this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
261 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

75258 readers
3597 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Neat breakdown with data + some code.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ratten@lemmings.world 10 points 13 hours ago (6 children)

How come we can't design energy storage that lifts something heavy when there's excess power, and lets it fall to generate electricity when needed?

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 4 points 5 hours ago

It's usually called hydroelectric and implemented with dams and turbines.

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Potential energy (in joules) is mass (in g) times height (in meters) times 9.8 m/s^2 .

So in order to store the 30 kWh per day that the typical American house uses, you'd need to convert the 30 kWh into 108,000,000 joules, and divide by 9.8, to determine how you'd want to store that energy. You'd need the height times mass to be about 11 million. So do you take a 1500 kg weight (about the weight of a Toyota Camry) and raise it about 7.3 meters (about 2 stories in a typical residential home)?

And if that's only one day's worth of energy, how would you store a month's worth? Or the 3800kwh (13.68 x 10^9 joules) discussed in the article?

At that point, we're talking about raising 10 Camrys 93 meters into the air, just for one household. Without accounting for the lost energy and inefficiencies in the charging/discharging cycle.

Chemical energy is way easier to store.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

So do you take a 1500 kg weight (about the weight of a Toyota Camry) and raise it about 7.3 meters (about 2 stories in a typical residential home)?

Honestly that is way, way more reasonable than I was expecting. This isn't half as bad of an idea as I thought it would be

[–] ratten@lemmings.world 1 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Actually, yes. Lifting the weight of a Toyota Camry 2 stories seems reasonable for a day's worth of energy storage for a house.

I'm not sure how expensive the lift and generator will be, but the weight itself can be anything that's sufficiently heavy.

You say chemical energy is way easier to store, but is it really easier and cheaper to store the energy needed for a home in a chemical battery?

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

is it really easier and cheaper to store the energy needed for a home in a chemical battery?

Yes. A 5kwh battery is about 50kg and smaller than a carry-on suitcase. String 6 of them together and you've got 30 kWh stored with no moving parts. Anker has that for about $15,000, maybe $30k installed.

How much does a 3-story elevator cost? What about one that can capture the stored potential energy on the way down, and not break down?

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

Hmm… this might be easier to do with an electric car. Put it on an inclined track, and then drive uphill to store energy, and go downhill to release the energy.

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 16 points 11 hours ago

It's an idea that's been played with a few times, but there are many energy loss points in such a system, as well as logistics for keeping the "stack" from falling over. The best so far is pumping water up to an artificial lake, but that's still not very efficient.

[–] edent@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

1 Watt is the equivalent of moving 1Kg 1 metre in 1 second.

If you want a kilowatt - you need to move 1,000Kg 1 metre in 1 second. Or, I guess, 1Kg a Km.

Plug the numbers together and you'll see that you need a massive physical load and a huge distance in order to store a useful amount of energy.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

This seems like a way different conclusion than the car * 7.3m / day guy

[–] edent@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The secret ingredient is gravity!

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 12 points 12 hours ago

The energy math doesn't make sense for grid scale applications with solid objects.

https://youtu.be/iGGOjD_OtAM

However if you can get water between two places it can work quite well. You need to live close to a big change in altitude and do a bit of geoengineering to create the upper and lower reservoirs, which can be destructive to local ecology, but not as much as a dam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

You can also use pumped air underwater with higher energy losses than pumped storage hydro because of compatibility of air.

https://electricalindustry.ca/changing-scenes/1785-world-s-first-utility-scale-underwater-compressed-air-energy-storage-system-activated-in-lake-ontario/