News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Energy Dome’s approach to long-duration energy storage by SkyPuncher on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @06:47PM (#31914083)
The trade-off here is these seem to be substantially simpler and cheaper than batteries. No fancy metals, no wear cycles, no risk of spontaneous fire. In fact, the up-front environment impacts seem significantly less than that of battery storage. These are still a good solution when the power supply you're using is in excess - as is common with most natural sources (solar, wind, hydro, etc).

Lastly, it's worth remembering that not everything is competing against an "optimal" solution. This may be a _very_ viable system for infrastructure that simply sheds excess energy. Shedding of excess energy results in 0% efficiency gains. Additionally, this type of storage potentially offsets the need to run a secondary system for peak/off-cycle loads. That in itself can be a massive energy savings.

-----

Finally, it seems that power plants are actually terribly inefficient at converting an energy source to electric. Coal - 33%, gas - 42%, and combined cycle - 60%.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/fossil-fuels....

Re:Energy Dome’s approach to long-duration energy storage by driest on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @07:14PM (#31914333)
that's all nice and true, but not at all relevant to the point of long term storage.
Re:Energy Dome’s approach to long-duration energy storage by SkyPuncher on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @08:42PM (#31915066)
Long term is defined as 10 hours or more, so that shifting is absolutely within the realm of this solution.