How gravity batteries could change the world
It may shock you, but on an industrial scale, electricity is rarely generated in reserve. If fuel or water power is used to generate energy, then the process can be regulated and not generate excess electricity. But there is a problem with renewable energy sources. You can't tell the sun "to shine later" and the wind "to blow in the evening". How to save renewable energy and give it to consumers during peak hours? Scientists are working on various options. We have already discussed one of them - sand batteries. The alternative is gravity batteries. How long can they work and how much electricity can they give out? And most importantly, can they change the world of renewable energy? Find out in today's video!
#battery #greenenergy #tehnology #energy
If you are the author of the materials or the copyright owner of it, but your authorship was not indicated or you object to its use, please contact me: titosaleksyt@gmail.com
Don’t miss next videos: Press the little bell ((🔔)) to get notifications
Production Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound www.epidemicsound.com/
The demonstrator plant in the video: 15 meters height of the tower looks like the 50 tons weight only can move around 11 meters? That means that this system that cost £1 million to build can store 1.5 kWh! I hope you are all very impressed by this cutting edge technology. A li-ion battery with that capacity weigh less than 10kg and cost $200! So even if the 50 years claimed life of the tower comes true, it will still be 1000 times more expensive than a single Li-ion battery you can carry with one hand. This is a scam to trick investors that for some reason didn't pay enough attention in school during science class. So can it be used for short bursts of power then?: The "fast" drop, shown in the video, the weight drops at around 1m per second, so it can supply a burst power of 491kW for 11 seconds. However the claim in the video says that peak power is only 250kW, so that means there are losses of around 50% in the system, which is both ways btw, i.e. for going up and going down so in reality, a 5 kg $100 Li-ion battery is enough to replace this device and the tower has a combined cycle efficiency of only 25%, like Hydrogen fuel cell energy storage, but you don't even have waste heat here as a byproduct!! That is maybe still enough to make this useful at a local electricity distributer to mediate fluctuations, however to deliver 250kW for an hour, you'll need a weight 327 times heavier and the company is even suggesting a 20MW system running for 8 hours which would mean 327*8*80=208,000 times bigger than the demonstrator plant and it would need 4 times the amount of energy in, as you can recover per cycle, so highly wasteful, as I already mentioned. To continue the "number of homes" analogy in the video, it would mean 3 towers like this per home!. KZhead commenters and politicians alike: if you ever hear about this again, dismiss it immediately, it is a scam, in the literal sense, not only meaning sketchy or overly optimistic. This company knows very well that this can't possibly work. They are only out to pocket public money, to then just disappear when they get them!
Yep. You evidently know your way around numbers. This thing is a scam.
Yes, this thing it's a SCAM !!! BUSTED !!! 🤬
Yup I was thinking the same thing.
Better gravity storage already exists using water. Lake Geneva (90 billion tonne) could regulate the power supply for Europe on a 24 hourly cycle. Need to be able to raise and lower at least 10 million tons through a height range of 200 metres to store useful amounts of energy.
It is a prototype. They for sure did the math on this. The advantage of this system is that it doesnt reducenits generation or storage capacity, meaning that it works way better than a battery
Make a functional prototype(produces energy) and then calculate realistic maintenance costs. It better be seismic resistant too.
They did
@@anteeko if there’s evidence of further progress and development, we need a part 2 for this one then!
Seismic is really important especially if they use "towers."
Tidal Flows are the answer for unlimited free energy. It is like the tried and proven hydroelectric plants but works in both directions and is not dependent on rainfall or snowmelt. It can be much wider than a river and placed in hundreds of times more areas around the world. It is 100% dependable and cycles several times per day. It can easily be made safe for wildlife. You are using the power of the moon's gravity and the ocean and does not require storage of energy. You can create inland areas connected to the sea to increase the overall control and safety factor if necessary.
I thought of this 40 years ago told a lot of people the big money power company’s blew me off. You could drill dry wells and do the same thing for individual homes.
I work in the electricity industry on policy issues and it always shocks non-technical people that we are never more than 0.2 seconds from a full grid blackout. They never really understand the way the traditional grid depends on multiple layers of security margin and how intermittent renewables reduce that dramatically. We desperately need storage as that is the only way that grid can be truly carbon free. The only issue is how much it will cost.
The way I see it, the burning of fossil fuels will end someday, so the only questions are when and what humans will do. Nobody knows how far into the future this will be and how many humans there will be at that point. But my guess is it will be an ugly situation, a collapse in the human population. We should be putting massive amounts of resources into developing renewables now, stop wasting money on sending people to Mars ect. It doesn’t really effect me, I’ll be dead, but I hate to think what future generations will think of our wasteful, decadent consumption.
WHATEVER it costs…will be MUCH CHEAPER than fossil fuel power. The SUN and WIND will be 100% PHUCKING FREE for the NEXT SIX BILLION YEARS!!!!
Wow you work in the electricity industry? You sound pretty useless.
The US should have funded this project along time ago though my guy, before we hit 2 debt limits. US is going to crap.
if only we could all have solar and turbines and just generated power for everyone without paying. oh well, that shit will never fly in the US, pun intended
A promising alternative is bouyancy power. Instead of lifting something in the open air, lower a bouyant object like a big baloon in liquid. Releasing the object makes it float up and that force can be used. It allows for using a lot less space.
Good idea.. ❤️ Subject for improvement by reducing the shape and inflating it through a pump under water deep down.. there must be some calculations around the power needed for a certain air volume AND how it suits the Archimedes push to have a power gain. 🤔😉
Such a solution shows low efficiency. Flywheel is much more efficient.
As soon as I saw your comment, a combination buoyancy, gravity battery system appeared in my mind. Thank you for that 🙏 it was a very satisfying rush of mental design 👌
You make a very good point about buoyancy power, and going upwards to generate that power, but I'm wondering if maybe instead of utilizing a big balloon in liquid, that maybe teeth gear notches going all the way up the mine/coal shaft walls, and some type of metal doomed cap with notched teeth on the vertical sides of the doomed cap, that generates power as it rises up the mine shaft via the lifting force of the lifting force of the lighter that air gas.
Only issue i dislike about compressed air or buoyant systems is, as you store more energy in the form of compressed air, the energy demand increases exponentially as pressure increases, say you need 1 KWh at 100 PSi to get to 200 PSi, at 200-300 you’d need more than 2 KWh to compress the air, ik my example isnt accurate representation of the power needs but i am just using it as an example.
I still did not heard in this animation movie how exactly making weights solid instead of just pumping water makes it cheaper? Heavy lifts/elevators generally are quite expensive machines, while a water container is much simpler device, with the pump and pipes being the elements which require most service.
It doesn't. This is a "startup" idea that keeps constantly being brought up and milked for gullible novice investors.
Yeah this is a dumb idea. It’s would be so much simpler to build a tower to hold a bunch of water and just pump it vs all the moving parts needed to lift and lower objects. Drilling rigs do this very thing all day everyday. The info to show us how much maintenance is needed for this already exists but those questions for some reason (I’m being sarcastic here) never get answered.
I thought of exactly this when I was a little kid ... Then I went to school and realised that yes, it can work but that still doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's truly sad and hilarious at the same time that people keep wasting time and money on shit like this. Like, for real these ppl know they are just trolling "investors" out of their money right?!? Don't tell me they actually believe this can go anywhere??
Energy density and specific energy i.e. energy per unit volume and energy per kg mass for water is lesser than for a solid concrete. The potential energy in 1 ton of solid block will need much large volume of water at the same height.
@@PMLighthouse Yes, density of concrete is about 2x more than density of water. So you just need a 2 times larger container for the water. Still, I don't see any argument why building and maintaining heavy elevator would be less expensive than pumping water through a pipe.
This is the more advanced concept after hydropower plant. Water may be evaporated and smeared out to soil and its specific gravity is only 1. If we use concrete with 2.5, then it saves space much. Also this system is more controllable in frequently varying power condition. However it may be more expensive than the hydro power plant in large scale.
let's say we need to store enough energy to then produce 50 MW for 12 hours (at night). probably enough for a small town. 50 MW * 3600 * 12 = 2160 GJ - we need to store such energy. Now let's calculate the mass of the load if the lifting height is, say, 100m. E = mgh , h = 100m, then m = Е(g * h) = 2160 ГДж/(10 m/s^2 * 100m) = TWO MILLIONS TONS ... For a rough estimate - this is about a cube concrete 100 x 100 x 100 meters :)
good number, as i expected it is a scam
@@silver_surfer88 Not if you factor in the cost to build the structure to hold those cubes. There is no way this can be cost effective.
@@silver_surfer88 since 25=100/4, then you only have (1/4*1/4*1/4) of the energy stored, say to produce with a power of 50/64 MW, roughly 0,8 MW. Despite this cube is still a monster, the mechanical transmission to make it to descend 100 m in 12 hours will absorb an important amount of the energy, say 1/2 with an an efficiency of 50%. As this efficiency also applies during uplifting, it will need an extra power of 50% more. So the system is good for nothing. Please make the calculations. If you don't know, please ask.
Despite this cube is a monster, the mechanical transmission to make it to descend 100 m in 12 hours will absorb an important amount of the energy, say 1/2 with an an efficiency of 50%. As this efficiency also applies during uplifting, it will need an extra power of 50% more. So the system is good for nothing.
@@silver_surfer88 your math is wrong joao 😅
I've thought of this independently since I was a kid. I just wonder how much weight/space was needed to be practical
You should have learned how to calculate that back when you were a kid thinking about it.
m × h × g so 100tons at 100m=27Kwh, for comparison tesla has a 100KWH battery.
@@faustinpippin9208 kWh
@@faustinpippin9208 I thought your calculation must be wrong as I'm currently using about 50kwh/day to heat my house and this will only increase as Winter progresses. But I checked and you're correct! Seems astonishing I'd need to raise perhaps 3 or 4 100 tons to that height just to heat my house! But Gravity is actually a very weak force so I think much larger masses have to be used - like the water in reservoirs to make this practicable.
Please learn some elementary physics. Then you will realise that this is nonsense.
Use tidal energy to raise water to a height...and let it out all day and night... ( Tidal is available only at specific times)..the water stored at a height can be continuously tapped.
Salt water flowing over metal combinations?
As others have mentioned, just pump water instead of lifting weights. Turbines placed at the bottom of mine shafts would generate the electricity. Pumps would get the water back up to the surface. Mine shafts could have curves in them, but appropriately sized pipes would snake their way down to the turbines and pumps. All you need is the desired height. Also, pumped water shafts are somewhat impervious to ground water infiltration since you would already have the pumps at the bottom of the shaft. Appropriate lining, as required for sections of the shaft would keep water infiltration rate under control. At the surface, place a large pond to accumulate all the pumped water. Above that water, place your solar panels. This could be an opportunity for profitable cheap hilly land in Pennsylvania, with lots of conveniently placed abandoned coal mines and mine shafts. Valleys in those mountains would become the ponds for storage. Solar and wind turbines, if appropriate, would span the tops of the hills. GitRDone!
Water introduces a series of problems that have to be dealt with. Filtering it, keeping it bacteria free, rust, leakage, etc. Steel\Lead is heavier than water and has none of water's design issues.
Too bad all the people and wildlife that live in those valleys would have to lose their home. And what of places without convenient hills or mine shafts? At least this method can be used anywhere
Better idea. Use buoyancy and gravity. Almost opposite of your idea.
Agreed with Mike. + Water evaporation would be a huge problem too. I think Mike meant that there are other denser* materials we can use instead of water.
the issue is, Einstein, that you need specific locations for pump storage...like a large supply of water and a nearby incline with the desired slope. the gravity technology in the video is exciting because it can be built anywhere.
We have this with pumped hydro and systems that use a weight and a water tank to force water out by gravity in an Accumulator.
Water bag batteries are my favorite. You use excess power to pump water into a giant bladder, when you need power, you open a valve in the bladder and use a combination of having a slope and progressively smaller tubes leading to a tiny nozzle that shoots the water into a turbine , which spins and generates power. Its basically a different kind of gravity battery
Sorry didn't catch the bladder,is that some sort of mechanical sphincter?
@@dinozaurpickupline4221I lol'ed out loud.
@@CallMeByMyMatingName just makin people laugh,stay content dear;)
That's a really interesting concept! Gravity battery systems like the one you mentioned are definitely game-changers. Speaking of power solutions, have you checked out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse with massive capacity, fast recharging, and comprehensive protections. It's perfect for outdoor enthusiasts and family camping trips. Plus, it's built with Segway's waterproof technology, so you can take it on any adventure, rain or shine! Just thought it might be something you'd be interested in.
its basically a small scale version of a pumped hydroelectric dam
My home is using full off grid solar power supply system for 6 years now, as I'm living in rural areas. Unfortunately, there's no stream/river near my residence. If there's a river near my house, of course I'll build micro hydroelectric. The source to get the energy is not big problem because I had 3kw solar panel arrays. Storing energy is really serious problem. I've spent much money to replacing batteries in average once per 2 years. Peoples said "go use lifepo4 batteries, they will much longer life span. They much cheaper than liquid batteries." Yeah, damn "cheap". Then I bought it. Guess what? No matter how good you maintenance them with all of your knowledge about batteries, they will be degraded too. I assume, they degrade very fast. I expect will use them for 5-6 years more. But at 2nd years, they started degrading. Lead acid/agm, gel, lifepo4, you named it.. I've tried all of these types of batteries. Agm is the most s*ck battery, they degrading way faster than I expected. I'm using agm battery for 2 years, gel battery is better; for 2 years and lifepo4 (untill now) still using it. Lifepo4 battery is the most complicated than other type of liquid batteries. Because this battery type build from assembling single cells. Need active balancer, very specific charging method, etc. The hardest part using this battery is to maintain the cell's voltage at the same level. Active balancer doesn't really help. It's impossible to make them 100% at the same voltage all the time. If one of them get in issue (lower or higher voltage), you know that you're about to draw your funds. Because it'll affected other cells, if not replace it asap. I've been thinking about using gravity for energy storage. And I'm thinking the same way too, the same as in this video. I decided to build small one. Maybe next year, because I need to save some fund for this mini project.
Must suck to be you. I live on grid with backup generators and a shit-ton of gasoline. I don't have to worry about my heat, air conditioning or any of my heavy electrical needs. You are one of those who heal themselves before becoming sick, ruining their lives in process. I see it everywhere nowadays. Enjoy.
It might be better to have a pool at the bottom, and have a tank and a pump filled with water, then having a weight. Speaking of batteries, have you tried full charge every once a week? If the battery state is kept over discharged too long, the battery will die much sooner. It might last more if the maximum usage be kept about 40% of the capacity and the battery still has 60% in storage all the time. Good Lead acid battery for cycle use should last about 10 yrs. with that. Of course, the capacity will degrade to around 80% from new by then, but should work. Also check the batteries idle temperature and storage environment as well. If its in a hot warehouse or something, it will die fast too.
If you are using a commercially available solar system with optimized components your batteries will have an integrated BMS and you will have a dedicated solar charge controller and an inverter with computer controlled integration of the entire system. Such a system will last for at least 3000-4000 charging cycles with LiFePO4 batteries. There are hundreds of thousands of those systems installed all over the world and they work without excessive replacements for many years. It sounds to me like you are trying to do DIY in an aera where it would be better to rely on commerically obtainable off-the-shelf optimized systems. The idea of using gravity as energy storage is useless for single housholds off-grid UNLESS you have access to a stream with a decent head and a decent flow rate. And even then if your household is not grid-integrated you will still need batteries. Because any energy storage system needs battery buffers when used in an off-grid situation. If I were in your situation I would invest my money in a decent solar system with optimized commercially available components. Forget DIY in this area unless you're a pro. You can combine the solar system with wind energy if you're living in an area where average wind speeds are higher than about 8-10m/s. As for long term storage of energy I see the power to gas approach as promising and there are companies that have already developed small-scale commerial products for use in off-grid situations. But those solutions are not cheap. However, no matter how you store your energy - in an off-grid situation you will ALWAYS need batteries as energy buffer.
I want something like this in my back yard. I would lift weights and carry them up the stairs into a large bin. I'd get a workout and also get some free electricity.
If the top of the tower was able to rotate and you placed a vertical sail or blades atop it, the wind could gently rotate the weight array and add even more potential energy via centrifugal force.
nice fantasy but I think your way of getting the weight upwards is not the one with least friction. Downwards or centrifugal are just directions of the gravity force. I see no added value in spinning a weight because you want centrifugal force tot harvest electricity. Keeping it simple up and down seems the least chance of friction and other mechanical losses. Actually the whole idea in this video seems still way more expensive then using water pumping up in a hilly surrounding and use the streaming back down to generate electircity. The only reason to chose lifting blocks is to avoid transportation of electricity. But as todays world is already a massive web of transporting electricity, the gravity method is best used with pump-lakes in mountain areas.
then it goes out of control and lauches those heavy weights into people or the ground
I love the innovation and never settle for the current energy sources attitude of the company
Imagine this system with two balanced loads which collect atmospheric moisture at the top, then drain it at the bottom. It seams that a system like that could function with no artificial energy input and provide a lot of energy for a long duration.
Sounds good, but I'd assume the time to collect the load would be impractical
You mean, like a dam? That collects atmospheric moisture in the form of rain? And drains it at the bottom with a turbine?
Yes but if it's balanced, you only get the enegy of the moisture. Which will be tiny.
@@1mlister atmospheric moisture is very high in some places. If the lift locks at the top until it it’s full, and then descends, it could dump its load at the bottom and the ascend once it’s empty.
yes, its called a river.
Sorry. This cannot work. I ran the numbers a few months ago in a discussion forum. Here is what I posted last April: The issue is the achingly low energy density per foot print unit area or construction cost. Digging a shaft would either have to be done through very sturdy soil (costly) or require bracing so that the pit does not collapse (also costly). If you compare with a well known hydro facility like the Hoover dam, and consider the figures, you can see how off the whole concept is. Hoover dam water head: 180 m Flow: 3300 tonne per second Installed power: 2 GW Active capacity: 19.554 km³ Reservoir area: 640 km² Cost: $49 million in 1931; reportedly the equivalent of $684 million in 2020 dollar This means, in the absence of replenishment, that Hoover dam could produce those 2 GW for about 6 million seconds, or almost 70 days, before the level gets too low. For the record, Los Angeles reportedly consumes 22000 GWh of electrical energy per year, which roughly translates to an average of 2.5 GW (but seemingly would peak at 7.8 GW) The largest solar farm in the world is in India, and has a 2.2 GW capacity (and covers over 56 km²) This happens to be a nice figure because it is essentially the same as Hoover dam. So, assuming that one does not have anything besides a very poorly flowing river but with a 180 m head, but with adequate reservoir capacity both uphill and downhill (about 10 km² area, if scaled from the lake Mead) and the equivalent of the Hoover dam power station that can be reversed to pump up the water, one would have a pair of solar farms of ~2 GW, one to power the actual day consumption, one to power the reversible hydraulic system during ‘charging-up’, and rely on the hydro reservoir to provide the power during night time, for an essentially constant 2 GW power production. (Of course, there are variations during a day, more power needed at certain time than others, but let’s just assume that it is regulated and balanced for simplicity’s sake). The final footprint for such an installation is around 132 km², 85% of which is solar farm. Interestingly, Los Angeles, as a city, covers 1302 km². Evidently, putting installations covering 1/10 the surface area of a city to power it will likely be done by finding suitable locations, which could be somewhat distant; high power transmission lines can allow the solar farm from not even be located close to the “hydraulic battery”, nor to the city itself. Now, let’s scale this down to this ‘crane and weight’ scheme. They were talking about 7000 blocks 30 tonnes each. They want to have a 100 m head. They want to use this operating for 8 hours (too low in my opinion, but let’s use their numbers). That means they would be dealing with 7.3 tonnes per second. 100 m 7.3 t compared with Hoover dam’s 180 m and 3300 t. So, their concept would be 0.123% of Hoover dam capacity, and you would need 814 such installations to compare. The cost for the structure of a building is reportedly between $35 and $50 per square foot - this value is for building that actually gets built, probably having somewhat distributed floor weight; this gravity battery would on the other hand be top heavy when fully charged, that probably means it would cost more, structurally, but let’s go with $50 and call it optimistic for now. The cost for digging a basement is reportedly $10 to $20 per square foot - but since a basement is only partly underground, the cost for a deeper well will be more expensive, as machinery will have to be lowered and soil brought up, etc. Interestingly, googling “cost for digging deep foundations” brings something that mentions ‘between $25 to $50 per square foot’, so apparently it costs essentially as much going up as digging down. So, you have this tower (or underground shaft) that will be housing 210000 tonne of blocks, and move them over 100 m height difference - the equivalent of 30 stories. Assume that you have 30 stories used as storage (i.e. story 1 blocks would be stored at level 31 when ‘high’, and blocks low at 30 would be hoisted to level 60) and we have a 60 story building. 7000 blocks distributed over 30 stories means 233 blocks per level, or 7000 tonne per level. Soil has a density of 2.65; concrete is 2.4. Let’s assume the density of the blocks would be around 2.5, as we have to take into account overall gaps, and the machinery to move them around, the tracks and so on. 7000 tonnes therefore mean 2800 m³. With 3 m height, we have 933 m² ‘foot print’ - essentially 10000 square feet. Time 60 ‘stories’, we have an equivalent of 600000 square feet. At $50 per square feet, that is $30 million. Only for the structure. To scale this back to Hoover dam proportion, we multiply by 814 - $24.4 billion. 35 times the cost to build Hoover dam. Again, only for the structure. No tracks, no lift, no power system. It does not matter if it is made part of an existing building or stand on its own; it would require its own structure to keep that weight up. That is why this project is ridiculous. It can never be cost competitive.
Truth is: Most innovations have had experts that "guesstimated" and calculated that they would never work. Until they eventually figure out a way to make them work. It's a recurring pattern.
@@Sn0w1981 Elon Musk is a good example if that. I am constantly hear people say he can't do what he says but his success rate is quite high
@@BlackandWhitecustoms It really comes down to who gets the credit for coming up with an idea or making it work. Lots of critical thinking is fueled by the hope that others wont succeed, just so their egos remain intact and they can say "See, I told you so"
@@Sn0w1981 Good luck finding people willing to build if *for free*, since this is what it would require. The structural material also would need to be donated. You go right ahead a figure out a way to make that half baked idea work.
@@vincentgoudreault9662 I see you have become convinced of your theory on this. But there is no way you can "run the numbers" and rule out every possible variation for a fairly new concept to become viable in the future. Technology is ever evolving, necessity and costs are ever changing. Creative minds have proven many neigh-sayers wrong in the past. My point is: Critical thinking is admirable, when doing so constructively and keeping an open mind.
Here is another idea: Abandoned strip mines can be half a mile deep. They look like an upside-down cake. The deep part of the mine is narrow. The part of the mine at the surface with the earth is wide. So, put turbines and pumps at the bottom of the mine. An appropriately sized catch water basin for the pumps at the bottom. Build a "pool" structure towards the top of the cake close to the surface. That pool is supported on a foundation around the circumference of the bottom of one of the top layers of the cake. The pool is as many feet in depth as you want for your potential energy storage. Solar supported and placed above the pool. At the center of the top circle of the cake, you build a cone section that goes lower than the bottom of your pool. That is to set up a center of gravity for all that weight of water. A column structure going down to the bottom of the mine supports that center of the pool. In the space between the bottom of the mine and underneath the pool structure you put your electric power plant and underground high voltage transmission out. Now, drop water to the turbines, pump it up for storage. Rinse and repeat. But, actually, there is a cheaper way to do the above with strip mines. You can spend a lot less money in the building of the pool of water over the mine. That is, that pool that is just hiding the previously ugly carved out strip mine. It could just be very shallow. The reason for that is that it would limit the weight that you would need your structure to support. For energy production, you're just interested in the height of the water column from the surface of the pool to the bottom of the strip mine. Then, if you have land adjoining your strip mine, dig appropriately around the mine to build a pond/lake to any volume you desire for your "water battery". That additional adjoining pond is cheaper, since the land itself supports that water weight. That section of water is also connected to the shallow part over the strip mine. By doing so, not only do you get a nice new lake for lake front living, but you have energy storage in the form of potential energy between the lake and the turbines and now you don't have to look at the ugly strip mine on your land. P.S. I'm a retired Electrical Engineer. All we need in this world is some imagination. Come on people. Get it done. There is always a way.
gravitricity.
You can also fill them compressed air if water isn't available or if there isn't convenient storage for the water above ground.
PD3045, Many Open Cut Mines are in Remote Locations. Some of these are Not Connected to a Grid. Therefore in Some Cases Better to Build Highrise Gravity Batteries Near an Existing Small Town so as to Create Energy Storage and Enhance the Small Town Economy. Two Positives instead of One Positive.
They are huge gold mines in South Africa more than 2 miles deep ! Coal mines 0,8 mile deep in Europe too.
@@ore4619 Absolutely. Potential energy storage from a water reservoir on the surface of the earth when using deep mines for energy storage from that water is relatively cheap. But, you do need either a deep cavity deep in the mine, where your turbines are placed to capture the water after power generation. Alternatively, you would need an underground natural water flow that you could dump the surface water into, the sink.
I was thinkoing about that way to store energy for a long time... I find it still promising, but I think the biggest problem is the massive load gears are exposed to. Moving Parts need constant maintenance and replacement. The storage facility can work for decades, yes. But only if you keep replacing some components. Imagine what happens if whatever the load is attached to starts to rust...
you're right, it's a scam. plenty of credible videos debunking the gravity battery.
@@networkedperson I don't think it's a scam. It's just a bit more complicated than the video makes it look like.
@@donalain69 You could pay for money to feed people, and then you could pay these people to turn a generator wheel with their hands. Technically, this would work, however, it would be a dishonest scam to say that storing energy inside people can be economically feasible. Likewise, it is a dishonest scam to say that storing energy in mechanical weights will ever be economically feasible. It is less efficient and more costly, by orders of magnitude, than systems which pump water into elevated lakes. It will never be economically feasible to use mechanical weights. So yes, it is more complicated. The complications prevent it from being economically feasible. The only way to believe that it can be feasible is if you don't understand reasoning. If you don't understand reasoning, then you should listen to people who do understand reasoning.
@@networkedperson sorry. i think the problem is we don't define "gravity battery" the same way. I include elevated water powered turbines in that term, even if the water isn't pumped up mechanically using solar power. (it basically is moved there by solar power anyway, just the natural way) For me the principle is the same, and where i come from (Switzerland), it's one of the main sources of energy for decades. But regardless of that... I'm not so sure if pumping up water really requires less power than lifting a weight using multiple pulleys while lowering it again without them.
@@donalain69 we have the same definition, however we are considering the costs differently. Comparing solid battery to liquid battery, the cost and efficiency of momentary operation could perhaps be similar, after all, 1kg of water stores the same potential energy as 1kg of anything else. However, the cost of construction and maintenance will be different. Consider for example Nant de Drance, in which 25 million m^3 of water are stored 425 meters above the generator... The construction cost was 2.2 billion Swiss Franc.... A water system is the least costly system that can store any useful amount of energy. The cost to build 25 billion kilograms of solid weights attached to 425 meters of cables will be exponentially more than 2.2 billions Swiss Franc... Meanwhile, the cost of maintenance for the cables and wheels will be exponentially higher for solid weights compared to the maintenance cost for Nant de Drance.
I really like the principle. There are losses, however in the lifting and falling process. Friction, motor/generator coupling, it's the same for water systems. But I like the fact that you could build a tall skyscraper in a city that would take up very little ground space and produce no pollution. I think they would be more convenient than water systems. Combine with a Solar/wind setup and you have a winner. I also like flywheel systems. Magnetic bearings in a vaccum. I'm not keen on huge Li-ion battery packs. I think the best place for Li-ion is in cellphones and laptops. EV'S are over the top because, when they battery wears out, you have to replace it and that's an arm and a leg. But I think Li-ion bikes have got something going for them. And then there's good old lead-acid. Easy to make, easy to recycle. People don't talk about them much these days. They are used extensively in mines. I think homes and busses have a place for lead-acid. Anything big-ish that has floor space and easy access to recharge. Everything doesn't have to be small and compact. Replacing lead-acid doesn't cost an arm and a leg and you can maintain them for many years if you know what you're doing.
Look up how much the 'skyscraper' able to keep that weight up would cost to build. I ran the number (I am an engineer) and there is no way this can be cost effective.
What they didn't mention here is that LiOn batteries can switch from full power storage to full power supply in milliseconds. LiOn battery farms employ software that allows them to monitor the constantly changing spot prices of electricity in real time, and switch back and forth (store when the price drops below a certain amount, supply when it goes above a certain amount) instantaneously, giving them a means of financial arbitrage that can make the company that owns them a lot of money. This has greatly offset the cost of LiOn and in some instances they show a net profit. Gas turbine generators take 25min to startup from cold if you're going to use them to try and sell into a high cost market, even an idling gas turbine can take several minutes to spin up, and idling a turbine while waiting for the right price is expensive. Pumped hydro can take even longer to switch from storage to supply, and even these gravity weight lowering systems take several minutes to reverse to make sure the cables aren't overstressed. LiOn batteries are first in to sell power before the price drops as other generators come online to sell, and first out when the price drops too low. And in a distributed marketplace like electricity, this is a big advantage.
@@vincentgoudreault9662 Many of these systems stack the weights on the ground. The structure is only there to support the crane.
@@glibsonoran And where they are in the 'up' position, they hover in mid-air, unsupported, maybe? Figure out how massive the structure needed to support the blocks in the up position, and you will have your answer: it cannot work, period. (And do not try claiming that they are supported by other blocks, since those would be, by definition, on the ground, hence would serve no purpose other than support. Then you look at the pyramid in Egypt and see how quickly the top layer need to taper)
@@vincentgoudreault9662 They're stacked on top of each other.
It gives me hope to read the comments on this vid, lots of knowledge and many good ideas.
this should be mandatory for all elevators in all buildings
Cables, motors, generators, bearings all will need replaced way before the 50 year service life stated. Using old coal mines bring a list of other problems and issues. Methane, oxygen, water, roof and rib supports all will have to be maintained due to maintenance requirements on your gravity battery. It won’t be cheap.
It will still be cheaper than lithium batteries.
@@lancelessard2491 but not cheaper then coal
@@bigmikesexcellentadventure6702 I don't know for sure, but coal has one distinct problem that weights don't have, and that's toxic ash that needs disposing of, and has an associated cost that needs to be figured into the cost of coal burning. Solar energy produces no waste products.
compressed air generators is also a solution. compressed the air during power production and use the compressed air to turn a turbine during off times
One thing to watch out for, slavery. I was working on small projects like this at the coffee shop I worked at in the 90s. My original thought came from the friction limiters to keep the doors from swinging wildly, those boxes with the hinged arm at the top of many doors. The energy from opening the door is managed and released as friction heat. I figured why not put the energy to use. I worked up many dorky contraptions to realize the concept, like clocks, fans, and the such. There are many sources of small energy release like this all over human activities. From doorways and appliances, like opening refrigerators and oven, to sound dampening floors, etc… Taken further, I thought, why not boost input, like make doors a fraction more difficult to open to gain the fraction more energy to the small system. Cars could drive over plates to “donate” energy, and the idea flooded, but then it hit me. This sort of idea leads to slavery. Why not just have a gym that uses the gym equipment to generate energy? From here the door to slavery opens up. Kinetic to potential energy devices exist throughout history. But then the thoughts of slavery and misuse of the technology freaked me out.
This technology, now re-coined as gravity batteries is ancient tech. Many slaves throughout history have lost their lives to power such machines. Go with caution. This technology will always lead to slavery.
I've worked heavy industrial for years, and the maintenance on this would very high along with a higher than acceptable failure rate.
who's to say it has to be completely vertical? It could be down a mountainside on a slope, the potential gravity energy wouldn't be as high but the material costs would be lower and it would be more easily serviceable
The energy stored does not care what angle it is moving on, vertical and sloped are the same, only loss do to friction changes.
That would take up a lot of space. I think if you get like how the oil drillers do it but with a bigger hole you can go down 30,000 feet and you can fill up a plastic container full of water or something dense that you wouldn't mind losing at the bottom and since you start at the surface of the earth the first drop would be free in the sense that it would generate a lot of the profit by putting power into the grid at peak times that by the time it got to the bottom and you started housing it up at bottom pricing for electricity in the grid it might cost less to hoist back up as it produced to drop and you collect the profit. Biggest expense would be digging the hole and lining it in a way that lasts so you don't have to do it again, and also hoping it generates more falling than it costs to haul back up. You could make several right next to each other and set it up to be basically autonomous except for maintenance once in a while. If one material becomes cheaper than other you can swap out whatever it on the platform to heavier weights with stronger pullies and bigger electric motors that produce more electricity on drop and can haul a heavier weight. If you can dig a hole straight down way far deep the first drop of the weight could generate some money
My comment below is appropriate for mine shafts or other underground installations. But, it also applies to above ground setups. Instead of spending money on concrete or some other manufactured weight, just use water. Empty tanks are suspended up on the towers, just like the discussed concrete or other weight. Such water tanks get lifted up there empty. Now, pump the water from ground reservoirs up to the empty tanks up high. That's your store of potential energy. Then, when you need power generation, let gravity do its thing with the tanks full of water. Once the tank is at ground level, it empties its load of water at practically zero potential energy. Use some energy once again to pull the empty tanks up to the top of the structure. True, concrete has about twice the density of water, so that would affect the volume, but the cost may be less. But, actually, you don't have to be lifting things over and over again anyways. Just build the structure to support the weight that you want, pump the water up there and let it fall down pipes. You would probably make the storage tank cone shaped so the center of gravity of all that stored water is on an appropriately sized support column in the middle for all that weight. Then, pipes come down the outside of the support column. In the end, all you really care about is the Head pressure of water for the turbines at ground level.
So how does it stay at the top? Does it use energy? Or is there a locking mechanism once it reaches the top?
im glad to see someone else is thinking about this.
Why does everyone keep forgetting about Geothermal...
This is not storage - it is moving energy with energy. It still take a source to move the energy. And there are limitations COPS rating for places that need more are lower
Here's what I'm thinking... I think my 1000ft^2 home consumes an average of about 27kwH per day(electricity only). To store that amount of energy within a 100ft tall column, it would take 325,405Kg assuming a 100% conversion of potential energy. That's essentially 358 tons(feel free to double check my math) Heavy duty! Not sure exactly how much my energy usage compares to an Industrial facility, but I'm left wondering.... is this practical, or pipe dreamz?
Yeah, when you put it that way it seems like a dumb idea. Without doing an exact calculation such as you did here, a ton of water is about a cubic meter. So your house would need about 360 cubic meters to fall 100 ft at 100% efficiency - or about a 7 meter sided cube (about 25 ft). That's just your one relatively small house. But my much larger (but efficiently run house) uses about the same kWh in the summertime (much less in the winter). I doubt mechanical batteries are a very good way to go. Better to use energy for some sort of chemical reaction process in much less space. Like hydrolysis of water to obtain hydrogen. But hydrogen is a real pain in the ass fuel - so something similar. Something with much higher energy density than anything purely mechanical such as this.
I would think using something like calcium bromide and some liquid storage tanks, pumps and turbines might be more flexible. It would take something like cesium formate to be the same density as concrete but I think 1.8 grams per CC versus 2.4 g for cc probably is worth the trade off.
I changed my mind I would use zinc bromide at its maximum saturation and then not only use gravity stores but also the zinc bromide could be used as a flow battery.
You are failing to see the wood for the trees. Gravity batteries other than hydro are useless.
