forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

Sorry if it has already been treated but I did not find anything.
The storage of gravitational energy seemed to me an interesting solution and I asked why it was not developed.

I do not use hydraulic step but rather this:
http://objectifterre.over-blog.org/arti ... 62903.html
http://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/ ... rique.html
According to the designers of the ARES system the costs would be lower than the storage in STEP. Another advantage we can imagine systems of different sizes.

The myth of Sysiphe in a modern version, somehow ...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphe#Mythe

To lift 100g from 1m you need 1 joule and 1000 kg raised from 10 m you store 27,7kwh not bad. Yield 0,8 so 22 kwh. I have good?

raymon wrote:1000 kg raised from 10 m stores 27,7kwh not bad. Yield 0,8 so 22 kwh. I have good?

E = mgh = 98100 j = 27.2 Wh.
An error of X 1000 anyway

Storing energy in solid form can be interesting when one can not use water.
By cons, I can not see the future of gravityLamp, because of the mechanical wear of the dynamo, it's gadget like crank lamps that serve only once before ending up in the trash.

Solar seems more profitable and sustainable. Moreover, the priority of the poor in emerging countries is the means of communication. http://www.leblogdesarah.com/insolite-e ... atellites/

I have a gravity light and I think the design was made as a result of the use. I find the product very convincing for its destination: a simple trick, quick to implement (unlike solar), usable in the evening to read, study, cook in penumbra (unlike solar or you need batteries)
moreover it is compact and therefore easily transportable from one place to another.
in short, for me a real good idea in micro-energy.
we will never make kwh with solid gravity, but we need it.

raymon wrote:
1000 kg raised from 10 m stores 27,7kwh not bad. Yield 0,8 so 22 kwh. I have good?
E = mgh = 98100 j = 27.2 Wh.
An error of X 1000 all the same Cool

Not understood it's exactly the same. There a German thinks to lift a minute mountain 15:
http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/048195-034/x-enius
There are many ways to see the problem. The interest of this kind of system is that there are few wear parts therefore long financial depreciation. It is easier to manufacture than a lithium battery. The storage place is easier to find than a classic step and can be of various sizes.

raymon wrote:

raymon wrote:
1000 kg raised from 10 m stores 27,7kwh not bad. Yield 0,8 so 22 kwh. I have good?
E = mgh = 98100 j = 27.2 Wh.
An error of X 1000 all the same Cool

Not understood it's exactly the same. .

izentrop just made you notice that you were mistaken for an 1000 factor in your calculation by putting kwh in place of the Wh
it was just to put back in light also that the energy of gravity is not dense.
1T to 10m high represents 27.2Wh. for info the battery of an Ipad contains more than 40Wh

raymon wrote:Sorry if it has already been treated but I did not find anything.
The storage of gravitational energy seemed to me an interesting solution and I asked why it was not developed.

I do not use hydraulic step but rather this:
http://objectifterre.over-blog.org/arti ... 62903.html
.... According to the designers of the ARES system the costs would be lower than the storage in STEP. Another advantage we can imagine systems of different sizes.

Interesting concept.

Thank you for the link.

Yes I confused wh and kwh during conversion.It does not preclude the idea of ​​lifting a solid body that has a density of 1,8 or 2 is simpler than lifting more water potential sites for kind of installation is certainly easier to find than a place to install a hydraulic step. It can be considered in various different ways.

it is not really the density that is relevant, but the mass and its ease of ascent, descent and energetic conversion ...

Water in general is better on this criterion.

Except for sites where dam lakes can not be built, I do not think these trains are good.