• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Energy Vault

This is the type of thing you dig down to do. Use a deep hole in the ground where there is no disruptions from wind, and you can solidly place the beams on earth, instead of above. You still have the pendulum effect that will rear it's ugly head that will be difficult to compensate for, but you are then shielded from other outside forces.
 
powering 8K homes for 16 hours--giving the, their most favorable number-is not exactly revolutionary, however, here is the real clue "The system may also be used to deliver short and medium-term ancillary services" People won't be getting that electricity at all except at peak demand when rates are the highest.
 
longview said:
Here is an interesting idea for energy storage,
Energy Vault – Ground-breaking energy storage technology enabling a planet powered by renewable resources
It solves many of the issues with battery storage, and could potentially store energy for years.
Click to expand...

That looks very promising. From an Automation and Robotics point of view, it's a fairly simple system that can be easily controlled with standard instruments, devices and software platforms. Their CEO was pretty bold in saying that this could solve all energy storage problems for the next 3-5 years.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Oh the complications of such a tower.

Looks great as a model, but wind blowing the mass around in real life...
Click to expand...

I don't envision this to be an insurmountable problem that structural engineers can't solve - no worse than current engineering challenges. There could be some wind deflection on the way up or down, but once the mass is set in place, sensors would assure exact placement.
 
Media_Truth said:
That looks very promising. From an Automation and Robotics point of view, it's a fairly simple system that can be easily controlled with standard instruments, devices and software platforms. Their CEO was pretty bold in saying that this could solve all energy storage problems for the next 3-5 years.
Click to expand...
It has potential, but it would take many millions of these to solve our energy storage problems, it is good to see people thinking outside the box.
 
Media_Truth said:
That looks very promising. From an Automation and Robotics point of view, it's a fairly simple system that can be easily controlled with standard instruments, devices and software platforms. Their CEO was pretty bold in saying that this could solve all energy storage problems for the next 3-5 years.
Click to expand...

OMG.

You haven't a clue. What is your job at an automation company? Human resources? It most certainly isn't technical.

How are you going to put such a contraption in an area that gets wind power,m and keep those things in alignment as they travel down? It is not a simple task. With the best software running the best PID algorithms, the wind is too chaotic to do this under.

The boldness of the CEO is arrogance. Not intelligence.

I agree the idea is a good one, using mass for energy, but I stand by my earlier remarks.

You dig a deep hole down. You protect it from the elements.

You are so f'n ignorant. In another post, you said:

"Cool, as long as the ore destination is downhill, and the load is shed at the bottom, this could work."

Well.... That's exactly what the article said. The ore site was uphill. They took a full load downhill, charging the batteries as the system kept it from free-wheeling. Then the mass was less than half going back up hill.

It helps to comprehend things, which you obviously fail to very often.
 
Media_Truth said:
I don't envision this to be an insurmountable problem that structural engineers can't solve - no worse than current engineering challenges. There could be some wind deflection on the way up or down, but once the mass is set in place, sensors would assure exact placement.
Click to expand...

You are definitely a poorly qualified engineer, if you actually hold that title.

The control necessary is next to impossible with the scale of length and mass involved, to control against the wind. And when i say next to impossible, I mean so close to impossible that it would never work like shown. Even underground, with no wind forces exerted, the pendulum effect will be difficult to cope with.
 
longview said:
It has potential, but it would take many millions of these to solve our energy storage problems, it is good to see people thinking outside the box.
Click to expand...

Yep. I haven't even tried calculating the power storage those things have. Before giving the idea a complete approval, how many needed and cost per power unit is required knowledge. The best thing about their storage, is it doesn't decrease over time like batteries. With modern materials, such a structure would last decades between major parts servicing.

The idea is great. It needs to be shielded from the wind though.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG.

You haven't a clue. What is your job at an automation company? Human resources? It most certainly isn't technical.

How are you going to put such a contraption in an area that gets wind power,m and keep those things in alignment as they travel down? It is not a simple task. With the best software running the best PID algorithms, the wind is too chaotic to do this under.

The boldness of the CEO is arrogance. Not intelligence.

I agree the idea is a good one, using mass for energy, but I stand by my earlier remarks.

You dig a deep hole down. You protect it from the elements.

You are so f'n ignorant. In another post, you said:

"Cool, as long as the ore destination is downhill, and the load is shed at the bottom, this could work."

Well.... That's exactly what the article said. The ore site was uphill. They took a full load downhill, charging the batteries as the system kept it from free-wheeling. Then the mass was less than half going back up hill.

It helps to comprehend things, which you obviously fail to very often.
Click to expand...

That's why a layperson such as yourself should simply leave the tough stuff to us Engineers :lol: I joke.

There are a number of solutions to the placing of the masses. You mentioned one - underground. But that may be some expensive and impractical excavating, dynamiting, etc. I think the video is merely showing an open system, so the viewer can see the system. It could be enclosed by a fixed wall, basically rendering the entire setup an indoor system. Capeche.

Possibly, but less likely, would be a magnetized system which would align the masses at the bottom, even with wind deflection.

But you can rest assured that this is not an insurmountable problem, and my fellow Engineers can solve it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG.

You haven't a clue. What is your job at an automation company? Human resources? It most certainly isn't technical.

How are you going to put such a contraption in an area that gets wind power,m and keep those things in alignment as they travel down? It is not a simple task. With the best software running the best PID algorithms, the wind is too chaotic to do this under.

The boldness of the CEO is arrogance. Not intelligence.

I agree the idea is a good one, using mass for energy, but I stand by my earlier remarks.

You dig a deep hole down. You protect it from the elements.

You are so f'n ignorant. In another post, you said:

"Cool, as long as the ore destination is downhill, and the load is shed at the bottom, this could work."

Well.... That's exactly what the article said. The ore site was uphill. They took a full load downhill, charging the batteries as the system kept it from free-wheeling. Then the mass was less than half going back up hill.

It helps to comprehend things, which you obviously fail to very often.
Click to expand...

Why does it need to be built next to the wind farm or other production facility. Why not place it near the end use to reduce transmission losses. How is this much different than say a water tower with a generator slew. You have to pump the water up anyhow. Just get some of it back on the way back down. That could be dual use.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's why a layperson such as yourself should simply leave the tough stuff to us Engineers :lol: I joke.

There are a number of solutions to the placing of the masses. You mentioned one - underground. But that may be some expensive and impractical excavating, dynamiting, etc. I think the video is merely showing an open system, so the viewer can see the system. It could be enclosed by a fixed wall, basically rendering the entire setup an indoor system. Capeche.

Possibly, but less likely, would be a magnetized system which would align the masses at the bottom, even with wind deflection.

But you can rest assured that this is not an insurmountable problem, and my fellow Engineers can solve it.
Click to expand...
If you notice, I only criticized it being open to the wind.

Yes, making one that actually works as advertised might be very expensive.

It is obviously you who fails to understand the engineering challenges.

I can solve it if I applied myself to the task. It isn't that difficult, as ling as it isn't open air, and your suggesting they only showed an open system for clarity. I disagree. A competent illustrator would have included that if it was the plan by competent engineers.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Why does it need to be built next to the wind farm or other production facility. Why not place it near the end use to reduce transmission losses. How is this much different than say a water tower with a generator slew. You have to pump the water up anyhow. Just get some of it back on the way back down. That could be dual use.
Click to expand...

It could be built anywhere, but if a power company is going to build such a structure, they would want it built where the power lines are already nearby, and in many ways, the generation site would be the best location.

It could be built underground where future expansion could be built over the top of it. One of the beauties of going down, is it could be made longer of a drop than any structure built upward, increasing the storage capacity linear to the length of the drop.

I like the idea, but cost of storage will still be a factor. Probably much cheaper than batteries, over 20+ year periods.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you notice, I only criticized it being open to the wind.

Yes, making one that actually works as advertised might be very expensive.

It is obviously you who fails to understand the engineering challenges.

I can solve it if I applied myself to the task. It isn't that difficult, as ling as it isn't open air, and your suggesting they only showed an open system for clarity. I disagree. A competent illustrator would have included that if it was the plan by competent engineers.
Click to expand...

Man, you should send that company your resume. I'm sure they'll be interested in your extensive expertise.:roll: I've made no claims to expertise on the structural aspects, other to throw out ideas. I leave this expertise to the Structural Engineers and the PEs (Professional Engineering credentials) who sign off the design. They are responsible for the safety and efficiency of the design, and can lose their license and be subjected to lawsuits, if problems occur.

Regarding the video, the company is not giving out their proprietary information. We know nothing about the makeup or weight of the mass blocks. We know nothing about the cables, if they actually are cables. To say you know that they are not enclosing the system, because it's not shown on the video is nothing but BLIND ASSUMPTION on your part.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Why does it need to be built next to the wind farm or other production facility. Why not place it near the end use to reduce transmission losses. How is this much different than say a water tower with a generator slew. You have to pump the water up anyhow. Just get some of it back on the way back down. That could be dual use.
Click to expand...

