@AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
Post #2772151
2025-12-22 16:40 UTC
This CO2 is acting as a reusable fluid in a closed loop. The initial capture of the CO2 costs energy, but the battery keeps using the same CO2 over and over again. So the question of efficiency should be more about land usage and maintenance of the rest of the parts and the labor needed for each megawatt stored vs what other grid scale energy storage costs in materials and labor.
The rough reality is that batteries aren't going to be up to the task of grid scale energy storage unless they have a couple huge breakthroughs. Something like this is a far less materially expensive way to store energy for later use.
Currently most grid scale energy storage is just pumping water up a hill and letting it back down through a generator. It is extremely limited in where it can be used and requires tremendous space to be effective.
Replies (3)
-
@HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 2025-12-22 20:24
Compressing gas generates heat, and a significant part of that heat will be lost. Heat dissipation is irreversible, and this lowers efficiency a lot. BTW the same reason why in industry, pneumatic drives are universally replaced by electric motors: Their efficiency is too low.
-
@Natanael@infosec.pub 2025-12-22 18:34
The number of decommissioned but still usable batteries are growing fast though, and plenty of storage sites use old battery packs, both from cars and home energy storage and stuff like it
-
@humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2025-12-25 13:47
This concept was started 3-5 years ago, when retail batteries where $500/kwh. They are now under $100/kwh. Concept is worthwhile for diversification of resources and talent.