Energy Vault ? pros and cons

[sparkzap]

hello, i would like to discuss the pros and cons of this concept.
i feel this isn't a good implementation of the idea, but then again i could be missing something.

website:
https://energyvault.com/

Energy Vault INTRO:


some scale test video:
https://youtu.be/mmrwdTGZxGk

redit (some input from EnergyVaultSA) AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/9uylim/can_these_35ton_bricks_solve_renewable_energys/


CONS: (please challenge if you think its not a CON)
-maintenance, gearing failure, cables, connecting points, etc.
-power gen. reduced as tower disassembles (less drop distance)
-use of concrete = more co2 gen.
-noise from moving parts and landing blocks
-loss in motor starts\stops (efficiency)
-area needed for renewables. for power during stacking\storing time 35mwh?
-collapse risk?  (30 stories high)
-TBA (please suggest CONS)

[Mr. Scram]

This has already been discussed to death in another thread.

[Gyro]

Welcome to the forum.

Yes, this has already been discussed at length here...

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/energy-storage-by-moving-concrete-blocks/

(Hint: It ended up being put in the 'Dodgy Technology' section)

[BrianHG]

 

[Mr. Scram]

The horrid clickbait fonts told me it's Thunderf@rt without clicking.

[EEVblog]

The horrid clickbait fonts told me it's Thunderf@rt without clicking.

So what's your problem, you think he did a bad job debunking it?

[Cyberdragon]

It's also rather odd. I'm sure he reads this forum and gets ideas from it, so why did he do a video now when the topic died out and just happened to be reposted by someone.

[EEVblog]

It's also rather odd. I'm sure he reads this forum and gets ideas from it, so why did he do a video now when the topic died out and just happened to be reposted by someone.

AFAIK Thunderf00t does not read this forum and is certainly not a registered user.
When I've mentioned my forum to him before he seemed to have no idea it existed, which is not surprising, he's not an engineer.
What happens is people tweet and email him these dodgy campaigns and he puts them on a list and eventually gets around to them weeks or months later.

[sparkzap]

awesome! just what i was looking for. new to forum

[BrianHG]

The horrid clickbait fonts told me it's Thunderf@rt without clicking.

So what's your problem, you think he did a bad job debunking it?

Except for the odd few Thunderf00t's outtakes, he totally decimated the Energy Vault.

[EEVblog]

awesome! just what i was looking for. new to forum

Welcome, we do lots of fun debunking here!

[sparkzap]

i would like to talk about the more complex electronics side to this, power generation say compared to a hydro setup 

for example bust how much efficiency is lost by stopping and starting generation
or how far and what speed the block drops at
and how the charge or build power usage would compare.

 

[Mr. Scram]

So what's your problem, you think he did a bad job debunking it?

I'm not keen on Thunderf00t's channel. It almost exclusively consists of debunking, which caters to the controversy hungry bunch. The overly indignant tone and the clickbaity thumbnails WITH CAPS in ALL KINDS of STRANGE PLACES don't improve the situation. It represents the less pleasant sensation driven side of Youtube, although I readily concede the better part of a million people have a different view on this.

[PlainName]

you think he did a bad job debunking it?

Yes. He (several times) misses the point that pumped storage is great where you have hills and lakes but sod-all use elsewhere. The blurb for this thing isn't quiet on that front, so he is being disingenuous by not just ignoring it but repeatedly pretending it doesn't exist.

Next, a vast proportion of the debunk relies on there being no actual finished product but lots of animation. How else does one show what stuff could be like before it's made? Or is it the case that no-one is allowed to explain anything unless they have a full-scale production rig to show off? I would treat any such animation as a guide, not a de facto planning application. Th final product would not doubt be quite different. Similarly, I took the positioning next to wind turbines as merely a visual reminder that this is all 'green' or non-fossil fuel, not that they would really want to build on top of a windy hill.

Next, he seems to have a downer on anything that isn't as efficient as possible. The solar panels on a roof that may be 30% less efficient than theoretical is a good illustration. Surely just getting something is better than nothing at all? I have a  similar problem here: nowhere I can put panels catch the sun all day, so clearly I shouldn't bother to reap any benefit at all if I can't get the max, according to him.

So, if the efficiency drops off as you level the building, so what? The actual point at which it stops being worth moving blocks is arbitrary and depends on design. It's an obvious thing (laying out vs stacking) and I would assume it would depend on where this is sited - is there room to lay them out or does it need to be constained? Who knows until somewhere to put one is found? But for the purposes of illustrative animation, you don't want to overload it with detail. The principle is enough for the passing public.

There are some valid points he notes (like how to drop 100m on the end of a cable to exactly the right place), but they are lost in the noise of his almost-trolling.

That dropping, though. My thought is why not have an actual building and use a lift shaft equivalent to store energy on-site? OK, it wouldn't be that much but every little helps and gotta be more than a couple of car batteries.

[SiliconWizard]

So what's your problem, you think he did a bad job debunking it?

I'm not keen on Thunderf00t's channel. It almost exclusively consists of debunking, which caters to the controversy hungry bunch. The overly indignant tone and the clickbaity thumbnails WITH CAPS in ALL KINDS of STRANGE PLACES don't improve the situation.

Well, it happens to be on the "sane" side of things, but yes it kind of looks pretty much like videos from the other, darker side of promoting dodgy stuff, and probably for similar reasons.

And I agree with dunkemhigh about Thunderf00t missing the whole point of "pumped storage" in general.

[Mr. Scram]

Well, it happens to be on the "sane" side of things, but yes it kind of looks pretty much like videos from the other, darker side of promoting dodgy stuff, and probably for similar reasons.

And I agree with dunkemhigh about Thunderf00t missing the whole point of "pumped storage" in general.

The issue is that the content has effectively been rendered irrelevant by the form it's presented in. Everything is aimed at dramatic effect rather than any kind of objective fact finding. The videos are blatantly catering to an audience which apparently requires the sensational format to draw or retain interest, resulting in some kind of unpleasant superlative format.

[sparkzap]

dude do you even watch his videos? a large majority are science based as well as an entire channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUrdmVprSahXaPKqr04VfgQ

if your focus is fonts and colors i mean what are you really there to watch? content or ?
when you debunk or bust something there is no need top sugar coat the point.
do you have a youtube channel?

/quote]
I'm not keen on Thunderf00t's channel. It almost exclusively consists of debunking, which caters to the controversy hungry bunch. The overly indignant tone and the clickbaity thumbnails WITH CAPS in ALL KINDS of STRANGE PLACES don't improve the situation. It represents the less pleasant sensation driven side of Youtube, although I readily concede the better part of a million people have a different view on this.
[/quote]

[sparkzap]

im sure he reads some posts and most defiantly watches some of your video dave 

It's also rather odd. I'm sure he reads this forum and gets ideas from it, so why did he do a video now when the topic died out and just happened to be reposted by someone.

AFAIK Thunderf00t does not read this forum and is certainly not a registered user.
When I've mentioned my forum to him before he seemed to have no idea it existed, which is not surprising, he's not an engineer.
What happens is people tweet and email him these dodgy campaigns and he puts them on a list and eventually gets around to them weeks or months later.

[coppice]

you think he did a bad job debunking it?

Yes. He (several times) misses the point that pumped storage is great where you have hills and lakes but sod-all use elsewhere. The blurb for this thing isn't quiet on that front, so he is being disingenuous by not just ignoring it but repeatedly pretending it doesn't exist.

Next, a vast proportion of the debunk relies on there being no actual finished product but lots of animation. How else does one show what stuff could be like before it's made? Or is it the case that no-one is allowed to explain anything unless they have a full-scale production rig to show off? I would treat any such animation as a guide, not a de facto planning application. Th final product would not doubt be quite different. Similarly, I took the positioning next to wind turbines as merely a visual reminder that this is all 'green' or non-fossil fuel, not that they would really want to build on top of a windy hill.

Next, he seems to have a downer on anything that isn't as efficient as possible. The solar panels on a roof that may be 30% less efficient than theoretical is a good illustration. Surely just getting something is better than nothing at all? I have a  similar problem here: nowhere I can put panels catch the sun all day, so clearly I shouldn't bother to reap any benefit at all if I can't get the max, according to him.

So, if the efficiency drops off as you level the building, so what? The actual point at which it stops being worth moving blocks is arbitrary and depends on design. It's an obvious thing (laying out vs stacking) and I would assume it would depend on where this is sited - is there room to lay them out or does it need to be constained? Who knows until somewhere to put one is found? But for the purposes of illustrative animation, you don't want to overload it with detail. The principle is enough for the passing public.

There are some valid points he notes (like how to drop 100m on the end of a cable to exactly the right place), but they are lost in the noise of his almost-trolling.

That dropping, though. My thought is why not have an actual building and use a lift shaft equivalent to store energy on-site? OK, it wouldn't be that much but every little helps and gotta be more than a couple of car batteries.

I agree with what you say, but I think he mostly did a bad job for the reason that most of his videos do a bad job - he seems incapable of toning down his snearing attitude, and just getting on with the job. The start of this video is purely an attack on the PR material. EVERY startup has a pile of PR BS. Its a given, and any reasonable person ignores it. I think he has lost most of his audience before he even gets to the meat of what he has to say.

