Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some boffins)   Turning abandoned mines into batteries may deprive future Bond villains of underground lairs; help the environment   (iiasa.ac.at) divider line
35
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

791 clicks; posted to STEM » on 13 Jan 2023 at 2:00 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



35 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
beezeltown [TotalFark]
2023-01-13 10:18:20 AM  
A dry version of pumped storage; the concept isn't new.

/not to be confused with Subby's mom.
 
Concrete Donkey
2023-01-13 2:20:46 PM  
Yeah. Sure subby. Im totally sure the mine shafts have no toxic things sitting in the dust just waiting to be released into the air, and companies totally took the proper precautions about heavy metal waste and other toxic stuff, no matter how expensive it was to do it right
 
Geotpf
2023-01-13 2:54:49 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Yeah. Sure subby. Im totally sure the mine shafts have no toxic things sitting in the dust just waiting to be released into the air, and companies totally took the proper precautions about heavy metal waste and other toxic stuff, no matter how expensive it was to do it right


[Citation Needed] that using such as a battery as depicted in the farking article increases such pollution beyond the mine merely existing in the first place.
 
elaw [BareFark]
2023-01-13 4:08:58 PM  
Disappointing.  I was expecting a diagram of an abandoned mine, filled with millions of lemons with strips of copper and zinc stuck in them.
 
SirDigbyChickenCaesar
2023-01-13 4:19:10 PM  

beezeltown: A dry version of pumped storage; the concept isn't new.

/not to be confused with Subby's mom.


except this is more complicated.  I can only assume the efficiency of regenerative braking is greater than hydro to make up for all the other steps.
 
Ivo Shandor [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-13 4:24:33 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: beezeltown: A dry version of pumped storage; the concept isn't new.

/not to be confused with Subby's mom.

except this is more complicated.  I can only assume the efficiency of regenerative braking is greater than hydro to make up for all the other steps.


Depends where you live. If you happen to have an old mineshaft nearby but not a big river flowing through the mountains, this could make sense.
 
SirDigbyChickenCaesar
2023-01-13 4:31:38 PM  

Ivo Shandor: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: beezeltown: A dry version of pumped storage; the concept isn't new.

/not to be confused with Subby's mom.

except this is more complicated.  I can only assume the efficiency of regenerative braking is greater than hydro to make up for all the other steps.

Depends where you live. If you happen to have an old mineshaft nearby but not a big river flowing through the mountains, this could make sense.


Not that type of hydro, the alternative is doing the same thing in the article but with water not sand.  gravity takes water through a turbine and then at night during lower loads you pump the water back up into the higher reservoir.

I have a degree in power plant design and pumped storage was the next big thing in the 90s/2000's
 
Ivo Shandor [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-13 4:37:49 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Ivo Shandor: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: beezeltown: A dry version of pumped storage; the concept isn't new.

/not to be confused with Subby's mom.

except this is more complicated.  I can only assume the efficiency of regenerative braking is greater than hydro to make up for all the other steps.

Depends where you live. If you happen to have an old mineshaft nearby but not a big river flowing through the mountains, this could make sense.

Not that type of hydro, the alternative is doing the same thing in the article but with water not sand.  gravity takes water through a turbine and then at night during lower loads you pump the water back up into the higher reservoir.

I have a degree in power plant design and pumped storage was the next big thing in the 90s/2000's


You still need the mountains and some amount of flowing water to keep the reservoir full. It's not an option in some parts of the world.
 
squegeebooo
2023-01-13 4:45:31 PM  
I get the concept that this helps generate more energy at peak hours, but how is this environmental?

You're still spending more energy to set up the system during off-peak, than you get from running it during peak.  So you still have to account for the waste/pollution of that extra energy.

Or is the assumption that, because you're not firing up oil plants at peak, and using some green source* at night, you're generating less pollution?

*Green at least compared to coal/oil
 
raygundan
2023-01-13 4:50:55 PM  

squegeebooo: I get the concept that this helps generate more energy at peak hours, but how is this environmental?

You're still spending more energy to set up the system during off-peak, than you get from running it during peak.  So you still have to account for the waste/pollution of that extra energy.

Or is the assumption that, because you're not firing up oil plants at peak, and using some green source* at night, you're generating less pollution?

*Green at least compared to coal/oil


We're already starting to see areas with daytime solar overproduction, where we make more energy than we need mid-day, and then need more energy than we're making later.  Storage fixes that, even if it's lossy storage where you only get half or a third of your input energy back.

Storage projects are the answer to the usual herpaderp "how do you solar at night" questions about intermittent renewables.  Extra clean energy at the wrong time of day?  Storage lets you hang on to it until you need it.
 
