Calculating kWh for Lifting 2 Tons to 5m with a Gravity Accumulator Design

E = mc ^ 2 mass 1000 kg speed 1 m per second, so 1000 J.
1 J = 1 W × 1 s, which means that a block with a mass of one ton, falling one meter in one second, will generate 1 kWh.

Moderated By gulson:

Report: Incorrect Patterns

Seriously?
My lecturer wrote by Bełkottttttt with an explanation: the more "t", the greater the gibberish.
E = mc? is the mass / energy equivalent formula where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
E = mv? / 2 is the kinetic energy formula and can actually be applied for a 1000 kg mass accelerated to a speed of 1 m / s. Our energy storage assumes the use of potential energy where there is weight (mass * acceleration in this case due to gravity) and the distance traveled, i.e. height.
Read the physics range for elementary school and calculate again. Don't compromise yourself on the tech forum.

Przemyek wrote:

E = mc ^ 2 mass 1000 kg speed 1 m per second, so 1000 J.1 J = 1 W × 1 s, which means that a block with a mass of one ton, falling one meter in one second, will generate 1 kWh.

See posts # 10 and # 11 for an idea where you made a mistake.

So you calculated that two tons falling from 5 meters is 0.027 kWh. Honestly, the sides are tearing off. I`m not going to argue, but even for simple peasant reason this is nonsense. Come to me, I`ll give you 0.027 kWh to lift this 2-ton block 5 meters up.

Przemyek wrote:

So you calculated that two tons falling from 5 meters is 0.027 kWh. Honestly, the sides are tearing off

And keep breaking up until you succeed. Either you didn`t read the posts I recommended or you didn`t understand them.

Przemyek wrote:

Come to me, I will give you this 0.027 kWh to lift this 2-ton block 5 meters up.

0.02725 kWh, or 98.1 kWs, theoretically allows a 10kW engine to operate for 9.81s.

Now look at the problem below, in which a concrete block weighing 2 tons must be lifted to a height of 10 m in 20 s. This corresponds (in terms of the required engine power) to lifting these 2 tons to a height of 5 m in 10 s. https://brainly .pl/zadanie/19729463 In the problem, the rounded acceleration due to gravity was assumed to be 10 m/s² instead of 9.81 m/s². Of course, the calculation is purely theoretical because it assumes lifting the block no energy loss in the lifting device.

In fact, not 0.02725 kWh is needed, but about 0.05 kWh with a crane efficiency of 55%.

>>5381606
https://www.focus.pl/artykul/baterie-grawitac...ć-energię-ze-źródeł-odnawialnych-jak-działają

@pawelsliwonik2 There are companies that do research based on the principle "if they give you money, you can even try things that make no sense". This is how science is spoiled by state funds and crowdfunding, this is how it is everywhere where you spend money that is not your own - they breed fraudsters pretending to be scientific work.
In this thread, colleagues calculated how little energy can be stored and how expensive it will be to build such an installation. You have to invest several thousand in a not very durable "battery" that stores energy for just two cents - these are objective difficulties that no one can overcome, regardless of what they write in the newspaper.
A pumped-storage power plant makes sense because these millions of tons are lying on the ground and you only need to build a water tank, you don`t need to build poles, guides, ropes, pulleys, hundreds of generators/engines, etc.

I mentioned once that I saw such an accumulator but working in a hydraulic system -
https://towerbridge.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/...e-engine-room-accumulator-tower-1568x1047.jpg
The photo is from this site:
https://towerbridge.me.uk/original-machinery/
Can be visited in London.
It worked for a hundred years - now the electric pumps have enough power to move the bridge without a gravity accumulator.

If we dig deeper, each counterweight of a cable-powered lift and each counterweight of a drawbridge, such as the railway bridge over the Regalica, is a specific gravitational energy accumulator. Specific, because the energy is stored either in the counterweight or in the lift cabin, depending on the difference in height at which they are located.

