How is this better than pumped hydro storage?
The proposed design that started this discussion has towers at least 150m tall.
How is this better than pumped hydro storage?
The density of concrete is 2.4 times that of water. Pb/lead would be better yet (11x) :-)
How is this better than pumped hydro storage?The density of concrete is 2.4 times that of water. Pb/lead would be better yet (11x) :-)Sure. But water is still a wee bit cheaper. And filling a pond seems a lot less complex than building a 150m lego tower.
Let's do back of the envelope calculations:
Great Pyramid of Giza weights 500.000 tonnes. It is 146 meter high. It's center of gravity is at 1/4 of it's hight, 36m. It's potential energy is about 50 MWh.
These guys claim that they can store 35MWh in their tower. Basically claiming that they can build the pyramid in a day and take it apart at night.A pyramid has an centre of gravity which is intentionally low. This is evidenced by it only being at a quarter height. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the technology, but it's not the best example.
I think the clear way to store energy is Power to gas (LNG).
Power to gas uses power to do this reaction:
2 CO2 + 4 H2O = 2 CH4 + 3O2
Natural gas is mostly methane.
Way back in the day, before electrical power of any scale was really practical, the dock at Liverpool had a clever hydraulic energy storage scheme for operating its cranes and winches.
It looked kind of like pumped storage writ small, but with the trick that the accumulator towers were really giant hydraulic rams that lifted large weights to allow high working pressures without needing the towers to be overly high... Prime power was steam plant in a few engine house locations around the dock.
Did it work? Yes, it did, but it was far more about peak power demand then bulk energy storage, and we have easier ways to do that today.
Regards, Dan.
Power to gas uses power to do this reaction:
2 CO2 + 4 H2O = 2 CH4 + 3O2
Natural gas is mostly methane.
Ah, thanks. So it's not about LNG, but about synthesizing gas using electrical power. The synthesized gas may or may not be liquefied afterwards (if it is, that does not store further electrical engergy). And the tanker ship full of LNG which you showed is rather unrelated to this proposal for the storage of electrical energy, right?
So you pyrolyze wood to make wood gas, burn that gas to get CO2, then invest energy to make methane which you can burn later on? Well sure, but why not use wood and wood gas directly?
Power to gas uses power to do this reaction:
2 CO2 + 4 H2O = 2 CH4 + 3O2
Natural gas is mostly methane.
Ah, thanks. So it's not about LNG, but about synthesizing gas using electrical power. The synthesized gas may or may not be liquefied afterwards (if it is, that does not store further electrical engergy). And the tanker ship full of LNG which you showed is rather unrelated to this proposal for the storage of electrical energy, right?The point is that we can store massive amount of LNG and it is probably the cleanest thing to burn. There is already a gas network built up and we use a lot for heating. Power plants are there and transportation can be converted to use it. Not just cars, but cargo ships for example. So there is infrastructure to use it, and we have the means to generate it, and store it.
And CO2 scrubbing is possible. It might be "more expensive" than other methods, but the point is that the cost is energy. All these problems can be offset by just installing more panels.
A DIY 10kWh potential energy "PowerWall":
10 kWh= 10e3*3600= 36 MJ= mgh => dig a 20 meter deep well and hang a 184 ton weight, that's 76 cubic meters of concrete.
I strongly suspect your off by a few digits there. The average 18650 is 3Ah * 3.6V = 0.8333.... Watt hours. So you need 12000x 18650 cells to store 10KWh. Or 540kg