Technology
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
view the rest of the comments
the article says it's recycled though...
I mean I would guess it's for energy density not environmental savings of any kind.
I would guess it's because it's likely very low cost and easy to build, but there are obvious environmental savings that fall out of it naturally.
sigh.... Buh dim tish.
On the topic, I really doubt it's about savings at this scale, which is very much proof of concept. I mean it could be but at this stage it's more important to show it's potential. And for some thing that's gonna run for thousands of cycles..
I mean, unless they're directly cutting up old buildings into the final block shape for this (which would be a nightmare to actually do), it doesn't actually help that much. You can't practically un-make concrete and turn it back into that slurry that comes out of the mixer truck, AFAIK all "recycled" concrete means is old concrete gets crushed into fragments and used in place of gravel. But the gravel is not the truly problemic part, you still need more cement to bind those fragments into your desired shape, which releases carbon and consumes water.
But you do that once, and the thing lasts 35 years, somehow I can't imagine environmental impact would be worse than mining and refining rare earths for regular batteries here.
I mean it depends on the energy density. Where the batteries go. Can they be just "slapped into" existing infrastructure? Can they rare earths be used effectively indefinitely once mined, and on and one and on.
An inability to imagine isn't a form of evidence.
Energy density has nothing to do with this. It's the cost of how much pollution refining the rare earths and making batteries produces vs the amount of pollution associated with construction of a building with pulleys that move weights up and down.
No it absolutely does, and it matters because:
If an entire building could be supplied with a few elevator shafts and some weights, because the energy density of the system is so high, it would be silly not to do so. But the energy density of these systems isn't remotely close to that. Where as yes, a building absolutely can be built with batteries as a part of it to support its typical duty cycle.
Gravity is just not a particular energy dense form of storage. Its not really debatable. And like you said, building buildings comes with all kinds of other forms of pollution. Not to mention, we could be building them to house people, not pulleys and weights.
Its an idea that sounds good, but once you engage with it seriously, its limits become obvious. Pumped hydro will almost always make more sense. A big tank at the top and a big tank in the basement, and bam. Battery built. not to mention you've got a semi-permanent back up reservoir now built, which could help with flood control, drought tolerance, fire control, all kinds of other things. And you don't need to build new buildings for this. They can go into/ on existing buildings.
I would imagine that hydro would actually have to deal with more friction leading to more energy loss.
Sure, but its like, way, way way easier to scale a hydro system.
In certain conditions that's true.