Comments by "Fred Bloggs" (@fredbloggs5902) on "Europe’s deepest mine transformed into a GIANT underground battery" video.

  1.  @asdfasdf71865 where is he wrong? Be specific.
    5
  2. Now show your calculations for the energy stored… …oh wait, you haven’t done any, because if you had, you’d know the amount is minuscule.
    2
  3. Gravity batteries are utter nonsense. They’re much too expensive, complicated, inefficient and unreliable. More importantly their capacity is ridiculously small. (You can always tell that you’re being conned by them confusing power with energy).
    1
  4.  user-uk8tl3xy9e  You obviously haven’t read the specification. To obtain an energy storage of 100 mWh requires 36,000 concrete blocks each weighing 35 tonnes. Getting the output of 25mW requires the blocks to be dropped 60m at a rate of 1.2 blocks per second. Given that even in freefall it takes 3.5 seconds to fall 60m, it seems reasonable that a power extracting decent will take around 10 seconds. This means to get the needed output requires 12x blocks to be falling at any one time. Note that a prototype was supposedly built in 2019 in Italy but nobody seems to know where it is. It’s a scam.
    1
  5. And most are either totally unsuitable or require massive investment to render safe because they’ve been closed for decades.
    1
  6.  @stevehayward1854  You’re obviously an expert, please list them.
    1
  7.  @FrunkensteinVonZipperneck You don’t get to use the full volume of the mine, only the shaft, unless you start using energy to stack the weights sideways which immediately wastes most of the energy.
    1
  8. Nicely done. The TLDR is that gravity batteries simply don’t store much energy and are expensive, complicated, inefficient, unreliable and there aren’t many suitable locations.
    1
  9.  @grycripps  It really isn’t, go learn something.
    1
  10. Claiming ‘no loss of conversion’ is obvious nonsense. Also the energy capacity of gravity batteries is low and suitable sites are incredibly rare.
    1
  11.  @keithwillis3761  You obviously haven’t read the proposal. Go read it before you embarrass yourself any further 🤣🤡
    1
  12.  @keithwillis3761  The core technique stores a minuscule amount of energy. You really are utterly clueless.
    1
  13. It’s a scam
    1
  14. Except chemical batteries are already in use and provably profitable. While gravity batteries are utter nonsense with a low energy density, expensive, complicated, inefficient, unreliable and suitable sites are rare.
    1
  15. I agree - but where do you put the upper reservoir?
    1