/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10878316
yes, the entire transmission system would have to be enormous, lots of machinery, lots of gears, materials under stress, the maintenance would be expensive, also efficiency would suffer due to friction, heat etc

Its much cheaper just to manufacture small lithium batteries and much easier replace bad cells with new ones.

>Replace weights by real batteries
>???
>2x Profit

>>10878316
You could power your whole life needs from the thorium in the excavated dirt...

Please give up over-engineered and resource-heavy renewable energy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

>>10878329
You absolute fucking genius. This is the simplest solution I have seen.

>>10878345
>energy production is the same as energy storage

>>10878316
yes, although flow batteries are better. Gravity batteries are a meme. Battery tech will soon make them obsolete.

>>10878351
>flow batteries
Holy shit, they already scaled up a massive version of the old mans work. That's fast.

>>10878350
well uhh they kinda are
its just that with energy production the energy is stored in the material you use to make electricity

>>10878316
>Batteries
>In a house
At the moment Batteries should be only used in devices that require to be mobile because of the high cost, anything gravity should only be considered in mass scale like a dam, if you want to store energy for your house the best option is thermal energy storage.

>>10878329
And what if you made the real batteries out of other, smaller batteries?

>>10878374
Tesla's lithium battery are just fine. They should last ~10-15 years before they drop to 80% charge.

>>10878316
Gravity batteries are rerarded. Use a pump and water tower instead. Much cheaper and more reliable.

In fact, water as a means of potential energy storage is already quite popular. Many dams already employ this method.

>>10879108
Great, so how do you build that in places that don't have much hills or water?

>>10878316
gravity batteries? is that like a water reservoir used to power turbines?

>>10879141
Like this but utility scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-c2lCoOQc0

>>10879156
water reservoirs are utility scale and it falls from the sky.

>>10879194
>it falls from the sky
You get rain? Lucky.

>>10879207
as do most any place where there's water reservoirs used for power

>>10879212
You know what's heavy and doesn't need to fall from the sky for you to find some?
Rocks.

>>10879225
it's only twice the density of water and water is much easier to move. also doing further reading they want to make the weights out of concrete, which means manufacturing cement which is more CO2, seems pretty stupid really. is this from letting non-whites have scholarships, I'm blown away by all the stupid science shit that doesn't work that makes the MSM

>>10879225
Humans don't live in the desert you idiot.

>>10879245
>>10879246
You know what doesn't evaporate or leak?
Rocks.

>>10879263
because that's been a huge problem for water reservoirs over 1000s of years.
>mah lake evaporated !
>mah lake leaked !
nope.

>>10879263
70% of the Earth's surface is water you dumb bitch.

>>10879274
Salt water doesn't play well with machinery dumb bitch.

>>10879263
Know what makes a good material for gravity storage?
-cheap
-plentiful
-durable
-easy to move
Know what is all of those things? Water.

>>10879277
There is pump storage facilities currently in use using seawater.

>>10878316
fucking nigger shit

>>10879279
Naw mate, we need rocks that chip, split, erode, degrade, and crumble over time.

Just imagine it man. Rocks.

>>10879279
Pump storage is not cheap, nor efficient.

>>10879296
The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%, with some sources claiming up to 87%.

How cheap and efficient is gravity storage again?

>>10879267
California is having that problem right now.

>>10879294
I don't know why the Greeks didn't just use rocks to power their grain grinding mills, surely they had rocks to use.

>>10879313
California is a third world country though

>>10879296
In the U.S., hydropower is produced for an average of 0.85 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh).

...so. expensive...

>>10878316
By a quick calculation, you'd need to be able to drop 50,000kg a distance of 100m to have gravitational potential energy equal to one Tesla Powerwall 2 battery (14kWh). That doesn't seem feasible for home use.

>>10878316
Just use existing hydro-power instead.

>>10879246
>>10879587
great so we need more power and want it in places that don't have water, what should we do?(Hint: it involves batteries)
>>10879320
California has a GDP higher than most nations.

>>10880287
They also have the highest rates of drug use, aids, homelessness and sheer faggotry. Most major cities are in a fucking desert. They deserve eternal fire and so do you, nigger.

>>10878559
>made the real batteries out of other, smaller batteries

This is more common than you think.
Almost all laptops are filled with rechargeable AA batteries.

>>10879587
>gravity battery is just rechargeable hydro power

What if we made a hydro plant that doesn't use water? Make it use sand or something. Like a giant freaking sand hourglass with a turbine attached. It would need some sort of Archimedes screw, or something, to bring sand back to "recharge" the battery.

NEXT:
Increased mass/weight of material gives increased power density.
Upgrade with steel ball bearings instead of sand.
Ball bearings give reduced friction. Less energy lost. Higher efficiency.

I'm just shouting out crazy schizo ideas at this point but ....... is any of this plausible at all?

Air breathing aqueous sulfur batteries could BTFO pumped hydro and 'gravity batteries.' They'd be made mostly from sulfur and sulfur is FUCKING CHEAP! We have huge pyramids of it in Alberta, because it's cheaper to dispose of the sulfur in a fucking pyramid than to actually sell it.
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Panel%203%20-%20Chiang.pdf

>>10880349
Seems like a cheap solution but what's the energy density? If you need a football field to store the same energy as a Duracell it isn't worth it.

>>10880336
makes more sense to me than rocks. removes the problems of durability, supply and cheapness

>>10880336
sorry
>>10880336
I hadn't read the NEXT you lost me there, steel is none of those things

>>10880377
30-145 watt hours per liter. What really matters is the plot in pic related showing how the cost is comparable to CAES and PHS. Although it's also worth noting that organic flow batteries could be pretty competitive too, as they're also made from common elements.

>>10880484
>30-145 watt hours per liter
Not the worst, you couldn't use it to power a vehicle but just storing energy would work. Hopefully it's cheapness and availability will at least push it for long term storage.

>>10880495
>>Hopefully it's cheapness and availability will at least push it for long term storage
that's the point.

>>10879246
>Humans don't live in the desert you idiot.

>>10879131
You don't.

>>10878345
Nuclear is BAD STUFF!
Don't put my children in danger because of some shills day job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaptvhky8IQ

>>10880287
Are you retarded? Phoenix uses electricity from the lakes to the east that are recharged at night. It's one of the most reliable forms of power we have besides Palo Verde.

>>10879131
>Great, so how do you build that in places that don't have much hills or water?

>>10879108
>Use a pump and water tower instead.

>>10880287
>great so we need more power and want it in places that don't have water, what should we do?
Transmission lines

>regulator snaps
>fully charged gravity battery free falls
>*blinded immediately by every lightbulb in the house*
>*btc miner mines the next four blocks*
>*gameboy explodes*

>>10881168
Did you know that in some places, we're building big ass batteries rather than transmission lines because it's cheaper to do so? Batteries can be slowly charged up during non peak hours with smaller transmission lines to provide power during peak

>>10880311
most of the homeless drug addicts are actually from red states

>>10880321
not really