News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries. Parent comment

Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by empyrrhicist on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:31PM (#45016394)
The comment I was replying to literally said "For home use", and a heavy object 10m in the air does not have to be directly above something to be meaningfully (and dangerously) above something.

It's a silly scenario anyway, but I was doing a bit of guesswork about typical "home" lot sizes.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by sfn42 on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:39PM (#45016484)
Yeah I understand it's for home use. I am imagining a tower in the back yard or something. It would be closed so that nobody can walk under the weight. Or it could be internal to the house like an elevator shaft.

Anyway I agree it's silly, definitely not a realistic idea

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries by empyrrhicist on Monday August 25, 2025 @02:40PM (#45017372)
Right - if a tower in the back yard falls down it can still hit your house, since it isn't guaranteed to neatly collapse straight down. Worst case, it may tip over from the base and directly smash stuff up to its height away (and 10m is pretty far).

I have trees in my back yard I'm kind of worried about, which is why this immediately came to mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]