Sometimes calling out dumb ideas as dumb ideas is necessary in order to keep public resources from being wasted on a well-intentioned but flawed strategy. There are plenty of examples of public works projects that continued moving forward when the folks in charge should have known better.
It’s very common for smart people who are trying to come up with a disruptive new technology to get hyper-focused on solving one specific technical problem while missing the more important big-picture issues. Many of this guy’s videos do a good job of using numbers to convincingly break down why a given technology or public works effort is not the most efficient answer to a given problem. For example, this critique of using a Hyperloop style system for transporting freight from ports makes many valid points that were not addressed in the taxpayer-funded feasibility study that was done researching the option for a system running from Chicago to Cleveland.
In the case of his videos on things like the architecture and layout of Dubai I think his mean-spirited style is more than justified.
I think it’s worth pointing out that versions of these “drop a weight” storage methods that don’t get internet poopooed tend to involve a captive weight in a fixed shaft.
In terms of storage for local use, at the consumption point rather than the generation point. You see a lot of ideas to mount these systems in the walls of your house. Or in the central shafts that we already tend to build into sky scrapers. And of course the mine shaft thing.
None of them tend to involve this Lego element.
So whether pumped water, or a weight system. There doesn’t seem to be any reason it can’t be integrated into the wind turbine. Especially as Turbines tend to be getting larger.
And I have seen that proposed, especially when it comes to off shore wind farms. There’s no real reason you can’t run one or a couple of very big weights down the center shaft of that there very tall power generating structure you already have clearance to build.
Or pump water up it.
In terms of pumped storage. It’s already so much of a thing, because we already just build it into the base infrastructure for hydroelectric. And whether we rig them for power generation or not, it tends to be an inherent part of our water supplies as well. It’s not uncommon to see hydro-electric, pumped storage, and water infrastructure operate as a single nested system.
To keep the off topic bit brief. Good ones are not cheap, hundreds to thousands for something with a legitimate movement. Mostly seem to be sold online and coming out of Germany. My grandfather’s is from the 60’s or 70’s, and was not particularly cheap but not a high end one. It has a good carved wooden case. But the movement and cuckoo are cheap and mostly plastic.
Mechanically practical doesn’t mean the same as economically viable. If you can build a thing and it does work, well that makes it mechanically practical even if the inefficiencies make it a waste of money. So please don’t confuse the two in an attempt to look smarter than the rest of the group it just makes you look rude.
Furthermore, it’s more likely these will be supplements to the grid not the same domain as battery storage systems. They’ll compete in whatever part of the distribution system (not transmission/generation system) however the power companies see it. Right now, they’re toys, nothing more.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. He was using his engineering expertise to explain why a specific proposal would be a highly inefficient (and thus economically infeasible) approach to energy storage.
Just because something can be built does not make it practical.
Again, my words didn’t say economically viable. I’m sorry if this comes off as mean but I don’t say one specific term then that means it’s applicability isn’t relevant to what I said. If I said “oh gee, pumped water towers are gonna make loads of payola for sure” then it would be fine to rebuke that but going to the point of saying something isn’t mechanically practical when in practice it is (there are cases of pumped storage being used right now) then they’re wrong flat out and it’s really not up for discussion from there.
There are some small examples of hydroelectric power in Florida. If hydro can work there, it can work almost anywhere there’s water - you can’t get much flatter.
Pressure storage still has practical usage, sorry, his examples don’t cover all possible forms. I’m just not gonna debate this. It’s just clear some folks wanna talk down to people.
Who said that pumped hydro in general was impractical? Not me. As noted it’s been used in many places for decades. I’m skeptical that building purpose-built water towers as storage for pumped hydro is a practical (read: cost effective) solution, and I’m not aware of any examples of water towers being used for that purpose but if you can point to some then I’ll certainly reconsider my position.
We were involved in some litigation with FERC and the Forest Service over a pumped-storage station, and there can be a lot of issues with pumped storage that I wouldn’t have anticipated, including entrainment of wildlife in the turbines and temperature changes in sensitive habitats even far downriver with the release of stored water.
Any area that has pumped storage problems due to habitat/environment is also going to have similar problems with an energy vault. assuming those concrete blocks are 5 feet by five feet by ten feet, you’re talking 37500 per block. 1000 of these blocks is 37,500,000 pounds of concrete getting slung around. That’s going to be … messy to construct, to transport, to move, to hold up, etc.
Sure thing, sorry for taking it personally but what I’ve seen so far wrt water towers is mostly using them in part with aquifers. It’s all purely theoretical from what I’ve seen so I’m sure it’s not going to go much of anywhere.
Another reason to go for the converted mine shaft idea. In most cases the mining operation already trashed the local environment anyway so if anything switching it over to a gravity battery will probably be an improvement.
