gravity storage

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Gravity Storage




by Bardal » 30/01/19, 13:57

A little odd, this new "invention" worthy of the Lépine competition, and defying all the banal laws of physics ...

Gravity storage is known to require large masses, on heights just as important to have some efficiency; This is how hydroelectric dams implement km3 water over hundreds of meters ...

Here, vulgar cranes handling blocks of 35 tons on 120 m high would feed a city of 2000 inhabitants during 24 hours ...

Recall that a block of 35 T mounted at 120 m will store, at the maximum (ie, subject to efficiency) 11 kWh approximately; but at 60 m (which is the case for more than half of the blocks represented) it will be only 5,5 kWh, and below (which is the case for one or two dozen blocks, which serve only to supports) nothing at all ... One wonders what can be used for hundreds of blocks placed at low altitude; while reflecting a little bit, we can easily see that 12 blocks hanging 3 crane arrows would produce the same work (low, it must be said) for cheaper (but quite expensive anyway); Well, a little weak-minded are quite often also idlers; they could have thought a little more ...

I think this montage is just one of the countless fantasies that drag on the net, supposed to solve the problems of humanity for cheap, but ignoring the most basic data of physics and technology ... We have already had the liquid nitrogen (here, it's a little less stupid), the masses immersed in 4000 meters, spring-loaded retarders, spring cars (if I was mean, I would add the Pantone engine and the power- gas-power), all things much more in their place in the racks of pranks and jokes ...
2 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Gravity Storage




by Christophe » 30/01/19, 15:09

It's beautiful the computer graphics! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

Last month we went around the question of gravity storage in concrete, it started there: solar-photovoltaic / ENERGIESTRO-store-the-energy-in-the-concrete-t13854-200.html # p350752

The true (and unique) gravity storage solution these are the maritime STEPs which allow the storage of billions of tons of water ... At a price per MWh stored quite low compared to all the other solutions but the geology must be interesting (large area, low slope of the reverse Polder type : Cheesy: )

After the batteries evolve quickly, very fast!

Lithium LTO 10 000 cycles (DOD 80%) are already on the market.

And 10 000 cycles of 6 kWh every day that makes yes yes, 27 years of life ... to 2200 kWh stored annually ...


Finally this may be the solution: decentralize production AND storage .... but this does not please current decision makers!
0 x
Opale2sang
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 57
Registration: 27/03/16, 22:40
x 14

Re: Gravity Storage




by Opale2sang » 30/01/19, 16:39

Bonjour.

I have often thought that the potential energy of a mass is not very important on earth is true, but can not we improve the idea by simply adding springs in addition to the mass, this which ultimately would be like we had a heavier mass, but it's probably a bad idea, because it comes to mind a lot of problems, like the life of such a system and also the strength of a spring that does not remain constant depending on the distance, or the maintenance and the gray energy of a machine like this one ...

The storage of energy by pumping water and then turbines is interesting in some cases, the yield is not so bad finally, the problem is the volume of water of course.

For batteries, it is always the easiest to implement, and it is probably the most suitable solution if the batteries are in focus.

Kind regards.
0 x
Meszigues3
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 57
Registration: 06/02/17, 19:12
x 8

Re: Gravity Storage




by Meszigues3 » 31/01/19, 11:14

bardal wrote:A little odd, this new "invention" worthy of the Lépine competition, and defying all the banal laws of physics ...
[...]
I think this montage is just one of the countless fantasies that drag on the net, supposed to solve the problems of humanity for cheap, but ignoring the most basic data of physics and technology ... We have already had the liquid nitrogen (here, it's a little less stupid), the masses immersed in 4000 meters, spring-loaded retarders, spring cars (if I was mean, I would add the Pantone engine and the power- gas-power), all things much more in their place in the racks of pranks and jokes ...
Hello everybody
Excellent remark of bardal; however, on each page we will propose the miracle solution (rotating mass, storage by loaded trains, power to gas to power, maritime storage, batteries, that I still know).
None of them are suitable at the moment for the huge storage needs of even a few weeks.

Rte gives every week the total French hydraulic stock.
Every year in February, this stock falls to about half a day of French winter consumption.
All the dams of France and Navarre! So some cranes, we are far from the count.

https://www.services-rte.com/fr/visualisez-les-donnees-publiees-par-rte/stock-hydraulique.html
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Gravity Storage




by Christophe » 31/01/19, 11:24

Meszigues3 wrote:None of them are suitable at the moment for the huge storage needs of even a few weeks.


A Marine STEP could be suitable for a region at least ... and certainly for tens of times cheaper than concrete compared to the storable MWh!

But again, is the centralization of energy the future?

See my previous message about home batteries!
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Gravity Storage




by Bardal » 31/01/19, 14:41

Christophe wrote:
Meszigues3 wrote:None of them are suitable at the moment for the huge storage needs of even a few weeks.


A Marine STEP could be suitable for a region at least ... and certainly for tens of times cheaper than concrete compared to the storable MWh!

But again, is the centralization of energy the future?

See my previous message about home batteries!


Personally, I wonder strongly about this question of "maritime steps", which often comes up in the proposals, and is presented as an innocuous and simple solution.

In terms of solutions on a high enough coast (which one?), Could someone tell me what would be the ecological impact of a huge saltwater lake located in the countryside on a coastal area? Which region could be candidate for such an achievement, whose human impacts would be at least equal to those of a large dam, and the ecological impacts (pollution of soil, groundwater, destruction of the ecosystem ... ) difficult to predict, but for sure huge? Who wants to experience?

As for the Belgian "artificial lagoons", I don't quite understand; it would be a question of sterilizing several km2 of seabed by the construction of a dike making it possible to have a difference in level of about ten meters. But, beyond the fact that this is a major damage to a wild environment, this device would be much more optimized by then using the difference in height provided by the tides (free energy), rather than by a expensive pumping; a somewhat reduced tidal power plant, possibly improved by pumping, as is done for the Rance. Alas, the experiment has already been done, and the results are weak enough that no one else has tried to imitate it; However, it is not the paper projects that were lacking ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Gravity Storage




by Christophe » 31/01/19, 15:05

I do not teach you anything Bardal (I think): there is no better solution, there are only the worst!

bardal wrote:As for the Belgian "artificial lagoons", I don't quite understand; it would be a question of sterilizing several km2 of seabed by the construction of a dike making it possible to have a difference in level of about ten meters. But, beyond the fact that this is a major damage to a wild environment, this device would be much more optimized by then using the difference in height provided by the tides (free energy), rather than by a expensive pumping; a somewhat reduced tidal power plant, possibly improved by pumping, as is done for the Rance. Alas, the experiment has already been done, and the results are weak enough that no one else has tried to imitate it; However, it is not the paper projects that were lacking ...


A good maritime STEP is that: we win on the sea (not necessarily related to the odds, it's even better than it is not) ... instead of flooding land ...

Sterilize some km2 seabed: you laugh? The North Sea is sand everywhere, not really loss of biodiversity !!

We can have several tens of m difference in altitude: it depends on the place, the North Sea is 30 40 m on average

The idea is undoubtedly Belgian because the Polders are a Flemish and Dutch specialty : Cheesy:

Yes it is a bit like the idea of ​​the tidal power plant, the STEP will obviously use the effect of the tides!

Otherwise there is also, on paper, the aeromotive factory: it's called the solar mountains https://www.econologie.com/telechargeme ... -solaires/

0 x
Eric DUPONT
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 751
Registration: 13/10/07, 23:11
x 40

Re: Gravity Storage




by Eric DUPONT » 03/02/19, 08:28

bardal wrote:A little odd, this new "invention" worthy of the Lépine competition, and defying all the banal laws of physics ...

Gravity storage is known to require large masses, on heights just as important to have some efficiency; This is how hydroelectric dams implement km3 water over hundreds of meters ...

Here, vulgar cranes handling blocks of 35 tons on 120 m high would feed a city of 2000 inhabitants during 24 hours ...

Recall that a block of 35 T mounted at 120 m will store, at the maximum (ie, subject to efficiency) 11 kWh approximately; but at 60 m (which is the case for more than half of the blocks represented) it will be only 5,5 kWh, and below (which is the case for one or two dozen blocks, which serve only to supports) nothing at all ... One wonders what can be used for hundreds of blocks placed at low altitude; while reflecting a little bit, we can easily see that 12 blocks hanging 3 crane arrows would produce the same work (low, it must be said) for cheaper (but quite expensive anyway); Well, a little weak-minded are quite often also idlers; they could have thought a little more ...

I think this montage is just one of the countless fantasies that drag on the net, supposed to solve the problems of humanity for cheap, but ignoring the most basic data of physics and technology ... We have already had the liquid nitrogen (here, it's a little less stupid), the masses immersed in 4000 meters, spring-loaded retarders, spring cars (if I was mean, I would add the Pantone engine and the power- gas-power), all things much more in their place in the racks of pranks and jokes ...


Actually you're right, the block or 35 tons has 120 m high stock 11 kwh, it takes no more than 100 kg of air to do as well.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Gravity Storage




by izentrop » 03/02/19, 11:54

bardal wrote:Alas, the experience has already been made, and the results are sufficiently weak that no one else has tried to imitate it; however, it is not the paper projects that have failed ...
There are still some factories in service around the world, but more of a lot of exploitable potential. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ner ... nstruction
Image
E Dupont wrote: The 35 or 120 block has a 11 m high stock 100 kwh, it takes no more than XNUMX kg of air to do as well.
: Mrgreen:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 287 guests