|
Boten Anna posted:Tell me about it. We finally got solar installed at our place, and we're generating an almost obscene amount of extra electricity during peak hours, though most of our use is pulling off the grid past 10 PM, mainly for EV charging but it's also because we're all home and our housemate (and sometimes me) stays up all night and plays video games This is why Crescent Dunes and similar CSP designs could be such a game changer. It has overnight solar storage. Or it could light itself on fire, only time will tell. (That's why you build trial plants)
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Boten Anna posted:The whole dipshit liberal/environmentalist pie-in-the-sky 100% renewables thing, especially for home and possibly even light commercial, is only impossible because there's no utility-grade power storage. Otherwise, your "average" middle class American family can afford their own power plant that can cover their needs now, but not necessarily a way to store it. But giant engineering projects are not the kind of thing America really does anymore, to say nothing of your average NIMBY, Bundy, and Sierra Club types raising hell about government building stuff anywhere for a multitude of reasons. So I'm still curious how solar and wind advance beyond vanity projects in America east of the Mississippi given the lack of power density of most renewables and corresponding lack of available viable land. And lol if you try to suggest off-shore as a viable answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Pander posted:Most power consumption occurs in high-density areas. You have to get the power from generation to end-use. Most renewables are generated in the American west, and most of the people live east of the Mississippi. Powering our cities with solar and wind is not feasible without massive upgrades and build-outs of high voltage transmission infrastructure, probably DC to minimize transmission losses and lower construction costs. Offshore wind is a big one, if they can overcome NIMBY of corse. Rooftop solar still can significantly cut peak demand even in less than perfect insolation. There have been several high renewable penetration engineering studies done that look at regional or state levels, so the issue isn't really technical feasibility it is as you said, we don't like spending money on infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Offshore wind is a big one, if they can overcome NIMBY of corse. Rooftop solar still can significantly cut peak demand even in less than perfect insolation. Exactly, which is why rooftop solar is probably the most realistic and feasible option for taking the load off of our baseline plants right now. The government won't build infrastructure but they will give me a tax refund for getting solar panels, and when their infrastructure inevitably crumbles and/or the apocalypse happens I'll still have power. Hell, maybe even overnight if it got so bad I figured out how to jury rig my car's battery pack into overnight storage. I won't even have anywhere to drive it when the roads are too full of potholes and all the bridges and highways collapse. It'd be great if we could start working on infrastructure again, in the meantime the only meaningful progress we're making on this is stuff that can be done in one's own ~rational best self interest~ because we live in a Randian dystopia 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
You'll have power until the techno-barbarians see that your house had power during the day. (For people lacking the ability to read beyond sarcasm and think this thread is all about the Sierra Club and nuclear waifu full-length anime gently caress pillows, the above is sarcastic. I do not have a current and pressing concern or obcession with techno-barbarians)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Exactly, which is why rooftop solar is probably the most realistic and feasible option for taking the load off of our baseline plants right now. The government won't build infrastructure but they will give me a tax refund for getting solar panels, and when their infrastructure inevitably crumbles and/or the apocalypse happens I'll still have power. Hell, maybe even overnight if it got so bad I figured out how to jury rig my car's battery pack into overnight storage. I won't even have anywhere to drive it when the roads are too full of potholes and all the bridges and highways collapse. Again, there aren't enough rooftops for the power consumption in a city. Furthermore, a lot of buildings put AC or other obstacles on the roof that make solar installation and maintenance impractical. Rooftop solar is fine and dandy for ranch houses in Arizona, but it's not enough to talk about "reducing baseline plant load" on a national scale, and certainly not enough to slow CO2 emissions through decreasing demand by a viable amount. It is an example of trying to over-engineer an impractical solution simply to avoid a simpler solution that does not meet a predetermined agenda. Trabisnikof posted:Offshore wind is a big one, if they can overcome NIMBY of corse. Rooftop solar still can significantly cut peak demand even in less than perfect insolation. Pander posted:And lol if you try to suggest off-shore as a viable answer. Throw in infrastructure and engineering hurdles to the mix. It is very hard to build (relatively) small platforms that can survive the rough weather of the Atlantic, making off-shore turbines an O&M nightmare. Off-shore turbines are something dreamt up in Europe because they simply had no other place to put wind turbines and were desperate. They are not a sensible long-term solution, especially for a nation that can afford to go a different route like the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
If you ever get a chance to drive through west Texas, don't. But if you have to, there are some very impressive fields of wind turbines that stretch to the horizon (and whose red helicopter warning lights make for a nice twinkling at night). But even in Texas, wind is only responsible for something like 11% of electricity generation on average, and it can't get much over 20% before the production peaks start regularly outpacing consumption at that given time and questions of storage come up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