It all depends on how the energy stored in the battery is to be used. Therefore, a gravity battery will work best in gravity machines - such as an elevator or a lever, because potential energy is needed there with small losses. Inertial battery (e.g. flywheel) where kinetic energy is needed - e.g. vehicles. Any change in the type of energy causes losses that destroy the purpose of the project. Changing the type of energy is profitable only if we steal it at the beginning, because it has already been stored in certain processes that we did not put energy into. That is, fossil fuels. There is chemical energy hidden in coal or oil, which has been stored in expensive chemical processes, expensive, for example, because of the time in which they took place. By stealing it, we built civilization. We can throw away this terribly expensive, but apparently cheap for us, energy, convert it into thermal energy (loss), then into kinetic energy (loss), then into electrical energy (loss), then into potential energy (potential battery, power plant, e.g. -pump), again into electricity (loss) and heat for heating or kinetic energy - electric motor. And basically - slaughter the Earth.
Only in this discussion we can see how expensive energy really is, using the example of a 2-tonne block on a 5-meter-long path.
But the greatest paradox is that even obtaining the energy stored in the atom or its nucleus (stored there during the creation of the world) comes down to converting water into steam. Pathetic, isn`t it?

andreashinterweichsl wrote:

But the greatest paradox is that even obtaining the energy stored in the atom or its nucleus (stored there during the creation of the world) comes down to converting water into steam. Pathetic, isn`t it?

You`re oversimplifying. You are also wrong in thinking that we are stealing energy stored in fossil fuels.
Mother Nature stored it for us, just as the Polish Mother stores milk in her breasts for her unborn child.

andreashinterweichsl wrote:

so a gravity battery will work best in gravity machines - such as an elevator or a lever, because potential energy is needed there with small losses. Inertial battery (e.g. flywheel) where kinetic energy is needed - e.g. vehicles.

Gravitational is convenient to use, but it accumulates too little energy to make it profitable to use, for clocks it is ok.
Inertial energy is inconvenient to use, there is no way to directly use mechanical energy, it must be converted into electrical energy.

andreashinterweichsl wrote:

Only in this discussion we can see how expensive energy really is, using the example of a 2-tonne block on a 5-meter-long path.

This does not mean that it is expensive, but that the gravity battery does not offer reasonable parameters. 27Wh is energy that I don`t have to "steal" from anyone, I can create it with my own muscles and even then, there is no point in building a crane to collect it.

andreashinterweichsl wrote:

But the greatest paradox is that even obtaining the energy stored in the atom or its nucleus (stored there during the creation of the world) comes down to converting water into steam. Pathetic, isn`t it?

In the field of low power, there are alternative solutions, but for megawatts-gigawatts there are no solutions or it is not profitable.
I have read about alternative reactor designs that use fuel more efficiently, produce less waste, or even produce their own fuel and are very safer in operation. But why make the effort when classic solutions are simpler and cheaper, and there is relatively little waste, so no one cares.

How do these arguments relate to the gravitational energy storage units currently being tested? According to what is written above, zero cost-effectiveness, yet several are already in operation in the world.

Quote:

The Polish ESP Porąbka-Żar, for example, takes only 180 seconds to start up its turbines. The efficiency of pumped storage power plants is between 65% and 85%. This means that 1 MWh drawn from the grid translates into between 0.65 and 0.85 MWh of electricity generated.

It is clear as bull that here a couple of ''pseudo-physico-oofs'' have made a fuss to put out the topic.

bemx2k1 wrote:

It is clear as bull that here a couple of ''pseudo-physico-oofs'' have made a fuss to put out the topic.

Sorry, you are the one who is mixing things up by giving as an example of a gravity accumulator a pumped storage power plant system. The fact is that the upper reservoir of such a power station is an accumulator of water falling by gravity to the turbines below the reservoir, but here we are discussing other accumulators. See the title entry and my entries 21 and 24.

bemx2k1 wrote:

How do these arguments relate to the gravitational energy storage plants currently being tested?

Provide an example of one that works normally, having had the testing stage, and is not a hollow to raise money - see entries 27 and 37.

bemx2k1 wrote:

How do these arguments relate to the gravitational energy storage units currently being tested? According to what is written above, zero cost-effectiveness, yet a few are already in operation in the world.

A primary school level mathematics will give you the answer. Calculate the product of mass and height.

bemx2k1 wrote:

For example, the Polish ESP Porąbka-Żar only needs 180 seconds to start its turbines. The efficiency of pumped storage power plants is between 65% and 85%. This means that 1 MWh drawn from the grid translates into between 0.65 and 0.85 MWh of electricity generated.

2 million tonnes of water lifted 440 m - it works. Try it with concrete blocks. .

Quote:

It is clear as bull that here a couple of ''pseudo-physicists'' have made a fuss to put out the topic.

This is no great physics. Do you have a primary school certificate? Then you should be able to count E = m*g*h, and if you don't, go to school again or hand in your certificate - wrongly issued.

bemx2k1 wrote:

a couple of ''pseudo-physico-oofs'' have made a fuss to put out the topic

To refresh the topic, I propose to a Fellow to solve the following task. I will give him 100 points for the correct answer.

