97
submitted 2 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

The main problem with gravitational storage is that it is incredibly weak compared to chemical, compressed air, or flywheel techniques (see the post on home energy storage options). For example, to get the amount of energy stored in a single AA battery, we would have to lift 100 kg (220 lb) 10 m (33 ft) to match it. To match the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, we would have to lift 13 tons of water (3500 gallons) one kilometer high (3,280 feet). It is clear that the energy density of gravitational storage is severely disadvantaged.

It seems the problem is not necessarily one of conversion efficiency, but rather of scale. In order to store significant amounts of electrical energy using mechanical means, you need to move a lot of weight. Manufacturing the concrete blocks requires money and raw materials, and a pulley system robust enough to move them around wouldn't be cheap either. The pumped storage hydroelectric systems which currently provide the vast majority of our grid energy storage partially circumvent this expense by taking advantage of natural bodies of water and advantageous topography.

That being said, it's definitely a fascinating concept and one worth exploring. But there are well established difficulties that explain why this type of energy storage isn't already widespread.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

right, it only makes sense if you do it at large scale

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

it only makes sense if you do it at large scale

Or rather, it specifically might NOT make sense at scale. It might only make sense in middle scales, where there isn't a topographic advantage to use, but the requirement is more than batteries can support.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 22 hours ago

What I meant is that you need to build a unit of a certain size before it becomes efficient enough to be practical.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Yes, I agree. I'm just making the point that there isn't just a lower limit to the scale for a system like this, but an upper limit too, where you would have been better off just building a dam.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 20 hours ago

Yeah for sure.

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
97 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

42893 readers
180 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS