you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'd love more numbers on energy density because I suspect this might be truly awful in that regard to the point that it probably isnt worth the cost savings from cheap materials. Plus the not inconsiderable mechanical wear this will have.

I suspect at some point someone will work out cathedral sized towers of concrete is just not worth it vs LFP or sodium batteries and a grid forming inverter on the same footprint with a lot more energy density.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm always fascinated by comments like this. Like there's this underlying assumption that professional engineers building this project didn't bother to do some basic math to figure out whether it would make sense or not. I suspect they spent a bit more time figuring this out than some random bozo on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    professional engineers building this project didn't bother to do some basic math to figure out whether it would make sense

    It is built by a western company that has made some very questionable claims and is floated on the USA stock exchange, so.. let's just say it isn't unprecedented.

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

    But it's built in China with support from the government. Again, I don't think they're rubes and just threw a bunch of money at the company without asking any basic questions about feasibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    It's still interesting that it's actually been built. Even if energy density is low, having a real production one will give way more evidence for/against the idea that speculation.

    I'm curious how much maintenance it will need when it's actually powering the grid for 4+ hours/day.

  • source
  • parent