191
submitted 2 months ago by Dadifer@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

I’m pretty skeptical about this- wouldn’t a 30m sphere be incredibly buoyant when empty? I get its concrete, but it’s displacing huge amounts of water. So you’d need some massive anchoring, maybe that’s not a big deal. Second, I don’t know what depths we’re talking about here, but I feel like the stress from cycling these things daily would be insane- in high pressure salt water no less. I also wonder what the efficiency of this system would be compared to other similar batteries, like pumped hydro storage. It seems to me pumping out water to near vacuum while under crushing outside water pressure would be a significant power hog.

[-] Lupus@feddit.org 22 points 2 months ago

I don’t know what depths we’re talking about here,

From the article:

The idea is relatively simple: hollow concrete spheres are installed at a depth of several hundred metres.

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Thanks, I missed that on my read through - 1000 feet of water is pretty serious pressure.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

The more pressure the more "equivalent head" power discharge potential. Separate "vacuum pump" (instead of bidirectional) could also have several stages to improve efficiency.

[-] void_turtle 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It seems to me pumping out water to near vacuum while under crushing outside water pressure would be a significant power hog

Well, yeah. That's the point. It's a battery. Whatever energy you put in to pump the water out, you get some percentage (probably in the 50-70% range) of it back when you let the water back in. The point of these is to store energy from renewables whenever they are providing more power than the grid demands - otherwise the power would be wasted.

Edit: The paper claims 72% efficiency which is pretty good if I understand things correctly

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah don't get me wrong- I get it’s a battery. But a battery that’s 5% efficient isn’t great. Now 72? That’s pretty incredible, I’d like to see that in action.

[-] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

The most pressure it would experience would be the difference in internal vs external pressure. At 1000ft of depth there’s a pressure of 440psi. Assuming the sphere somehow managed a perfect vacuum that’s still well below the 6000psi compressive strength of high strength concrete, hell they would still have more flexural strength. The spheres themselves definitely wouldn’t be the weak link.

this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
191 points (100.0% liked)

science

20593 readers
584 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS