this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
352 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

34806 readers
201 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An abandoned mine in Finland is set to be transformed into a giant battery to store renewable energy during periods of excess production.

The Pyhäsalmi Mine, roughly 450 kilometres north of Helsinki, is Europe’s deepest zinc and copper mine and holds the potential to store up to 2 MW of energy within its 1,400-metre-deep shafts.

The disused mine will be fitted with a gravity battery, which uses excess energy from renewable sources like solar and wind in order to lift a heavy weight. During periods of low production, the weight is released and used to power a turbine as it drops.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This is one of those ideas that in hindsight seem so simple and obvious that it makes one wonder how nobody thought of it prior. Absolutely brilliant.

[–] chaotic_disorganizer 39 points 9 months ago (4 children)

They have done this before, only instead of using a big weight, they use water. Lookup "Dinorwig Power Station" for a good example.

[–] proctonaut 10 points 9 months ago

Banks Lake in the US has been doing it for quite awhile too.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's similar but different in a lot of meaningful ways. Hydro pumping like that requires a relatively large body of water next to a large geographical height right nearby. This new system doesn't require any water, and it uses a man made hole in the ground that's already been created and which otherwise would be simply unused

[–] sizzler 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's what we call a double whammy. Paid to remove the metals and then paid for the hole you've made.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like a double win, not a double whammy

[–] sizzler 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh interesting, I can see how whammy could be considered negative, but I've always heard it used in a positive way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Huh, definitionally it's always a bad thing, i wonder why people around you use it that way

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whammy

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

It was definitely a bad thing in "Press Your Luck", the game show where the term was coined. The "Whammy" was a little monster who took all your money.

[–] sizzler 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Even from your link there's someone using it in a positive way so clearly not mate lol.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Where, quote it for me. I looked in 5 separate dictionaries, they all say it's a negative thing.

[–] sizzler 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"How to use Whammy in a sentence" 5th one down is "I love being able to sing for my job and its my passion to so it's a double whammy"

Edit: funnily enough, keep scrolling and you have the British dictionary definition and let's face it you are speaking English. There it directly says, "something which has great, often negative, impact"

So right there in your link, it's not always negative.

[–] Adalast 4 points 9 months ago

Bonus, it starts fully charged since the weight is inserted at the apex of the battery instead of having to be lifted.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

I read of another it was the same physics but different scenario. I think it was like excess energy moves heavy carts up a hill. When energy is needed, these carts get released and their potential energy from hill and the basic idea of regenerative breaking to repurpose it's kinetic energy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Yes, and they use lakes of water to have enough mass to make it worthwhile. No weight down a mineshaft is worth it.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Because it's super inefficient

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not if the energy would go to waste. This is a mechanical battery to store surplus power generation from things like wind and solar.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

That’s the whole point of grid energy storage. Even if there are losses, it’s acceptable considering that otherwise you would need to burn fossil fuels in a peaker plant to keep the grid balanced. You aren’t supposed to recharge a battery like this with fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

It wouldn't go to waste if we were to use "gravity batteries" that have existed for centuries: hydropower

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is it more or less efficient than a derelict mine and an unstored energy surplus?

[–] ripcord 3 points 9 months ago