As presented, the concrete block system has many serious issues, and seems ludicrous as a high volume storage scheme. However, I suspect its ability to function in most small spaces, hot, cold or so dry that replacing evaporated water would be a serious problem, means the core idea has some real niche applications - probably when surrounded by a wall to minimise the wind problem.

[Mr. Scram]

dude do you even watch his videos? a large majority are science based as well as an entire channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUrdmVprSahXaPKqr04VfgQ

if your focus is fonts and colors i mean what are you really there to watch? content or ?
when you debunk or bust something there is no need top sugar coat the point.
do you have a youtube channel?

Newspaper articles about new discoveries are also science based. If it were just the content spruced up with a bit of drama it might not be so bad, but the science seems to be almost completely subservient to the superlative format. I guess that's how you make a buck on Youtube, but it's not for me and definitely not synonymous with science content. Science derived entertainment, perhaps. I agree with coppice. Just watch the recent astrophotography video and you'll notice how different the tone in that one is.

[sparkzap]

if not hydro what other similar power generation can you compare a energy vault to, (that has a solid history and data behind it?)
the bottom line is its a stupid idea no matter where its implemented. and hydo is a similar gravity fed concept to put it up against.

the focus should be on energy management and efficiency, this would lower power demands and remove the need to build rubbish like this,
the sooner individual home level power storage is a thing, it will solve so many issues because the onus of waste lands on the individual.

[sparkzap]

i can tell by your comments you dont watch his videos. so i cant really take what your saying seriously.
if you did watch you would see how many science orientated videos he also does, the busted videos started as a side project. (mostly with religion)
and ye...no sh*t he need to attract an audience... because thats how his pays his bills and his time for making content.

do you have a youtube channel supporting your livelihood to make comparisons? would like to see it?
 

dude do you even watch his videos? a large majority are science based as well as an entire channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUrdmVprSahXaPKqr04VfgQ

if your focus is fonts and colors i mean what are you really there to watch? content or ?
when you debunk or bust something there is no need top sugar coat the point.
do you have a youtube channel?

Newspaper articles about new discoveries are also science based. If it were just the content spruced up with a bit of drama it might not be so bad, but the science seems to be almost completely subservient to the superlative format. I guess that's how you make a buck on Youtube, but it's not for me and definitely not synonymous with science content. Science derived entertainment, perhaps. I agree with coppice. Just watch the recent astrophotography video and you'll notice how different the tone in that one is.

[PlainName]

the bottom line is its a stupid idea no matter where its implemented

You are either trolling or thinking uncritically.

and hydo is a similar gravity fed concept to put it up against

We've gone on about why this is not a competitor to hydro but a complement.

the focus should be on energy management and efficiency, this would lower power demands and remove the need to build rubbish like this

Efficiency would be good, but it's not the be-all that you make out. Remember that this is there not to feed in power that could otherwise be used but to store excess power that would otherwise be wasted. As such, if its efficiency was 5% it would still be better than no store at all (ignoring cost of building/maintenance vs funds from selling the stored power).

the sooner individual home level power storage is a thing

Typically, bulk tends to be cheaper. It would be more expensive and less efficient for everyone to have their own private system.

[Mr. Scram]

i can tell by your comments you dont watch his videos. so i cant really take what your saying seriously.
if you did watch you would see how many science orientated videos he also does, the busted videos started as a side project. (mostly with religion)
and ye...no sh*t he need to attract an audience... because thats how his pays his bills and his time for making content.

do you have a youtube channel supporting your livelihood to make comparisons? would like to see it?

Please don't speculate about what I do or don't watch when you obviously don't know. Please refrain from ad hominem fallacies too. I already conceded nearly a million people don't agree with me so I guess I can suffer sparkzap added to the pile. How it started isn't quite relevant either as it's like that now and has been for a while.

[sparkzap]

yes... youtube is like that now. your making it out to be only thunderfoot...
example: EEVblog #1236 - German Solar Freakin' Roadways!

dont like it make your own or switch off.. good luck

i can tell by your comments you dont watch his videos. so i cant really take what your saying seriously.
if you did watch you would see how many science orientated videos he also does, the busted videos started as a side project. (mostly with religion)
and ye...no sh*t he need to attract an audience... because thats how his pays his bills and his time for making content.

do you have a youtube channel supporting your livelihood to make comparisons? would like to see it?

Please don't speculate about what I do or don't watch when you obviously don't know. Please refrain from ad hominem fallacies too. I already conceded nearly a million people don't agree with me so I guess I can suffer sparkzap added to the pile. How it started isn't quite relevant either as it's like that now and has been for a while.