Live data from Hacker News

Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

sciencemag.org

41–50 of 278 posts

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#41
post #26

Higher materials density = higher energy density of the overall system. The more you're lifting (e.g. iron, steel, tungsten) the more you can get out in a smaller space. Kind of a cool way to increase the energy density.

Lead in an appropriate container is probably a good idea. Tungsten is denser, but lead is less expensive.

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#43
post #5

Gravity based battery, stuffed full of lithium ion batteries?

No - it's just storing potential energy.

yeah this sounds like a pendulum but geared on the y axis instead of the x. in fact a pendulum seems more practical since it doesn't need a shaft, just an enclosure. I suppose a pendum is itself is just a special case of flywheel anyway.

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#44
post #13

Stopped reading at a total cost of more than $300 per MWh for batteries. Quick back-of-the-napkin calculation: Car batteries come in at less than $100/KWh. They're good for at least 1000 cycles at 80% capacity. That gives us at least 0.8MWh for a 100$ investment. It's very, very unlikely that initial construction of the site and operational costs more than triple that price.

I wish that cost basis wasn't the only consideration when evaluating energy storage, but we're so accustomed to money being the great equalizer that things without a financial cost associated are often overlooked. What is the $/MWh cost associated with mining for, recycling, and disposing of battery components? What about the third order effects of centralizing control over the fuel source within only a handful of co…

Not to disagree with your underlying point, but I think it might be more constructive to frame the problem as a failure to internalize the costs, rather than a focus on money. Ultimately we do need a fungible way to compare solutions, and money is the simplest way to do that. We just need to figure out how to effectively internalize those externalities to the price.

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#45
Gravity and electromagnetic forces are somewhat similar, they both have infinite range, decay as 1/r, one key difference is that the electromagnetic force is 10^36 stronger than gravity [0]. Just for that reason I'm always immediately skeptical of projects of this type.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#46
post #6

And these systems are way larger, more dangerous (wind) and not as efficient as magnetic bearing flywheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Yeah, if you do the math, it turns out that you need impractically large weights lifted to unreasonable height. Like, suppose you’re lifting 100 ton weight 100 meters high. That’s a rather large and heavyweight system. How much energy you can store this way? Less than $5 worth of electricity, as it turn out. This is basically the same as pumped water storage, but instead of immense amount of water you can pump betwee…

How about to retrofit wind turbines? They are tall, strong, and empty inside.

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#47
post #18

It's crazy how little we understand about gravity if you think about it. It's a perpetual energy source right in front of us, but we never really think about it, and can barely offer a basic explanation as to what powers it. It even impacts time itself[1] for christ sake. I think better understanding gravity is the solution to all human energy needs. (interesting to note I have heard stories of disappeared scientists…

You shouldn't repeat unsubstantiated rumors like that. Can you even name these disappeared scientists or know anything at all that could be used to verify those stories?

If you dare to venture, need to follow deep rabbit holes. Look into: work of Harold Aspden (and his coworkers & previous research partners), plancks equation origins and drop offs, dewey larson physics, piesel electric effect origin and drop offs, the adams motor, ellen brown, what maxwells equation actually determines and where it selectively isn't being used

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#48
As usual everyone is fixated on price when the real hurdle will be scale. If we're going to replace our existing fossil fuel plants we need at least as much capacity. A quick grep in the article tells me these guys have a plan for a 4MW plant that involves a 1km shaft. That's the same order of magnitude as a single wind turbine, which is already one of the worst ratio of power output per quantity of resource and land use.

For reference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station):

> As of 2018 coal power under construction was 236 GW, planned 339 GW, and 50 GW was commissioned and 31 GW retired

If we want to replace those new plants we'll need 100.000 of those shafts. And that's not counting the existing plants, and the other fossil-fuel based plants. Think of the quantity of concrete that involves. That's just insane. If we want to actively tackle electricity generation we need to use the most efficient low-carbon tech that we already know.

Also, we already have gravity-based systems, only nature does all the work of raising the payload for us in gaseous form, and we let it fall in liquid forms. But it takes so much dam place.

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#49
post #33
post #13

Stopped reading at a total cost of more than $300 per MWh for batteries. Quick back-of-the-napkin calculation: Car batteries come in at less than $100/KWh. They're good for at least 1000 cycles at 80% capacity. That gives us at least 0.8MWh for a 100$ investment. It's very, very unlikely that initial construction of the site and operational costs more than triple that price.

What you have described would last for 1000 days used to even out daily (solar) power demand/supply. So for a 25yr capability it would cost 8x more? I would hope not, and I think you could get 3000 cycles by restricting temperature and charge/discharge, but that still requires 2.5-3x higher cost and puts this solution as very competitive with current battery solutions.

The cost was given purely in terms of MWh.

Re: Gravity batteries try to beat chemical ones with winches, weights, mine shafts

#50
post #6

And these systems are way larger, more dangerous (wind) and not as efficient as magnetic bearing flywheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Yeah, if you do the math, it turns out that you need impractically large weights lifted to unreasonable height. Like, suppose you’re lifting 100 ton weight 100 meters high. That’s a rather large and heavyweight system. How much energy you can store this way? Less than $5 worth of electricity, as it turn out. This is basically the same as pumped water storage, but instead of immense amount of water you can pump betwee…

Too me, pumping water seems like a pretty good solutiuon. If you are located on the coast, and can move let's say a million tons something like 100-200m up, that's not trivial and doesn't seem that impractical.
Post reply on HN