I’m sceptical about this technology, but it seems it is a lot lower cost than batteries (they claim a plant can last 50+ years with 50k+ cycles), can provide bursts of power, and can offset the decommissioning cost of mines. A slightly better article: https://eepower.com/news/gravity-energy-storage-systems-tran... The company: https://gravitricity.com/
Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
91–100 of 118 posts
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was recently an article here about an electric truck that never needs charging. It drives up a hill, collects a load of rock from the mine there, and by the time it has driven back down with the heavy load, regenerative breaking has recharged the battery.
Would you happen to have a link?
https://www.businessinsider.com/edumper-121-ton-electric-dum...
(You can find more articles if you search for "eDumper")
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#93Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#94Dry sand has a mass of 1600kg/m^3 Potential energy, U = mgh. So the energy required to raise 1m^3 of sand 1400m is 1600 x 1400 x 9.8 = 22MJ = 6.1kWh I've no idea how large their mine galleries are, but lets say they're 3m wide x 2m high - in 500m of gallery, we can store 3000m^3 of sand, so that's 18MWh. I'm sure they've got a lot more space than that, but it just gives some idea of how much sand you're talking about…
Thinking out loud here, but why sand and not water? Yes, water is only 1000kg/m^3, but probably much easier to transfer around using pumps and pipes. Water can make good use of the horizontal space within the mine, unlike sand. (The graphic in the article shows them using conveyor belts or trucks to move the sand horizontally which seems silly.) Thus the mine could basically be a mini pumped hydro power station, buil…
A machine for lifting/lowering loose material is more complicated than a pump, no doubt about that. But a deep shaft would mean that you don't build one machine per shaft, you build a few dozen smaller ones with a good handover mechanism and start getting small serial production benefits right from the first installation. Capacity would be virtually infinite, because with excess energy you could just mine more of whatever stuff is down there.
I guess if it's expensive to switch the dry mass mechanism between directions or speed states, it might be worthwhile to prepare some basin volume up and down and run a small capacity pumped storage in parallel at the same site for higher frequency load changes and short peaks. You might even find yourself discharging the wet battery while charging the dry one or the reverse if there is a sufficient delta in dispatchability.
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#95I've been thinking about a similar system to drop weights into the ocean for a while, like with attached pressurized air tanks to inflate balloons for resurfacing. Not an engineer, so I haven't been able to calculate if any of this would work, at all.
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt any pumped storage project can beat solar and battery hybrid projects these days, especially in sunny places like Nevada. People get very laser focused on the storage part, but energy you generate is entirely fungible with energy that you've stored so pumped hydro needs to compete with generation too. edit: looking further into this to try to put some rough numbers on it, the 5 years it'll take to dig the hol…
I'm pretty pessimistic on storage these days, but I will admit that after running some back of the envelope numbers I'm actually a lot more optimistic about chemical batteries then any of the physical storage schemes. Pumped hydro has a recharge problem - if your reservoir is much larger then your pump, you can't recharge the system in the time of cheapest energy (daytime when solar is active) before you'll be discha…
Consider the mismatch between supply and demand as a function of time; it has a Fourier transform with components at different frequencies (this is completely separate from the frequency of AC current in the system, please note). Some storage technologies are more suitable for different frequencies and different average charging times. Form's iron-air batteries, for example, would be suitable for frequencies an order of magnitude lower than Li-ion batteries. Operating a combined system with multiple storage technologies may at times involve discharging one to charge another.
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was the comparison I felt compelled to make. I have been a big fan of pumped hydro for many years. Contrary to what skeptics say, there are countless locations all over. [2] There is a suitable location 3 times larger than the Chinese one I linked That could use California's sites reservoir [1] under construction as a lower basin. It would have a similar 400m head, and an upper reservoir with 3 times the capacit…
Here in the PNW, "The Columbia River Gorge is a canyon ... up to 4,000 feet (1,200 m) deep [and which] stretches for over eighty miles (130 km) as the river winds westward [toward Portland]." - WPedia Hmmm. Now I'm wondering how many reservoirs already (or could) exist above and along 80 miles of river. (No need to dig tunnels to the generators.)
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#98Earlier 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.
Allow me to support the completely unsupported naysaying: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/16/gravity-storage-101-or-... Cliff's Notes: any currently-considered form of gravity storage that isn't pumped hydro is orders of magnitude more expensive and more stupid than a Tesla Megapack. Michael Barnard's abrasive tone aside, is he wrong?
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#99I've been thinking about a similar system to drop weights into the ocean for a while, like with attached pressurized air tanks to inflate balloons for resurfacing. Not an engineer, so I haven't been able to calculate if any of this would work, at all.
Re: Europe's deepest mine to become giant gravity battery
#100Another completely misleading article on gravity batteries. All the solid weight stuff is bunk, probably designed to suck out money from naive investors / corrupt state officials. Moving solid weights gives only a very small electric power, so building the proposed solid weight batteries gives units of MW at most, which is uneconomical. Unless it transports a large lake of water up and down a hill like in pumped-stor…
My thoughts exactly. It makes the engineer in me go mad if I see projects like Energy Vault [1] getting massive funding that could be used to try and develop technologies that make sense. Thankfully there are some people who see through the charade [2]. If you are into this thing and looking for an even more stupid idea to store energy, I present to you the StEnSEA [3]. Rolls right off the tongue, right? It is a holl…
That seems very low. Their website mentions 20 Mwh+.
Though my back of the envelope agrees with yours.