I'd argue that overnight power storage is a red herring. We all know that 100% renewables won't happen in our lifetime, for a market the size of California. However what will be needed within the next few years in that market is some sort of hour-long storage to cover the sunset gap, duck neck, or whatever you want to call it. The way California is installing solar we'll soon run into some serious grid problems, with the following solutions:
I think/hope the cost of #2 will drive innovation in #3. I am not sure thermal solutions such as CSP are fast enough in the power that they can deliver, I'm guessing they scale more toward the overnight scenario. Ulf fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Pander posted:Again, there aren't enough rooftops for the power consumption in a city. Furthermore, a lot of buildings put AC or other obstacles on the roof that make solar installation and maintenance impractical. Rooftop solar is fine and dandy for ranch houses in Arizona, but it's not enough to talk about "reducing baseline plant load" on a national scale, and certainly not enough to slow CO2 emissions through decreasing demand by a viable amount. It is an example of trying to over-engineer an impractical solution simply to avoid a simpler solution that does not meet a predetermined agenda. Yeah that's the problem, the only things I can do are Randian self-interest poo poo that doesn't solve a larger problem. I do think that rooftop (and really, the top of anything) solar can do quite a lot; for the people who aren't in those ranch houses could get excess power from the ranch houses and that's why the electrical grid should be more of a brokering system than a transmisson system, but it's really not enough to do everything. I just wish there was more that could be done about the general malaise in infrastructure spending. On a macro scale it's not even spending in the way we think of spending (like some kind of checkbook) as it all has immediate and long-term macroeconomic benefits that are healthy for the economy, but tax/debt hawks don't understand macroeconomics and ruin everything for all of us. Those are the people I'm afraid of, not the anti-nuke hippies, wrong as they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
FERC released an order last week requiring future wind generation to provide reactive power and help maintain grid stability. They think prices of the technology is low enough now. http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2016/061616/E-1.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Ulf posted:I'd argue that overnight power storage is a red herring. We all know that 100% renewables won't happen in our lifetime, for a market the size of California. However what will be needed within the next few years in that market is some sort of hour-long storage to cover the sunset gap, duck neck, or whatever you want to call it. There are already a lot of means to build reliable short term storage - the problem is they require a lot of clear sloped land (the various "put things up a hill with electric motors, allow it to fall down against something that drives a dynamo" systems) or a lot of water (various reservoir filling systems, where you pump water into a large dammed resevoir and allow it to go back out through generator turbines when needed). And I think we all know why especially the latter is a problem in California! The other thing you can do is various battery systems, but those'll take up a lot of space no matter what you do to buffer a lot of power - even with very serious improvements in charging speed and capacity of individual units within the systems. A thing that may have to be done is the proposal of dumping excess electricity into fuel-production plants that inherently result in a net energy loss, of which some of the fuel may be used for peaker plants and the rest sold on the market for various vehicles and so on. It's not as directly responsive, but it can really eat up a lot of spare power as you might get from severe overbuild of solar active during the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are already a lot of means to build reliable short term storage - the problem is they require a lot of clear sloped land (the various "put things up a hill with electric motors, allow it to fall down against something that drives a dynamo" systems) Sounds like a great side-business for ski resorts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are already a lot of means to build reliable short term storage - the problem is they require a lot of clear sloped land (the various "put things up a hill with electric motors, allow it to fall down against something that drives a dynamo" systems) or a lot of water (various reservoir filling systems, where you pump water into a large dammed resevoir and allow it to go back out through generator turbines when needed). And I think we all know why especially the latter is a problem in California! this is why the bloom box's claim of reversibility had soooo much potential. I'm assuming since I haven't heard poo poo in years that never panned out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is why the bloom box's claim of reversibility had soooo much potential. I'm assuming since I haven't heard poo poo in years that never panned out. I see them around at places, mainly data centers (I think Apple is the biggest customer). I think they only make sense from a cost perspective for a limited number of users.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:When did we decide power per acre was the be-all-end-all metric? Yes and because energy density (obviously related to power per acre) is low for renewables, you actually need more resources to build use and replace renewables.