this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
11 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

2544 readers
16 users here now

Post articles or questions about technology

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

@cm0002 So that is the equivalent of the average nuclear plant output for six minutes, very useful. I'd instead invest the concrete and steel into making the actual plant, that way I would have 1GW (10x100MW) 24x7 for 60 or 70 years, take up less land, and not require energy from another source to "store". When one looks at the economics of what it takes to store six minutes of a nuke plant's worth of electricity the economics of wind and solar, or lack thereof, become obvious. When you consider all the energy that was required to make the concrete to store that six minutes, it becomes especially insane.

[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The site says the blocks are made from recycled concrete

That's supposed to be a finite resource, not a poster child for why more is "necessary". ☝🏼

[–] wander1236@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Surplus wind power hoists 35-ton blocks cast from recycled concrete and industrial aggregate toward the top.

[–] Bohne93@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

Oh wow, been years since i last heared of gravity batteries. AdamSomething i think made a video about these, tldr water reservoirs are much much more efficent

[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago