Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries

Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by javcasas on Monday August 25, 2025 @09:52AM (#45013856)

Every time I see again the idea of moving big concrete blocks for storing energy, I remember the time I made the calculations, and estimated around USD100K of infrastructure to store the same amount of energy as a nissan leaf.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by standeven on Monday August 25, 2025 @12:07PM (#45015374)

I did the same calculation. Gravity energy storage is a joke. Came to similar conclusions when running numbers on hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Pumped hydro storage and flywheels are cool but ultimately battery storage, distributed everywhere, will win.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by javcasas on Monday August 25, 2025 @12:24PM (#45015573)

Gravity storage is cool when nature has already made most of the work, I/E pumped hydro where nature has already built this huge canyon with a river in the middle just waiting for someone to put a dam at the end.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by imtringued on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:15PM (#45016195)

It is really perplexing when people come up with an energy storage method that is even more expensive than just straight up batteries.

[ Parent | on HN ]