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 09:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Yes and because energy density (obviously related to power per acre) is low for renewables, you actually need more resources to build use and replace renewables. Right, and if we ruin our nuclear reactor, it will take more resources to replace it. Land use is just one of many resources used by energy production. By all means, we can compare direct inputs and resource usages, from land to capital to fuel to cooling. I don't think everything as lopsided as you make it seem when you focus on land impacted by the generation station alone. Picking a specific kind of resource use and ignoring others is a bad way to make policy. It is a complicated question of course, there is no formula that equates raising a lake's temperature by X degrees versus X acres of land under the sweap of turbine blades. We can't simply ignore the vastness of the potential environmental impact for the entire lifecycle for electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Right, and if we ruin our nuclear reactor, it will take more resources to replace it. Land use is just one of many resources used by energy production. It's not just land. It's also bulk materials. Because you need thousands of low-power wind turbines to replace a nuclear reactor you need way more steel and concrete to build those wind turbines even before considering storage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
And you burn more fuel maintaing the farms because technicians need to drive half way across bumfuck Texas. You also spend more manhours which translates to more worker injuries, driving up the death rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:driving up the death rate... ...reducing pressure on the energy grid... I keep coming back to   KILL as a solution. Silence_kit has yet to call me on it though 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Tell me about it. We finally got solar installed at our place, and we're generating an almost obscene amount of extra electricity during peak hours, though most of our use is pulling off the grid past 10 PM, mainly for EV charging but it's also because we're all home and our housemate (and sometimes me) stays up all night and plays video games Have you looked into lead-acid batteries? It would take more space, but it would probably be much less expensive than lithium-ion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Have you looked into lead-acid batteries? It would take more space, but it would probably be much less expensive than lithium-ion. Correct on both counts. They are relatively cheap, but the energy density is VERY low. This is less pressing for stationary application, but a structure will need to be build to house this battery farm. The batteries themselves are, as you're probably aware, toxic. Lead concerns are still present, and acidic fumes and sulpheric corrosion present typical issues. The slow charge times of lead-acid batteries is negated by the long period of charging from renewables during the day, which is a nice positive. But I'd worry about the limited cycle life. If you use them each night you're down to about a year of usable life for each. I dunno. It just seems kind of unpleasant. I'd rather see excess renewable generation during the day put into hydrogen generation for fuel cell use instead of queueing up tens of thousands of massive lead acid batteries. Work with the assumption that base-load power still exists to provide power at night or when weather conditions are poor for renewables, and a lot more environmentally friendly solutions emerge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'd rather see excess renewable generation during the day put into hydrogen generation for fuel cell use instead of queueing up tens of thousands of massive lead acid batteries. Work with the assumption that base-load power still exists to provide power at night or when weather conditions are poor for renewables, and a lot more environmentally friendly solutions emerge. Hydrogen generation is a net loss in energy, as it generally takes far more current to generate hydrogen gas and, optionally, compress it than you will get out of the hydrogen fuel cells. Sure, its friendlier, but hydrogen has to be stored with losses, unless you cool it, compress it, and liquify it, which requires extensive and energy hungry cryogenics. And realistically, considering the way Global Warming is going, we'll have far more need of water than we will hydrogen derived fuel cells. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hydrogen generation is a net loss in energy, as it generally takes far current to generate hydrogen gas and, optionally, compress it than you will get out of the hydrogen fuel cells. I don't argue that. Water conservation is a pretty big issue for me. How about excess energy into desalinization? I haven't studied that process much, although what I remember suggests it's energy intensive and not environmentally friendly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Pander posted:How about excess energy into desalinization? I haven't studied that process much, although what I remember suggests it's energy intensive and not environmentally friendly. I think this was argued for, especially in places like the Middle East where desalinization is needed as a day to day requirement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Have you looked into lead-acid batteries? It would take more space, but it would probably be much less expensive than lithium-ion. It's not something I'm seriously considering, and if I was I'd wait to see how well this works in the winter, but I really didn't realize how much energy rooftop solar generated. I always assumed it was like, offset most of your electric use, not a way to generate more than you use. Also we managed to get net metering which is honestly a great deal for us, as much as it'd be way more responsible to not put demand on the grid during the goose neck or whatever that's called. The other thing I don't hear people talk about with solar panels: they cool your house down a lot, especially if you have lovely/no attic insulation. This is great because all we have right