Bith Set Me Up
2023-01-13 5:08:00 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


"This is no mine... it's a battery."
 
SirDigbyChickenCaesar
2023-01-13 5:08:55 PM  

squegeebooo: I get the concept that this helps generate more energy at peak hours, but how is this environmental?

You're still spending more energy to set up the system during off-peak, than you get from running it during peak.  So you still have to account for the waste/pollution of that extra energy.

Or is the assumption that, because you're not firing up oil plants at peak, and using some green source* at night, you're generating less pollution?

*Green at least compared to coal/oil


Picture daily electrical demand like a bell curve.  Some base load plants are running all day no matter what.  You have the storage for high demand times during the day so you don't turn on less efficient fuel fired topper plants.  You have cut off the top of the bell curve and moved it to night time when there is excess generating capacity.
 
Likwit
2023-01-13 5:09:18 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Yeah. Sure subby. Im totally sure the mine shafts have no toxic things sitting in the dust just waiting to be released into the air, and companies totally took the proper precautions about heavy metal waste and other toxic stuff, no matter how expensive it was to do it right


Oh, good. You found some FUD. I was worried we'd have a thread about clean energy that doesn't have shiat all over it.

And what about the compression motors?! What happens when they wear out?! They'll probably end up in a landfill! We're really just trading one horror for another here!
 
beezeltown [TotalFark]
2023-01-13 5:36:20 PM  
Battery? Enter sandman and ride the lightning! Hardwired, it's electric fuel. Nothing else matters, you know it's sad but true. Am I evil? Borderline.
 
Concrete Donkey
2023-01-13 5:37:13 PM  

Geotpf: Concrete Donkey: Yeah. Sure subby. Im totally sure the mine shafts have no toxic things sitting in the dust just waiting to be released into the air, and companies totally took the proper precautions about heavy metal waste and other toxic stuff, no matter how expensive it was to do it right

[Citation Needed] that using such as a battery as depicted in the farking article increases such pollution beyond the mine merely existing in the first place.


Its called physics? You introduce vibrations to a place that was previously basically vibration free and you start creating dust as each vibration wave bounces tiny particulate matter into the air, which is then picked up by air currents and joins the airstream. Where they end up depends on particle size, air speed/direction and what there is for it to land on and be physically moved with to a new location. Even if this was a place that used to have water but is bone dry, the water is the only thing that evaporated. All the crap in the water just settled as a layer of loose dirt, waiting to be shaken free

Its why proper cleaning of a lot of toxic shiat involves stripping off the top x inches/feet of dirt to be decontaminated, because if you dont do that what happens is what was described above
 
Likwit
2023-01-13 6:21:39 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Geotpf: Concrete Donkey: Yeah. Sure subby. Im totally sure the mine shafts have no toxic things sitting in the dust just waiting to be released into the air, and companies totally took the proper precautions about heavy metal waste and other toxic stuff, no matter how expensive it was to do it right

[Citation Needed] that using such as a battery as depicted in the farking article increases such pollution beyond the mine merely existing in the first place.

Its called physics? You introduce vibrations to a place that was previously basically vibration free and you start creating dust as each vibration wave bounces tiny particulate matter into the air, which is then picked up by air currents and joins the airstream. Where they end up depends on particle size, air speed/direction and what there is for it to land on and be physically moved with to a new location. Even if this was a place that used to have water but is bone dry, the water is the only thing that evaporated. All the crap in the water just settled as a layer of loose dirt, waiting to be shaken free

Its why proper cleaning of a lot of toxic shiat involves stripping off the top x inches/feet of dirt to be decontaminated, because if you dont do that what happens is what was described above


You're right. There's a small chance these old mines might release some comparatively tiny amount of toxic substances. Let's stick with coal- and gas-fired power plants. Better to pollute heavily than have to sit and worry about maybe polluting a little bit.

The devil you know, amirite.
 
Befuddled
2023-01-13 7:46:39 PM  
Energy storage via gravitational potential works but it takes a lot of mass moving a significant height to make sense. I doubt a mine could be made viable.

If gravity storage is going to be done, a far easier way would be to put train tracks up a nearby hill and run electric trains up and down the hill. No need to move the sand around as sand; just put the sand in a freight car and push that freight car up and down the hill. Electric trains already exist and would be far easier to maintain than something underground.

Likwit: There's a small chance these old mines might release some comparatively tiny amount of toxic substances. Let's stick with coal- and gas-fired power plants.


What is being proposed with the mines is energy storage, not energy production.
 
Likwit
2023-01-13 8:22:09 PM  

Befuddled: What is being proposed with the mines is energy storage, not energy production.


For renewables so they can replace base load power plants that run on fossil fuels. Do try to keep up.
 
Noah_Tall
2023-01-13 9:16:18 PM  
Just don't do it to a salt mine. That would be a salt and battery.
 
Befuddled
2023-01-13 9:23:55 PM  

Likwit: Befuddled: What is being proposed with the mines is energy storage, not energy production.

For renewables so they can replace base load power plants that run on fossil fuels. Do try to keep up.


Your statement was implying that the mine storage would be a replacement for a power plant when energy storage and energy production are independent things. It's not my fault that many have a way with words yet for you, words not have way.
 
Likwit
2023-01-13 9:38:53 PM  

Befuddled: Likwit: Befuddled: What is being proposed with the mines is energy storage, not energy production.

For renewables so they can replace base load power plants that run on fossil fuels. Do try to keep up.

Your statement was implying that the mine storage would be a replacement for a power plant when energy storage and energy production are independent things. It's not my fault that many have a way with words yet for you, words not have way.


And why do you think that energy storage is necessary? Hint: it's not to die electricity from coal and natural gas.

You also completely misunderstood the energy storage system they describe. You managed to not get it despite there being pictures. If you you keep digging that hole, maybe we can store energy in there.
 
Befuddled
2023-01-13 10:13:34 PM  

Likwit: You also completely misunderstood the energy storage system they describe. You managed to not get it despite there being pictures. If you you keep digging that hole, maybe we can store energy in there.


One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3.6(10)^6 joules. Mass * height * acceleration of gravity = joules. So to store 1kWh, you must lift ~367,000 meter*kilograms (assuming g=9.81m/s^2). So 367,000 kilograms to a height of one meter, or one kilogram to a height of 367,000 meters or whatever combination of meters and kilograms makes a product of 367,000. Now compare that to what it takes to store 1kWh in a battery. A 12V 200Ah LiFePO4 Lithium Battery costs about 600 dollars and if it's only discharged halfway (only 100Ah), it has 12*100 = 1.2 kWh. In short, gravity storage is expensive compared to other means of energy storage; making it more expensive and less feasible by suggesting goofy things like what is proposed in the linked article makes it laughable.
 
Likwit
2023-01-13 10:28:22 PM  

Befuddled: Likwit: You also completely misunderstood the energy storage system they describe. You managed to not get it despite there being pictures. If you you keep digging that hole, maybe we can store energy in there.

One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3.6(10)^6 joules. Mass * height * acceleration of gravity = joules. So to store 1kWh, you must lift ~367,000 meter*kilograms (assuming g=9.81m/s^2). So 367,000 kilograms to a height of one meter, or one kilogram to a height of 367,000 meters or whatever combination of meters and kilograms makes a product of 367,000. Now compare that to what it takes to store 1kWh in a battery. A 12V 200Ah LiFePO4 Lithium Battery costs about 600 dollars and if it's only discharged halfway (only 100Ah), it has 12*100 = 1.2 kWh. In short, gravity storage is expensive compared to other means of energy storage; making it more expensive and less feasible by suggesting goofy things like what is proposed in the linked article makes it laughable.


Agreed. Except you said it would make more sense to run trains instead of dealing with the sand. So you either DNRTFA or you didn't understand TFA. I see you're also running away from your argument about storage and generation.

Keep digging.
 
Befuddled
2023-01-13 11:46:02 PM  

Likwit: Agreed. Except you said it would make more sense to run trains instead of dealing with the sand.


We already have train tracks that go up long grades. To add an electrified rail atop the tracks would be feasible. This could allow those portions of track to be used for energy storage plus existing freight traffic could be used for energy storage/generation as well. All of the things to make gravity storage by means of moving train cars up and down grades already exists whereas the means to generate electricity from this boondoggle doesn't exist at the moment plus mines that are deep enough to make this feasible are not common.

Likwit: Keep digging.


I never was digging and I never will as I stated that using mines to accomplish gravity storage was a dumb idea. You're the one who is apparently in love with holes in the ground.
 
phimuskapsi [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-14 12:02:29 AM  
When I was a kid I always speculated about using alkaline salt mines as batteries for lightning, being a kid and ignoring the difficult things like, how to even start there 😂

Kinda weird to see that concept of mining as a battery materialize.
 
Likwit
2023-01-14 12:13:19 AM  

Befuddled: whereas the means to generate electricity from this boondoggle doesn't exist at the moment


It does exist. They explained it in the article. With pictures. Surely you're trolling. Surely nobody is this dense
 
Befuddled
2023-01-14 12:31:19 AM  

Likwit: ...


The failure is mine. I forgot you're just an idiotic troll so I treated you as if you are an honest interlocutor. I won't make that mistake again.
 
Likwit
2023-01-14 1:37:43 AM  

Befuddled: Likwit: ...

The failure is mine. I forgot you're just an idiotic troll so I treated you as if you are an honest interlocutor. I won't make that mistake again.


Who is trolling. You said the method to generate power doesn't exist. It literally says in the article what it is and how it works. All you had to say was "I didn't read the article" and it would have been over. Instead you kept doubling down.
 
The Smails Kid
2023-01-14 1:42:23 AM  

elaw: Disappointing.  I was expecting a diagram of an abandoned mine, filled with millions of lemons with strips of copper and zinc stuck in them.


No, a potato, dumbass.
 
Befuddled
2023-01-14 2:04:43 AM  

Likwit: Who is trolling.


You are. Any more easy questions that I can answer for you that you then can fail to understand the answer?
 
SirDigbyChickenCaesar
2023-01-14 4:03:29 AM  

Befuddled: Likwit: You also completely misunderstood the energy storage system they describe. You managed to not get it despite there being pictures. If you you keep digging that hole, maybe we can store energy in there.

One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3.6(10)^6 joules. Mass * height * acceleration of gravity = joules. So to store 1kWh, you must lift ~367,000 meter*kilograms (assuming g=9.81m/s^2). So 367,000 kilograms to a height of one meter, or one kilogram to a height of 367,000 meters or whatever combination of meters and kilograms makes a product of 367,000. Now compare that to what it takes to store 1kWh in a battery. A 12V 200Ah LiFePO4 Lithium Battery costs about 600 dollars and if it's only discharged halfway (only 100Ah), it has 12*100 = 1.2 kWh. In short, gravity storage is expensive compared to other means of energy storage; making it more expensive and less feasible by suggesting goofy things like what is proposed in the linked article makes it laughable.


Well except the part where any gravity based storage (liquid or solid) can make high voltage AC current and you have to now convert your low voltage DC to be able to transmit it.  Your inverter losses are going to be considerable.
 
Ivo Shandor [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-14 5:37:00 AM  

Befuddled: Likwit: You also completely misunderstood the energy storage system they describe. You managed to not get it despite there being pictures. If you you keep digging that hole, maybe we can store energy in there.

One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3.6(10)^6 joules. Mass * height * acceleration of gravity = joules. So to store 1kWh, you must lift ~367,000 meter*kilograms (assuming g=9.81m/s^2). So 367,000 kilograms to a height of one meter, or one kilogram to a height of 367,000 meters or whatever combination of meters and kilograms makes a product of 367,000. Now compare that to what it takes to store 1kWh in a battery. A 12V 200Ah LiFePO4 Lithium Battery costs about 600 dollars and if it's only discharged halfway (only 100Ah), it has 12*100 = 1.2 kWh. In short, gravity storage is expensive compared to other means of energy storage; making it more expensive and less feasible by suggesting goofy things like what is proposed in the linked article makes it laughable.


OK, by your math I can drop 1000 kg by 367m to get that amount of energy. That's one reasonably sized rock being lowered down a mineshaft. You can keep doing that, loading more rocks at the top and unloading them at the bottom. The expensive bits are the motors etc. doing the lifting, not the energy storage devices themselves. Need more capacity? Dig out more rocks. You don't have to worry about them wearing out after a few thousand cycles either. They will continue to be rocks indefinitely, while your batteries will turn into a messy e-waste problem.
 
Befuddled
2023-01-14 8:06:38 AM  

Ivo Shandor: OK, by your math I can drop 1000 kg by 367m to get that amount of energy. That's one reasonably sized rock being lowered down a mineshaft. You can keep doing that, loading more rocks at the top and unloading them at the bottom.


That's for 1 kWh. The amount needed for the US is just a wee bit larger.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php
Total U.S. electricity consumption in 2021 was about 3.93 trillion kWh

So that gives a daily usage of a little more than ten billion kWh. If we are going to move to renewables, we will need roughly half that in storage; five billion kWh. So this idea is ridiculous as any meaningful solution for a switch to renewables.
 
Likwit
2023-01-14 8:37:15 AM  
Somebody is this thread is dumber than a box of sand.
 
raygundan
2023-01-14 2:12:46 PM  

Befuddled: Likwit: Who is trolling.

You are. Any more easy questions that I can answer for you that you then can fail to understand the answer?


You seem a little befuddled.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

The next best thing to UltraFark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.