Re:Gravitricity
by michaelhoney on Sunday November 23, 2014 @02:19AM
(#8648071)
I have seen the 1830s-sh remains of such a system in Tasmania. They sent coal in buggies down a ~200m inclined railway to the dock below, using it as counterweight to haul goods up the hill. Win-win!
I think the important factor here is the possibility of placing these things anywhere one wants. If mountains are available, I don't see why not (except maybe they would ruin the natural beauty and hence tourism...but I don't know how much impact that has). But if they are not, you can always just dig a big hole.
Suppose you have standard rail tracks and use a surplus freight train. Congratulations, you can now store the amount of energy needed to push a single train up a single mountain. That's not nothing, but it probably isn't enough to be useful on a utility scale.
That implies that you want a weight orders of magnitude more than a train (or many trains per charge "cycle" with a stockyard at each and of the mountain to store them) You're now going to need a very tough track and wheelset. They're also going to wear quickly. Probably enough to make it impractical to build and operate.
Re:Gravitricity
by mmcconnell1618 on Saturday November 22, 2014 @09:16PM
(#8647560)
External rails on a mountain don't allow for the optional compressed air part of the system that (according to the page) can double the efficiency of the system at less than double the cost.
That said, how are those gravity fed porch lights doing? That seems like it would be an interesting proxy here.