now is one window AC in one room, but the house is cooler during the hottest days than it was when it was just very warm last summer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:The other thing I don't hear people talk about with solar panels: they cool your house down a lot, especially if you have lovely/no attic insulation. This is great because all we have right now is one window AC in one room, but the house is cooler during the hottest days than it was when it was just very warm last summer. ....hm. I'd get a study done on your house, but that'd be interesting to see. Are the panels mounted flush to the roof or elevated above it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:The government won't build infrastructure but they will give me a tax refund for getting solar panels, and when their infrastructure inevitably crumbles and/or the apocalypse happens I'll still have power. ... possibly. In some states residential solar systems have to either be completely off-grid or have to basically act as a permanently-installed grid provider. In the latter case, you get the benefit of not having to have a bunch of energy storage in order to have electricity at night, but you also get the downside of losing power when your part of the grid loses power, even in the middle of the day. So if the infrastructure crumbles, you're still hosed until you make the changes necessary to be off-grid again (hopefully you already know how to do this if you're actually worried about all of the infrastructure collapsing some day)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....hm. I'd get a study done on your house, but that'd be interesting to see. It's not an unheard of phenomena, and it makes sense; all (well, most of) the light and heat that was beating down on the uninsulated attic are now hitting the solar panels instead. They're flush against the roof, and cover most of the surface area. Getting actual attic insulation is on the to-do list, but in the meantime the panels really help and cost less than the electricty bill, making it easier to find room in the budget to do that. QuarkJets posted:... possibly. In some states residential solar systems have to either be completely off-grid or have to basically act as a permanently-installed grid provider. In the latter case, you get the benefit of not having to have a bunch of energy storage in order to have electricity at night, but you also get the downside of losing power when your part of the grid loses power, even in the middle of the day. So if the infrastructure crumbles, you're still hosed until you make the changes necessary to be off-grid again (hopefully you already know how to do this if you're actually worried about all of the infrastructure collapsing some day) Yeah ours is definitely a grid provider. There hasn't been a power outage yet so I'm not sure if we can still pull from our panels when the power goes out. I don't recall any warnings from the utility or the solar company about this, so it may have some way to supply the house in the event of a grid outage, but I'm not sure. And I know enough about how this works that if poo poo hit the fan I could most likely figure it out, but not nearly enough to mess with it while everything is working fine 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
The electric company wouldn't warn you about it. The installer might but probably not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'd rather see excess renewable generation during the day put into hydrogen generation for fuel cell use instead of queueing up tens of thousands of massive lead acid batteries. Work with the assumption that base-load power still exists to provide power at night or when weather conditions are poor for renewables, and a lot more environmentally friendly solutions emerge. I am probably going to be tarred and feathered by the usual suspects in this thread for making the following post, but what about using the excess electricity generated by intermittent sources for the electro-chemical generation of fuels? We already have massive infrastructure for the storage and transport of fuels and fuels are great at many things that electricity is not so good at, like for heating and for powering ships and airplanes. There also is the idea that IF we were to ever live in a world where solar electricity was incredibly cheap, then heavy users of electricity who are very sensitive to electricity cost would be motivated to change what they do to use the excess solar electricity during the day. Of course, this is predicated on the idea that solar PV electricity will continue to decrease in cost. It might not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I am probably going to be tarred and feathered by the usual suspects in this thread for making the following post, but what about using the excess electricity generated by intermittent sources for the electro-chemical generation of fuels? We already have massive infrastructure for the storage and transport of fuels and fuels are great at many things that electricity is not so good at, like for heating and for powering ships and airplanes. I have a lot of issues with fuel cells but I also found out that you can apparently generate hydrogen fuel cell energy with a home, electric-powered kit not too dissimilarly from charging a BEV, which removes a lot of the problems. For home use I'm not sure how great it would be to have a system that stored the hydrogen and a hydrogen-powered generator, but I was just thinking today how it's a shame I have my car at work while my panels are at peak output, and some kind of battery swap would be ridiculous and expensive. Having excess solar generation go into filling a hydrogen fuel cell tank is probably the first time I've ever considered that maybe a hydrogen fuel cell car might not be a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Does anyone in this thread want to confess to being one "Henry Baptiste Jr 3rd" (AKA Henry Baptiste) who files the most amazingly incoherent and insane individual comments on random FERC proceedings? Saw a new one today and it made me think of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:I have a lot of issues with fuel cells but I also found out that you can apparently generate hydrogen fuel cell energy with a home, electric-powered kit not too dissimilarly from charging a BEV, which removes a lot of the problems. The losses are not worth it, and unless you plan to compress it and bottle it as well (i.e. introduce an electrical load as well as the load of electrolysis) is just one big loss. You have to have a bottle that is capable of holding compressed hydrogen, which hydrogen will slip out of nearly every container known to man outside of cryogenically cooled carbon fiber tanks, and its a giant explosive sitting around your house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:what about using the excess electricity generated by intermittent sources for the electro-chemical generation of fuels?l What sort of efficiency does this kind of process involve, and what does it need as input? Never heard of hydrocarbons from scratch at more than pharmaceutical or other low-volume scale. Regarding the bit about tarring and feathering, the issue I had was with the pretense you came into this thread with -- Sierra club anti-petrol-at-all-costs and what not -- as though some other, uh, politically-slanted / politically-focused thread had poisoned the well. There's nothing to me weird about suggesting hydrocarbons from  in an energy generation thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
How feasible are flywheels for overnight energy buffering, on a single-house scale? They don't need to be perfect, just enough to store 10-20kwh overnight, and spin up again the next day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What sort of efficiency does this kind of process involve, and what does it need as input? Never heard of hydrocarbons from scratch at more than pharmaceutical or other low-volume scale. There's no point in using excess solar from the grid to generate fuels. Just build a separate plant with its own solar cells to do whatever you want. The problem is storage so power is available at all times. Seems like a good application for ultracapacitors, since there's no energy changes associated with storing power in them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hydrogen generation is a net loss in energy, as it generally takes far more current to generate hydrogen gas and, optionally, compress it than you will get out of the hydrogen fuel cells. Yeah, but *everything* is a net loss in energy. If you use a big bank of batteries to store power, you don't get out 100% of what you put in, there's a loss there. If the point is using excess solar generation capacity during the day to store power via some mechanism in order so that mechanism can then supply power at night, then the fact that using hydrogen as an interim storage system is a net loss is neither here nor there. Charging a battery and then discharging it is a net loss. Pumping water uphill and then letting it flow down and turn a generator is a net loss. Pushing a big weight up a hill and letting it slide down is a net loss. Spinning up a flywheel is a net loss. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage system. Deteriorata posted:There's no point in using excess solar from the grid to generate fuels. Just build a separate plant with its own solar cells to do whatever you want. Again, I thought he was talking about storage, not generation. You can generate nice lovely burnable transportable energy-dense liquid fuels from the carbon in the air, it just takes energy to do it. If you're looking to store your excess solar energy in another form, turning it into hydrocarbons doesn't make inherently less sense than the other proposals. What's the current state-of-the art in supercapacitors in terms of cost and energy density? Lot of press a few years ago, not so much since then. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, but *everything* is a net loss in energy. If you use a big bank of batteries to store power, you don't get out 100% of what you put in, there's a loss there. If the point is using excess solar generation capacity during the day to store power via some mechanism in order so that mechanism can then supply power at night, then the fact that using hydrogen as an interim storage system is a net loss is neither here nor there. Charging a battery and then discharging it is a net loss. Pumping water uphill and then letting it flow down and turn a generator is a net loss. Pushing a big weight up a hill and letting it slide down is a net loss. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage system. Yes, but its a much higher net loss is what I meant. Infinite Karma posted:How feasible are flywheels for overnight energy buffering, on a single-house scale? They don't need to be perfect, just enough to store 10-20kwh overnight, and spin up again the next day. I seriously cannot wait for some guy to do this and have the bearings fail and it run off through the neighbors house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:How feasible are flywheels for overnight energy buffering, on a single-house scale? They don't need to be perfect, just enough to store 10-20kwh overnight, and spin up again the next day. http://www.calculatoredge.com/mech/flywheel.htm A 1,000kg flywheel (edit: as a disc -- a ring will be 2-3x more efficient if you can put it in a vacuum so spokes don't screw you with drag) with a diameter of 2 meters (biggest I think you're fitting in a house) rotating at 1400 RPM stores 2.8 kWh. The outer surface of the flywheel would be traveling more than 200m/s. Exposure to atmosphere would drain energy at a non-insignificant rate. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Ramp it up to a ten metric ton device with a diameter of 4 meters and you're storing 122 kWh. The raw steel ingots alone to build this are $3,000+ before any consideration for machining. I am finding myself attracted to the gigantic wheel of death method for storing overnight energy for a dozen homes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:36
|
|