News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Smaller, Cheaper Flow Batteries Throw Out Decades-Old Designs. Parent comment

Re:Smaller, Cheaper Flow Batteries Throw Out Decades-Old Des... by jfoutz on Saturday January 28, 2023 @05:10PM (#34562522)
The standard reply to any sort of gravity storage is "geography and land availability". I don't find that argument compelling enough to dismiss gravity storage outright, but I'll admit Oklahoma is pretty darn flat.

Chemical storage could be a big win when a mountain isn't readily available. Or the land is too expensive to use for power storage.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Smaller, Cheaper Flow Batteries Throw Out Decades-Old Des... by marmadukester39 on Saturday January 28, 2023 @08:19PM (#34563899)
Decommissioned mines. Saw an article about it somewhere recently.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Smaller, Cheaper Flow Batteries Throw Out Decades-Old Des... by bobthepanda on Saturday January 28, 2023 @08:55PM (#34564084)
Really, you just need any elevation difference. I would imagine Oklahoma already builds water towers.
[ Parent | on HN ]