this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
189 points (97.0% liked)

science

18499 readers
684 users here now

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

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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 1 points 7 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 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 23 hours 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 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 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 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

... 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 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 3 points 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 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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