- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9551599
A western video that doesn’t demonize China? Hell yes.
If you didn’t know about gravity batteries, they are a very efficient form of energy storage that work so simply on paper, you have to wonder why we didn’t think of it sooner.
Basically you build a huge weight (24 tons for starters), which can be made of sand, cement, or anything sufficiently heavy you can find.
But how do you get electricity out of a huge slab of concrete, you ask? You simply raise it up into the air. When the grid is producing more electricity than it needs, cranes raise this block of weight up in the air using the excess energy. Then, when the grid is consuming too much energy, the block is released and allowed to drop back down, turning a turbine in the process and producing electricity.
It’s basically undoing what you did, or reversing the process. A lot of energy storage works on that principle. You let the block fall down naturally with gravity at the same speed you raised it up. It’s like the dynamo on your childhood bike.
And the energy output is huge. First the stored (potential) energy inside the concrete block is 100% efficient: it will use as much energy to drop this block than you used to get it up in the air. However, because of inefficiencies in the electricity conversion process, the actual conversion rate is around 80% (if I understood the video correctly). But potentially, you could make this system output just as much electricity as you put into it.
There is also no leakage like in dams, which operate on the same principle (pump water into a reservoir when consumption low, let it fall into a lower reservoir when consumption high, it hits a turbine when falling down and moves it). Dam water evaporates, and li-ion electricity dissipates naturally. But a block of concrete will stay in place when you raise it up because gravity is a constant. It will not move an inch.
Building such a battery is not super cheap yet: China invested over 1 billion USD for their grid. However, once it’s built the battery can last well over 35 years and most of all, you can build those everywhere in the world because all they need is a weight and vertical space. Conversely getting lithium for li-ion battery farms is not available to everyone, and hydroelectric power (which uses the same gravity principle and can also store energy using a pump to pump the water back upstream) is even more geographically dependent. But everyone has rocks, sand and soil to make 24 ton blocks.
The cost of producing electricity with this type of battery is estimated to be 5 cents per watt, compared to over 12-17 cents per watt for a hydro dam. It has large upfront costs, but the return is some of the best you can get.
Moreover, I think it’s also important to note that we see China is relying on all types of energy storage, building a resilient grid. While they are the only country actually building gravity storage at scale (in the west this is still just prototypes here and there), they are also making li-ion farms, hydro dams, and what have you. They don’t rely on a single method which would lead to a single point of failure.



A good lithium battery can store 250 Wh/kg. That’s 900 kilo joules.
How high would have to lift a kilogram of matter to get the same energy storage?
Approximately 91,743 meters
Technically, you could replace a kilo of lithium ion battery with 1000 kilos of waste material and lift it by 100 meters to get similar energy output
But at that point, how many poor countries are going to bother? It’s a lot of construction costs and space usage.
I think this project makes more sense as a short term grid stabiliser rather than an energy storage unit.
The power output is good, and would be clean and have inertia. That’s something batteries struggle with.
This kind of facility could replace flywheels. But not batteries.
What if we lifted the batteries in the sky?
High voltage
how much shit do you have to chow through to get to the battery though. on the other hand, pumped storage is usually more flexible, and china can probably finesse their way with their giant hydro plants
I’m not sure what you mean by chowing through to get to the battery.
water you evaporate in lakes, sodium/magnesium salts refuse from those lakes, cobalt/nickel ore unneeded stuff thrown in dumps somewhere in indonesia/russia/australia. in comparison gravity battery, while being low tech/slow reaction time/low throughput, you basically need steel and copper for motors, and that’s it
basically, 20 grams of nickel in a battery is 1 kilo of rock harshly treated somewhere just for nickel
it’s not for nothing people have some alarms about stuff needed for full electrification with batteries as backbone, instead of hydro/nuclear. copper and nickel are main culprits, but lithium is also not very pog, especially from mining compared to lakes
So you mean that getting battery materials is polluting? Yes, that’s true, but the energy density of gravity batteries (excl. Hydro) is simply too low. Their adoption rates will be low. Battery chemistries and configurations will continue to improve, while gravity batteries are already close to the best they will ever be.
If you wanted to build a gravity battery that could store one day of energy for your average consumption household (~30 kWh) you would need to lift your 24 ton block about 570 m if your energy recovery was 80%. That would make your battery the sixth tallest building in the world.
I think a large scale facility like the one in the video can make good use of the technology, and it has clear advantages over other forms, but energy storage is still a difficult problem, and for many applications, gravity batteries will always be underwhelming.
Weight matters for use cases where you’re moving the battery around, like a laptop or phone. Because it’s just feeding energy back into the grid and doesn’t need to be moved at all, the better comparison is lifetime cost per kWh of the gravity battery versus the lithium battery warehouse, or the embodied energy of construction of the gravity battery versus the embodied energy of construction and manufacturing of the lithium battery warehouse.
Certainly, but under capitalism, capital is always overpriced, especially in less developed countries. Many places where this kind of thing would be useful would look at the upfront costs and just go for lithium batteries instead. They might even take the pakisthan approach of having large numbers of individual consumers install solar+battery packs for individual use.
Doing some calculations about space usage, it’s also not good, even if you pack shit tons of mass together.
Supposing a 100 m column using blocks that have a density of 3000 kg/m^3. Blocks are lifted from when their bottom touches h=0 m to when their top touches h=100 m
The energy stored is maximised when the total height of all blocks in this column is 50 m. Their center of mass travels from 25m to 75m for 50m difference.
The energy stored per unit area= densityg(height difference^2)
This comes out to 73.575 MJ per square meter, or 20.4 kWh per square meter. This is, not a lot.
Yeah that’s true, it’s probably only feasible for abandoned mine shafts, repurposed buildings, or integrating into the construction of new buildings or shafts. And those aren’t available just anywhere.