you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 67 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (24 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (9 children)
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • the other arguably more effective option for home use is dumping it into heat. Heating up water is a great heat storage solution for radiant heating for instance. Getting that energy back out is arguably harder, but hot water is also pretty useful, so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    Hydrogen fuel cells also. Use the excess to make hydrogen which is simple to store and then use it as a fuel to burn when you have demand. These have started to be put at the bottom of wind turbines so they don’t need to be stopped when the wind is blowing but there is no grid demand.

    All these systems help balance the grid too meaning these renewables can be used as base loads instead of dirtier base load generators like coal or gas fire stations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    hydrogen which is simple to store

    Hydrogen is famously not simple to store. This is part of the reason that SpaceX rockets use kerosene instead of hydrogen despite the better performance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Be careful that other rockets run on liquid hydrogen, which should be kept extremely cold. That is the main problem for them. That being said, hydrogen is indeed not easy to store and transport.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    i mean, conceptually it's simple to store, you put it in a container, the tricky part is doing it effectively, in a way that won't create a massive bomb. And also at density.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Conceptually, yes, it's like putting it into a container. But it's also made up of the smallest atoms possible, which means it leaks out through a lot of materials. It also reacts with other materials - which makes it a good rocket fuel - but it also corrodes materials it comes in contact with in innovative and frustrating ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This is like the gravity generators they're looking to use old mines for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's exactly like gravity batteries, but do get fooled with fancy renders and inspirational music.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Lol that's great, and I was more talking about the ones for mines that already have deep holes, this one is hilariously stupid though. Water does make a lot more sense though, only issue I can see with it would be evaporation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • pumped hydro is pretty slick but incredibly dependent on geology and ecosystem.

    Thermal storage is a similar vein, you can even use water, we do use water for this even. Compressed air as suggested, i believe there's a mine somewhere in the US that's used a compressed air storage plant. And of course, motion, flywheels go hard i hear, but i find those to be less preferable, even if high energy density. I imagine those would work better at scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The only problem is that it is inefficient

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's more efficient than just dumping the energy, at least some is being stored

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    depends a bit on how much energy it costs to build it all, how many decades it should be used how often, and if it's then durable enough to actually earn back the extra energy it costs. It might, just sayin'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    We use gravity batteries in the UK. They work well and are pretty good at their efficiency. When you are creating massive systems they are made to last decades. There is always upkeep but it is the same with coal, gas and nuclear plants. All these renewables are far cheaper and far more cost effective than these power stations and for years the main problem has been that wind and solar cannot be used as base load, but with battery storage on a mass scale, thermal and hydrogen storage, we are now at a place where building out far more solar and wind than we need is viable and mixing in these technologies to provide base load and grid stability.

  • source
  • parent