Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 23 2019 12:49am)

A super interesting and promising concept for sure! I like it. I'm still sceptical, however, of the "turn the winches into generators" part of the concept. And I'm also not sure how feasible it would be to hold a weight of 3000 tons with some steel ropes... particularly when the weight might be dropped quite suddenly in those <1s reaction time scenarios the vid is talking about.

Quote (Knoppie @ 26 Nov 2019 23:02)

It actually is yes.

The generators are easy and already in operation in hydro plants. Eventually the tech is not that different, both have axles that are driven by a mass gaining velocity through potential (elevation) energy, transformed into electricity by dynamos. Then use electric engines/pumps to raise the mass back to a higher elevation at an excess of grid power production. The response time is somewhat of a thing when comparing different types of design. For the one proposed, it requires a falling speed of about 1.5km/h, to deplete the energy in <60 mins (That can be defined as a maximum load). Falling creates less tension on the cable though, coming to a stop is actually gonna generate the g forces on the cables to be mitigated. They'd reduce the maximum cable length by about 10%. And that is somewhat of a problem because our high-end durable ski lift cables break at 1500m depth, under their own weight ~1500t. So with safety margins needed, a ski lift cable wire this won't work at this depth. They will work quite well on ~750m depth and even with a 3000t weight. Actually giving the system an equal amount of energy when we'd include the weight of the cables as the proposed 12 MWh version.

Eventually though, energy storage through height energy is financially only feasible if you have the infrastructure to abuse atm, problem is tat the tech requires a lot of vertical space.. A volume in which we can put at least 1400 tesla batteries to replace 140 tesla batteries..
But the charm for gravitation energy comes from nearly needing no resources, being highly efficient and resembling stone age (hipster) technology. The cumulative weight tech is even interesting for seasonal mitigation. But we'll have to see if it's going to gain traction ;)

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 26 2019 11:29pm)

Sounds like a lot more thought is being put into this technology than I initially gave it credit for!

But the space requirements might really be the limiting factor in the end. I can see how it's an efficient tech if you can abuse pre-existing mineshafts, but we would eventually run out of empty mineshafts if this tech gained traction.

Quote (Knoppie @ Nov 26 2019 04:48pm)

Depends a bit on how cheap the tech will become with developing applications. I've already hinted towards cumulative weight and energy storage facilities. Post abusing current opportunities there is a future for more advanced applications when the price drops by having existing working facilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn5AM75AGvw

Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 Nov 2019 00:57)

This thing is garbage lol. You cam achieve the same effect with water at a fraction of the cost and much higher efficiency

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 26 2019 08:09pm)

Do you mean classical hydroelectric power plants? Those are limited by topology.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 Nov 2019 03:41)

No. You can pump water without having to maintain bricks, it has a roughly equal density and doesnt require fancy craines.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 26 2019 08:52pm)

But water is more vulnerable to extreme temperatures. Those energy vaults would contain a much smaller body of water than hydroelectric power plants. During winter, this smaller body of water freezing and blowing the pipes up would be a much bigger risk.
And the water might get contaminated over time if you keep reusing it without letting some of it flow back into the natural water system (like convenctional hydroelectric pps do).
And the pumping system might require diagonal or slanted pipes as opposed to the vertical system you have with the bricks. In that case, the space requirements of the water-based energy vaults would increase drastically.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 Nov 2019 04:12)

The crane system is also vulnerable to extreme temperatures and is virtually useless during high wind. Water contamination isnt a risk because nobody's drinking it. You wont get a ton of growth that gums up the pipes in a sealed system regardless.

The crane system is one of the dumbest design ideas ive ever seen. You could accomplish the same design by just having it pull a boulder up a hill. Theres good ways to implement gravity storage and the crane idea is not anywhere close to the way to do it.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 26 2019 09:25pm)

You're probably right. At the end of the day, any such gravity storage system that is on the outside will be vulnerable to the elements. Using empty, abandoned mineshafts sounds better either way.

Btw, wouldnt we also need energy storage in regions which are prone to earthquakes, say California? I struggle to imagine any kind of gravity storage that isnt highly vulnerable to earthquakes and thus unsuitable in places like that. So the storage would have to be sited much farther to the inland, away from the coastal cities of CA that consume the power.