You are correct. There are many other Energy Storage methods being considered. Pumped Hydrowater is a very efficient process. Compressed air storage is a huge one. Air compressors are extremely common in Industrial plants across the country, so like Pumped hydrowater, it is tried and proven.

Ten Energy Storage Methods

1) Compressed Air Storage
Used in conjunction with a wind farm, a compressed air energy storage system draws in air, creating a high-pressure system in a series of large underground chambers. When the wind speeds slows or power demand surges, the pressurized air, typically mixed with a bit of natural gas, is released to power turbines or generators.
 
Media_Truth said:
Man, you should send that company your resume. I'm sure they'll be interested in your extensive expertise.:roll:
Click to expand...
I'm good with what I do. I have no plans to leave my employer until I retire, which isn't far away.

Media_Truth said:
I've made no claims to expertise on the structural aspects, other to throw out ideas.
Click to expand...
You lack of understanding physics is obvious.

Media_Truth said:
I leave this expertise to the Structural Engineers and the PEs (Professional Engineering credentials) who sign off the design. They are responsible for the safety and efficiency of the design, and can lose their license and be subjected to lawsuits, if problems occur.
Click to expand...
The efficiency or safety isn't what I question. I specified what the design problems were.

Media_Truth said:
Regarding the video, the company is not giving out their proprietary information. We know nothing about the makeup or weight of the mass blocks.
Click to expand...
They claimed concrete. Lead would be a better choice, storing more than three times per volume, but costs about 50 times more than concrete per work unit. Don't you ever read what you comment about?

Media_Truth said:
Regarding the video, the company is not giving out their proprietary information. We know nothing about the makeup or weight of the mass blocks. We know nothing about the cables, if they actually are cables. To say you know that they are not enclosing the system, because it's not shown on the video is nothing but BLIND ASSUMPTION on your part.
Click to expand...

You are correct in that the finer details will not be presented for proprietary reasons. As for if they are an enclosed system or not? I find it unlikely they would leave that out is part of the presentation if included, because of people like me. People who see design flaws.
 
Last edited:
I'm good if Longview runs with what I said, or someone else. I would like to see such a thing tries. They even have a backer already. I just see it as failing without being an enclosed system. I have extensive experience with robotics and PID loops. I would be very surprised if they found a way to compensate for the unwanted movements while exposed to wind.

Even their own advertised costs make the long term costs about 20% of other current storage, but that is still expensive. Anyone in the business of manufacturing knows that these advertised costs are seldom as low as advertised.
 
Media_Truth said:
You are correct. There are many other Energy Storage methods being considered. Pumped Hydrowater is a very efficient process. Compressed air storage is a huge one. Air compressors are extremely common in Industrial plants across the country, so like Pumped hydrowater, it is tried and proven.

Ten Energy Storage Methods

1) Compressed Air Storage
Used in conjunction with a wind farm, a compressed air energy storage system draws in air, creating a high-pressure system in a series of large underground chambers. When the wind speeds slows or power demand surges, the pressurized air, typically mixed with a bit of natural gas, is released to power turbines or generators.
Click to expand...

Of these listed, the flywheel energy storage is probably the least expensive for a 20 year plus cost per power unit. In fact, ABB has been making them for years at ~85% efficiency. I worked at a place with a smaller unit back in the 90's. They are ridiculously reliable. Back then we didn't have the same efficiency, because it was open air with regular bearings.

Still, with all the time and research on such systems, they are still too expensive to make renewable energy a viable option.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Of these listed, the flywheel energy storage is probably the least expensive for a 20 year plus cost per power unit. In fact, ABB has been making them for years at ~85% efficiency. I worked at a place with a smaller unit back in the 90's. They are ridiculously reliable. Back then we didn't have the same efficiency, because it was open air with regular bearings.

Still, with all the time and research on such systems, they are still too expensive to make renewable energy a viable option.
Click to expand...

This same sad, false narrative. Where'd you learn your science - elementary school? Renewable energy is already a viable option. The state of Iowa gets over 35% of it's electricity from wind, without any storage. WE DON'T NEED STORAGE YET, AND WE WON'T NEED STORAGE FOR TEN OR TWENTY YEARS. There is very little investment in storage at this time.
 
Media_Truth said:
This same sad, false narrative. Where'd you learn your science - elementary school? Renewable energy is already a viable option. The state of Iowa gets over 35% of it's electricity from wind, without any storage. WE DON'T NEED STORAGE YET, AND WE WON'T NEED STORAGE FOR TEN OR TWENTY YEARS. There is very little investment in storage at this time.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have clarified.

I meant renewable energy would be too expensive to replace our existing primary fossil fuel sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom