• carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours 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.

    • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day 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.

    • Lupus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days 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.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day 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.

    • A_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      … you’d need some massive …
      from the srticle :
      … a sphere nine metres in diameter and weighing 400 tonnes will be submerged …

      Can you calculate the weight of a sphere of 9 m of displaced water ?
      No ? Well, it is 382 tons.
      So, the concrete sphere is already massive by itself. “You” don’t need any complicated anchoring.
      Same goes with the rest of your mechanical engineering intuitions : you did not work in this domain or study it, did you 😆 ?
      Also, stress cycling is bad on most material, yes. But here it is compressive stress and the geometry is symmetric. Without further study, i want to believe this thing has good potential and my intuitions tells me it looks nice. Time will tell 😁 !

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Can you calculate the weight of a sphere of 9 m of displaced water ?
        No ? Well, it is 382 tons.

        Metric strikes again.
        I bet you didn’t even have to convert through football fields, elephants, or olympic sized swimming pools!

        • A_A@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          indeed i made a very simplified calculation not taking into account increase density of salted water nor increased density because of compressibility of water at 500 m deep. Basically i took 1m³(water) is 1 (metric) ton.

      • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thanks for the insight, I’m not a mechanical engineer, I’m a software engineer :) The walls on these spheres have got to be pretty thick- 400 tonnes is no joke. 3/4 of a meter if I had to guess.

        • A_A@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          Perfect guess ! (afaik) ρ(concrete) ≈ 2.5 tons/m³
          so full sphere ≈ (2.5 x 382) tons = 955 tons
          they have 400 t so the cavity removes :
          955 - 400 = 555 t … so 7.51m diam. cavity
          … so, yes 3/4m thick wall 😌👍 !

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            That’s exactly the way I would have calculated it, glad someone beat me to it though. Thanks!