Even if this were to be viable, in order to produce adequate potential energy storage for eight plus hours per day you would need to input 50% more energy each day from solar and wind then just producing power during the day. Add to this the fact that not every day is sunny and windy. Considering were we are with our current production capacity, how to store excess production capacity is a problem for way way down the road.
We need to figure out a way to make basically free heat gradient that is tapped for power. Examples: 1. geothermal 2. Solar chimneys
The most mind blowing fact is that this is an innovation lol
Efficiency and costs are pretty important. I live in Norway where we both have hydropower and a lot of wind and planned offshore turbines. So I guess here pumped hydro will be a greatsolution to store any surplus.
soon they are gonna up with an even GREATER invention, a windmill that raises the weight mechanically,,,, like a windmill grinds wheat ,,thus increasing efficiency ,,i am not a tech wizard or anything like that but i would guess that a wind turbine that produces energy and then uses said energy to lift a weight is allot less efficient that having the wind spinning machine mechanically lift that weight
Gravity batteries don't need to be made of concrete? Can they have steel frames that hold scrap material or resources in long term storage? (Dual puropse. Gives a place to keep things while taking advantage of their weight) Would have to be open air, can't retrieve containers off of structure when they are finally needed down in a mine shaft Water tower gravity batteries?
Downside is that these new systems only operate at cost. With no big profits no one wants to invest.
Flywheel storage would be a less intrusive option than mass gravity methods.
Except when they break go on a cross country journey and take out several cows minding their own business.
@@jeremylister89 But we can eat the cows....win, win.
If only there was a material which can go uphill on it's own, easily storable, and can have other uses besides a random weight. Since solids are harder to deal with and store, a liquid or gas would be best. If only this planet had a prevalent amount of liquid that naturally flows downstream, and has a natural cycle which bring it back upstream. Also, it would be nice if all this liquid organized itself into trails when it flows downstream, so that we could use a large body of this liquid or river to hold it then release it. The answer is water, not giant blocks which inefficently store weight, and have to remain stable while releasing energy. Hydroelectric power is much better than this scam version of a weight battery.
It's far from being scam. Of course hydropower storage is better but as the video mention, hydropower storage can't be built everywhere so this can be an alternative in that situation.
@@greenleafyman1028I just think using salt water n encapsulated insulated and corrosive resistant materials too use the old volta stack inside salt water pools with things such as hemp n plant carbons too make your design that is able too just sit half in salt water so it doesn't short n connect....plant carbon salt and metal on a simple build but scale up not down I mean it's not like we are short off land or sea water or land (islands) on sea water
Suffers from the same problem that wind and solar suffer from. It doesn't rain all the time. Sometimes your reservoir is reduced. Also evaporation is actively against you at all times. The problem is the duck curve of power generation vs usage. You've got to understand the basics first.
@@SecularMentat No, not a reservoir nescessarily, but a metal tank for water storage, doubling as a way to generate power, but also a place to store water with little to no evaporation. If worried about rust, use plastic, fiberglass, or a rust proof metal alloy.
You mean the liquid that seeps through cracks, evaporates, is in high demand both industrially and biologically, randomly replenishess, randomly disappears, requires large areas of land and has massive ecological impacts, surely you can't possibly be thinking of the absolute worst energy storage method compared to those in the video...
The gravity battery reminds me of the lifts used in skyscrapers and elsewhere. Americans ahould use these lifts as little as possible. Skyscrapers can also use transparent PV panels on the windows.
Moreover a lift ahould be set to generate electricity if it is carrying several people downwards, not to mention that people can use the stairs to go upwards.
We had a cuckoo clock with gravity batteries when I was a kid. Back then we called them weights.
Since 1991 I am using gravity battery of my own design, transforming solar and wind energy to potential energy of the concrete brick of 1200 kg weight. Must say, it is flawless and works without any expenses at all ( few bearings and grease so far) but efficiency is not that high. I hoped it would be about 30% but it is lower.
Where are the losses?
Very interesting comment!! Would love to watch a video about your experience. I think your percentage loss is actually comparable to other mechanical systems of storage such as pumped water.
30% Losses or effiency?
@@Ebuilt You can imply from his statement, "I hoped it would be about 30% but it is lower." Tvset was disappointed that the efficiency wasn't higher than 30%, but lower than 30%.
Hands down, the cheapest and simplest gravity battery requires: 1) a 250' high hill 2) railroad tracks laid from top to bottom - any number you want 3) ore cars filled with nearby rubble 4) cable for each car connected at the top to a motor/generator 5) $100 worth of computer chips to run the system I guess if you don't have a nearby hill, you have to start to build structures, but a hill is free.
Do the math and you'll notice that you'd need a VERY long and steep hill(miles) and something with the density of tungstun or lead in those carts, to generate enough electricity for rather few households.
@@shivadanis5938 OK show us the math...
You forgot the solar panels to pull of the weight up during the day from the SURPLUS of energy that they would produce.
@@amjan Hello - that's the whole idea
What is the cost of train and railway?😅 as someone has calculated above, you need to lift 2 million ton in weight to power a small town. This woild translate to ten of thousand of train
I think the trains on the hillside concept is the most practical other than pumped hydro. The towers would only make sense in completely flat terrain with no natural gravity options.
I still have a problem with the way water is stored to be used for electricity generation they have a natural water source, so they dam it build all the needed equipment and you have power on demand .... what I don't understand is why don't they move down stream and build another dam and do it all again? Depending on the terrain etc. etc. it could be done again apart from the $$$$$ its 2-3 or more times of electricity by reusing the water multiple times ....just a thought !!
Decomissioned missile silos are also a prime candidate for this concept. ICBM fields also tend to be in flat and remote lands that are ideal for wind and solar, so having a close gravity battery to store for high peak or surprise draws is fantastic.
I don't believe those are typically ~1000 m deep, unfortunately.
@@LightbringerDesigns About a 1000 ft actually. Some are more. I used to work on the explosive warheads, but never did see the inside of a silo personally. Just know a bit about them. Really gravity batteries will work at any depth but obviously more is better. You just need to be able to lift a weight up and hold it in place until you need to release its kinetic energy later. The beauty of having the weight underground is that if there is an accident, the damage is very contained with little risk to human life.
The problem could be charging power required is pretty fixed. The excess power has to meet the desired power range to lift up the weight. Whereas batteries are convenient to store. I believe having rooftop solar with a 10kWh battery for every house that can communicate with grid demand will be super simple and convenient.
Doesn't sound very convenient at all. You have to mine all that precious metals and equip it on every house. The houses are already wired for electricity you just have to get it to the grid.
@@TheAnnoyingBoss to top it off; 10% - 20% battery degradation within 10yrs, they will not outlast any mechanical system, industrial battery power storage require air conditioning (heat\cooling), any failures can destroy an entire unit by fire, shorts and swelling. Beyond that, their external maintenance is similar to those of gravity based variants. The video does a great job explaining the pros and cons
Pumped storage (call it whatever fancy name you want) has been around almost 100 years, it's simple easy to build and works. It does not have the highest efficiency, but has very low maintenance compared to almost anything else. It's already proven scalable.
This seems like an overly complicated Water Reservoir. You could just make giant buckets, fill them up with water and use those in place of concrete blocks.
There is a gravity battery that many are not aware of . Its called a floating city. The city is built in a tidal area and raises with the tide.When the Modules of the city are lowered we create electricity. This power is for the city and excess energy goes to the grid for other use like land based industries . When the tide turns energy is created by the force of the modules displacing the water and being pushed up.
I was just thinking of this as I watched this video
Wow... thx for the input! Genius!
Rising and falling on the tide does no work on the floating object- only if it somehow reacts against a stationary surface can work be extracted. This is physics 101 stuff.
@@r0cketplumber the object is tied to the bottom dah!!
@@r0cketplumber yes it reacts against stationary object . Each module is connected to the bottom of the tidal water. You will have to fill in the spaces otherwise it would be a 500 page concept !
I think it's a great idea. It has a lot of competition other than lithium though. Fly wheels, sand,salt.and all the emerging technologies, solid state, nuclear diamond. I think it's comparable with sand batteries. I feel like there's a lot that can be implemented in tandem with the gravity batteries like radio towers and fire detection equipment considering higher is better
It's a terrible idea because it is not cost effective to use any storage medium other than water and it is not cost effective to use any storage container other than lakes located in mountains. you can find plenty of credible videos debunking the battery gravity if you make an effort to look for these videos.
There's already solar batteries to store power from solar panels - if every house, warehouse and business etc had solar panels and solar batteries things would be a lot better.
I'm working on this project since my 10th class. Now I'm graduated in Physics. It was my Idea and Now I'm sure it will change world. Shahzaib Rasool
Don't burn your brain with gravity storage using DEAD WEIGHTS. Gravity storage is good using WATER, as many commenters have already said
The reality is how gravity batteries will not change the world.
..ya nothing new about this principle..been there since the first Hydro powered turbines
You sure won't.
Many people are talking about using water only for the gravity batteries everywhere. But the possibility of floods in case the dam is breached due to landslide or heavy rain or earthquake or wear-tear over time also needs to be calculated and kept in mind. Not to forget that in population dense countries, the land itself is much costlier and difficult to procure to extend or create new reservoirs. And the native communities which is displaced because of that since most reservoirs will created in somewhat far-off from cities areas and near forests and hills. Plus with keeping a big chunk of land, the greenery that goes inside water will be rotting and producing huge amounts of Methane, a Green House Gas with a higher capacity to hold the heat causing Global warming. And anyway, dams and reservoirs themselves create a barrier for aquatic species to procreate and survive causing biological degradation. It also affects the farm fields where the finer silt which aids the production of crops doesn't reach and instead gets deposited in the reservoir slowly making it unviable over time. The hydrological solutions cannot be expanded beyond a point without huge ramifications and is not suitable in most countries which need to switch fast to the renewable sources.
Such a clever perspective on environmental issues, which demand the comprehension of countless variables. We just can’t assume water is good everywhere, for big batteries need monstrous reservoirs, which destroy ecosystems besides being really damaging to communities, food security and so on.
Dam breaches are very rare and should never happen if they are properly designed.
The cost to store 1MWh in lithium is around $110 according to google. They also ignored thermal batteries which cost $50 for 1MWh.
What a concept, maybe if all of us bought solar panels and a few power walls, we could create our own electricity. Not to mention, draw on those batteries when ever there is power outage. We will have air conditioning at any given time as well as never losing our food in the frig.
The problem I see with these types of gravity batteries are "wear and tear". Using hydro, it's less likely that things are going to go wrong when it's essentially one hole full of water leading to another with the route filled with turbines(A bit more complex than that, but you get the idea). Gravity batteries as shown above however are far more complex and will require more maintenance. With it being such a heavy load in such a small space, you'll need to make sure every part of the equipment is in top condition, or risk the entire thing breaking. Not only that, but put it in the right spot and rain can essentially give free energy to hydro energy storage systems... granted, evaporation can do just the opposite, so it just depends how it's built. It's hard to beat water.
And for the record (I'm not a professional in the area so if I'm wrong please tell me) The smallest PSH (Pumped Storage Hydroelectric) station in the US has a power capacity of 1,065 MW So when numbers are thrown around like 80 Megawatts or when the prospect of 4 Megawatts being generated from the coal mine gravity battery seems like a lot, it's... really not.
@@SharkyShocker Yeah, but the possibility of floods in case the dam is breached due to landslide or heavy rain or earthquake or wear-tear over time also needs to be calculated and kept in mind. Not to forget that in population dense countries, the land itself is much costlier and difficult to procure to extend or create new reservoirs. And the native communities which is displaced because of that since most reservoirs will created in somewhat far-off from cities areas and near forests and hills. Plus with keeping a big chunk of land, the greenery that goes inside water will be rotting and producing huge amounts of Methane, a Green House Gas with a higher capacity to hold the heat causing Global warming. And anyway, dams and reservoirs themselves create a barrier for aquatic species to procreate and survive causing biological degradation. It also affects the farm fields where the finer silt which aids the production of crops doesn't reach and instead gets deposited in the reservoir slowly making it unviable over time. The hydrological solutions cannot be expanded beyond a point without huge ramifications and is not suitable in most countries which need to switch fast to the renewable sources.
Ever replace a pump?
I think with these solutions building it in deserts and wide empty land that is not usable for agriculture is important.
I got the idea from this and write my business plan for renewal energy..the battery store energy and supply to city, harvesting energy and store it and supply…I hope to present the simple concept using the existing infrastructure we have at the moment..
The commensuration is being made between Li-Ion batteries with gravity batteries, but is it feasible to charge a mobile without Li-Ion battery in it, as I feel it's almost unlikely to encorporate gravitation like technology into mobile. For storage purposes in mobile, small sized batteries are only the solution.
How about elevators? Could a small scale charger be put on every elevator to capture the descending energy?
Would be interesting if this could be combined with geothermal in the case of a mineshaft, and offset cost from mineral resources 🤔
Seems like Norway solved this for themselves already, using reservoirs for storage.
My idea spent time working on this idea. Because you need a huge amount of weight, my research was on making houses themselves be the weight. In particular this is appropriate for houses that are in high wind areas subject to storms, because their weight makes them safer than lightweight wood houses. And along the coast where you need to raise them to avoid flooding, so having the mechanism to raise and lower also make the house safer. To increase raised height, you want to lower them below ground at base height. A full very thick two story concrete house could store about 3 days of energy, maybe more if you conserve how much time computers are on watching youtube videos.
There are those who say it’s not possible to store sufficient energy this way. I say rubbish why on earth not if we put our minds to it. I’m sure the same people would years ago have said it’s impossible to make light carry data, fibre optic ! This gravity technology is a brilliant idea that could be put to all sorts of use both industrial and domestic, only time will tell but my moneys on it. 😊
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 total nonsense
Same people say the same thing about hundreds of scam that fool billions from innocent people too. Not every idea can be successful only just because we put "all effort" into it.
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 So using the weight of water is also a myth, better recycle those studies
This is just adding complexity to what already exists.
the project with cranes and stackable concrete blocks is silly, because if they want to place it next to wind farms then the wind will be blowing the loads of the crane, just imagine trying to align those, will be an unnecessary cost.
In most cases, the most successful methods will be those with the least complexity. Pumping fluids and using train cars on a slope are both simple solutions. Where you can use train cars, your highest costs include mostly the grading of the slope. Everything else is off-the-shelf rails, motors and rail road cars. Same with fluids, but your advantage is only needing high spaces and low spaces because your reservoirs can be of flexible shape and location. I think as many have pointed out, the problem is energy density. Any gravity solution must be able to store enough energy at low enough investment to make it worth the effort. In these cases, its either a lot of cars or a lot of water. The solutions also need to compete with hydrogen storage when hydrogen generation is increasing in its efficiency.
Or... Pumped Hydro?
Use atmosphere as a source of energy⚡ Even a millimetre change will give us huge energy⚡ all over the world and it will save us from crisis of energy⚡
Nikola, Benjamin and I agree with you !
@@Buzzhumma 10^18 kg total weight of air 🤣🤣🤣 So simple we got very huge amount of energy per mm So we can achieve very good source of energy forever
The prototype in Switzerland was called EV1. Today the system is called EVX. The first of these has been implemented and is online in China. The company behind it: Energy Vault.
I'll need to do some math, but consider that groun-loop heat pumps are becoming popular for residential uses. They require a well--like cylinder to be drilled into the ground. Could the same drilling systems be used to drill for a gravity "battery" system for residential pv energy storage? It seems reasonable.
Can the engineering overcome catastrophic weather events that could cause severe damage to a tower structure with all that weight on it?
No problem, we have the tecnology and the know how. Next: fusion and Energy forever.
you mean like a magic structure? maybe make it out if wolverines bones.
I did some rough calcs on my part and when I compare gravity storage to lithium-ion battery storage, Li-Ion wins by A LOT! At 5:20, can you elaborate where did you get this calculation from? Here's what I did to compare: Epot = m*g*h = 50.000kg * 9,81 m/s^2 * 15m = 2kWh. So, Gravitricitys little port-prototype there can store about 2 kWh of energy, if there's no conversion losses. I imagine costs will be in the 5 digits surely, let's generously assume 60.000€ for the gravity battery. In comparison, the average price of a Li-Ion battery is around 150€/kWh. For a 2 kWh battery plus grid connection you would pay a generous estimate of 3.000€. Now compare 60.000€ to 3.000€ for the same 2 kWh of energy storage. Gravity storage pros: Depending on the motors, probably a lot more power output than the Li-Ion battery. Good for grid stability and fast reaction to load changes in the grid. But, don't we have much better renewable energy storage alternatives for improving grid stability? Like vacuumised flywheels, super capacitors on the uprising, large pumped water storage connected to the grids? Please add to the discussion, I am curious what you have to say about this!
The amount of maintenance required for a mechanical system like this is an absolute nightmare. Just ask any elevator technician. Pumping water back up to an elevated reservoir only has 1 moving part per pump.
the maintenance standards required for lifts that carry people would be much more stringent than some concrete blocks in an enclosed vertical column ... they replace wire rope that is only 10 % worn out
In hilly or mountanous areas, you can build a ramp along the slope of the hill and use a cart that moves back and forth. Capacity could be varied with the slope, and dimensions of the cart and cables. No need for a dangerously tall tower with microgearing.
These systems have a very broad range of efficiency, with many under 50%, which this presentation conveniently ignores. This needs a lot of work.
Why not use the weight of batteries for gravity battery so you charge batteries while pulling up the weight and during peak hours you discharge both.
"You may be shocked to find out" 😂😂😂
No need to use concrete, just a box of sand and a hill can do it.
My guess is that one day (hopefully soon) we'll arrive at the conclusion that large scale energy storage is unlikely to ever meet global needs and reach the inevitable conculsion that nuclear is probably the only way we'll ever get out of this growing global energy mess. And get on with it.
The only way that would happen is when they discover how to safely mine store use radioactivity.
@@Jack-bs7cy True, but if you do a little research, you will see that there have been huge advances in nuclear power generation and safety. The alternative is being played out all over the world. Look at UK right now. Nothing to do with Putin turning off the taps, they are in very dire straits largely due to a blind push for renewables. Zero emissions is (sadly) not really an option for a nation given current tech and resource availability. Nuclear is the only way to reach scale and keep emissions low (very low).
@@deldridg we all should be in a blind push for renewables. Anything else is insanity.
A harbor full of boats that weigh say 20 billion tons is raised by high tide. That's an unbelievable amount of energy wasted daily.
@@someguy5438 True, but harnessing that energy in usable form is exceedingly costly and requires vast amounts of manufacturing and there are limited places to do it. However, it is being done off the coast of the UK and various other locations (Norway as I recall). It's certainly not without its problems but is providing energy for domestic use as we speak (which is great). However, it will never scale to global needs (too expensive, not enough suitable locations etc.) and will like all current renewable technologies, will only ever be a supplement to fuel-based electricity production, of which nuclear is the only one with near zero emissions. BTW - the entire global fleet of ships weighs somewhere around 2.1 billion DWT (around 54,000 ships at ave wt of 37,300 DWT) - but I understand what you meant! 🙂
Yeah. Another world changing technology..... Yawn. We all know how these go.
Here is a common sense add on. Why not combine the two concepts? Why raise a ridiculous high load, when an empty container be raised and water pumped into it before the load is the dropped? Both techniques combined when certainly produce more energetic with greater efficiency,
Do elevators in buildings use this technique to generate electricity?
I love this kind of thinking, there are so many benefits from using recycled elements to reusing mines that were paid for decades even centuries ago. It will help advance carbon fiber and carbon nanotube technology possibly extending to a future space elevator. imagine a gravity battery but the weight is lifted with antigravity rather than excess stored electricity. The pessimist in me thinks... little too little, little too late. Maybe the next dominant species on Earth will be smarter than humans.
Using mines is expensive because you have to support the sides of the mineshaft. Why not just pump water to a lake on top of a mountain
@@JL-tm3rc Mine shafts that have been stable for hundreds of years aren't going to need reinforcement and nothing but the weight will make the journey up and down. Water would work too but I'd bet water turning a generator isn't as efficient. I like the idea of using old abandoned mine shafts that people couldn't figure out how to keep using them. Stay safe JL. Your middle name doesn't start with a B, does it?
@@brianbassett4379 pumps are more efficients that is why we do not place water in container and drive them up through tracks
who thinks that pyramids might be gravitional batteries?
"It may shock you" Nice one ;)
It is important to note that energy storage helps all powerplants, including 'base power', so it's not just alternative energy.
Great presentation. Ty
I feel like it would take more energy to Lyft these weights then what it would produce for output, however I understand that these are just meant as batteries for storage use when needed so yea I do like this mechanical form of battery
Such a simple but ingenious idea
I was about to suggest all those abandoned gasometer towers as potential sites for gravity batteries, but unused mine shafts are even better.
Another way to store energy is by compressing air into stainless steel air tanks for use in off hours. It wouldn't be cheap but it would be way less expensive than gravity systems.
You mean like...a dam? Ancient Greece called...it wants its revolutionary new idea back.
The most obvious answer is in the background of the Swiss Alp test site and the Nevada test site. It's the mountains in the background. The best example is of the coal mines where tracks are already built. In fact, if they need to backfill some of them they could fill the cars at the top. Otherwise the straight up use of filling the cars with a load is good enough. But using long steep mountain slopes is cheaper to build tracks than making tall steel structures. Even ski slopes could develop a method to load and unload weights on the gondolas going down to save on power.
BWSSB supplies ~ 1450 Million Litres Daily. Using alternate energy to pump up water to a height during the day and releasing it at night and early morning will get many benefits. About 80% cost would be eliminated.