A charged battery with a voltage rating of 12 V , capacity 120 Ah and weight 32 kg lowered on the alternator drive line. From what height should it be lowered to obtain the same amount of electricity stored in the battery? We assume a lossless conversion of potential energy into electrical energy, i.e. 100% efficiency of the mechanical battery - alternator assembly, and ignore the mass of the rope.

If a colleague doesn't want to count, please estimate ''on the surface'' whether it will be
(a) less than 300 m,
b) between 300 m and 3000 m,
c) more than 3000 m.
here I offer only 25 points for a correct answer.

I am giving you a few days to solve the task, I ask other forumers not to answer before 8 May.

I have checked with several sources, not verified before. My mistake.
The cost-effectiveness of gravitational energy stores (those with weights on ropes) zero.

bemx2k1 wrote:

Cost-effectiveness of gravitational energy storage (those with weights on ropes) zero.

Don't fall into pessimism for a change, cost-effectiveness is not zero but very low.
I still stand by my proposal from post 46, the promised 100 or 25 points are waiting for you.

bemx2k1 wrote:

I checked with several sources, didn't verify beforehand. My mistake.

You're not the first to be fooled, everything needs to be verified, the media lives on spreading false information. Startups live by selling false information to investors. It's hard to believe how a few "forest grandparents" on the forum say that innovation is a scam.

Paweł Es. wrote:

Generally pointless, because in this "battery" you lose most of the energy input (on processing).

Not pointless

Quote:

Pumped storage power plant (ESP) - an industrial plant designed to convert electricity into gravity energy of pumped water

Uses a gravity battery.

Quote:

Today there are six major pumped storage power plants in Poland: Żarnowiec, Porąbka-Żar, Solina-Myczkowce, Żydowo, Nidzica, Dychów.

.

CYRUS2 wrote:

Uses a gravity battery.

YES, YES, YES,
Unfortunately you have not noticed that we are discussing gravity accumulators other than the upper reservoir of a pumped storage power station.
To wit - we are discussing solid electrolyte batteries not liquid electrolyte batteries.

I was not referring to your statements.
Post #50 - I was quoting Paul Es.

Paweł Es. wrote:

Generally pointless, because in this "battery" you lose most of the energy input (on processing)

.

CYRUS2 wrote:

I was not referring to your statements.

I was not quoting mine either.
From the first sentence of his post, it is clear what kind of energy accumulator Paul Es writes

Paweł Es. wrote:

A 2-ton "weight" (no matter whether in whole or in parts) hanging at 5 m height has potential energy...

.

Is it so important that someone, sixteen years ago, wrote a stilted 'argument' to an earlier untrue thesis? People do this every day. Even primary school children (the smarter ones) know that electric machines can have very high efficiency.

In order for the potential energy of the battery (its weight at altitude on the ground) to equal the energy stored as charge of this 32kg 120Ah 12V battery. It would need to be floated to an altitude of about 16.5km. (With correction for the change in g with altitude probably closer to 17km).

sigwa18 wrote:

You would need to float it to an altitude of about 16.5 km.

.
Thank you for solving my assignment from post 46. The result should convince ''weight'' gravity battery enthusiasts.

Meanwhile, gravity drags Energy Vault's share value to zero


Maybe there should be a competition, for the energy storage company that has managed to deceive investors the longest.

Such curiosity for the sake of completing the topic.

https://www.tuolawa.pl/artykul/35263,beda-dwa-takie-magazyny-dwie-wieze

The old gentleman has a fantasy but if he also has money then let him build. No basic data other than the height and diameter of the towers, but assuming the average energy demand of a house to be 10 kWh/day, we can count the mass of the concrete blocks based on the vague notation ''This storage facility, the first of its kind in the world, will be able to store enough energy to power 30,000 homes for 7 hours!''

I invite colleagues to calculate the minimum total mass of the blocks. Assume for simplicity 100% efficiency of towers.

For the dimensions of the tower as in the article, you could fit, for example, a concrete cylinder with a radius of 30 metres and a cylinder height of 60 metres.
The mass is almost .................... tonnes.
After lifting it to a height of 140 metres, the potential energy would be .............. kWh.

If the cylinder is made of lead the stored energy will be just over 4 times as much.
Gold and tungsten are unlikely to be bought in such quantities.
Uranium from spent nuclear fuel probably has a density of just under 19 050 kg/m³.
Spent fuel is plentiful but I doubt if it is on the open market.

Added 8 August
An arithmetic error crept in for me. corrected results are in the next post.