complexity of design versus known elements is an important consideration. A casual observation of "does this really make sense?" might've concluded that stepping so far out of bounds of normal design should have been more carefully treated or had exceptional requirements in the first place).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The IIASA analysts noted that mines already have the basic infrastructure for such an endeavour, while also being connected to the power grid. “This significantly reduces the cost and facilities for the implementation of Underground Gravity Energy Storage (UGES) plants,” the study noted. Not that your wholly unsupported naysaying isn't compelling.
Connected to the grid yes but usually the interconnect is simply enough for running the mine not enough to cover many megawatts of storage capability. The battery storage companies have found that there is an abundance of fields and brownfield sites close to existing substations to place their batteries where the cost of connecting to the grid is minimal.
> The Pyhäsalmi Mine, roughly 450 kilometres north of Helsinki, is Europe’s deepest zinc and copper mine and holds the potential to store up to 2 MW of energy within its 1,400-metre-deep shafts.
It will be interesting to see how much net energy is able to be stored after the energy cost of de-watering the mine is taken into account. (An interesting tidbit of trivia I learned from miners is that deep underground mines only became feasible after reliable pumping was put in place.[1] Prior to that, they flooded out from groundwater intrusion.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooded_mine Edited to add the wik…
If the bottom is well above sea level and not in line of any underground rivers | streams | lakes it'll stay relatively dry.
For interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyh%C3%A4salmi_Mine
The "main level" of the mine is at 1400 meters depth and can be accessed with either the mine hoist or via the access tunnel. The main level houses a cafeteria, washrooms, showers, workshops, storage facilities, as well as a safety area.
It is also home to the world's deepest sauna, at 1,410 metres (4,626 ft) underground.
Pyhäsalmi Mine has hosted numerous events due to its attraction as a unique location.
It has hosted the deepest concert in the world (by Agonizer at 1271 m ) as well as dance performances.
The 11 km long spiral-shaped main tunnel has also seen several uphill running and cycling competitions.
Pyhäsalmi Mine can be recognized as a filming location for the new sci-fi television series White Wall, premiered in 2020.
The phrase "2 MW of energy" makes no sense based on units. Shouldn't writers (and editors) be required to at least take high school physics or chemistry?
You'd think that in an article specifically about energy storage, in the introductory paragraph, they'd get the units right. > The Pyhäsalmi Mine, roughly 450 kilometres north of Helsinki, is Europe’s deepest zinc and copper mine and holds the potential to store up to 2 MW of energy within its 1,400-metre-deep shafts.
But I think 2MWh might be correct - in press elsewhere Gravitricity says 500t over 800m produces 1MWh. This is a deeper depth but not that much, and this is very much an experimental project so I think they might be sticking to 500-750t mass. They anticipate larger systems using multiple masses rather than a single larger one. Still, they've also announced a 4MWh project in the UK, so it's not like they see 2MWh as a limit.
Huh...this is literally the "heavy weight" sort of gravity battery rather then pumping water. I'm...not really convinced this is going to be viable. 2MWh (which is what I assume the article means) is not a lot of power at all (about 40 days of my roof top solar production) - and that's with "the deepest mine in Europe". The basic problem is that your heaviest, cheapest weight is concrete or stone which is only about…
Gravity batteries are cool. They don't make a lot of economic sense by themselves, but they do if the vertical height already exists and doesn't need to be constructed.