this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
118 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59389 readers
4184 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] echo64@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not gonna jump on board with this one immediately, there's a few things about it that aren't wowwing me.

  1. R-19 is their magical 'denser than water' fluid. They don't have to be so secretive and if they are going to be secretive then I'm gonna assume it's not good for us.
  2. it's only really so that you can get the same amount of power from half the height. they aren't selling it as "store twice as much energy", but rather "use in locations that have half as much height". The thing is that the UK has used this kind of power for decades, there are old coal mines and natural cave formations that have large water flows. the water is pumped to the top when you have an excess, and dropped to power during demand. This system seems far better in general, even without the mysterious R-19 fluid. We don't /not/ have height differences in the UK, we have lots.
[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  1. It's Intellectual Property. Investors like IP so it can be licensed for royalties and bumps up the balance sheet. From their website

"RheEnergise said it invented the new high-density fluid, known as R-19. Chief executive Stephen Crosher told Professional Engineering that the liquid is a fine-milled suspended solid in water, with low viscosity and low abrasion characteristics. The base material is used in oral medication applications, in a similar way that chalk is used as a bulking agent for pills and tablets. He said the raw materials are common and available, including in the UK, and the fluid could either be manufactured on-site or at a depot. "

  1. Hydro is very geographically restricted, halving the height makes it less so.

I like the idea of using old coal mines, there's been pilot projects in Germany and Australia but I've never seen them amount to anything

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The base material is used in oral medication applications

Calcium carbonate. The density for a calcium carbonate suspension in water is right on the money for what they've stated. They're being so evasive because they haven't patened it and likely can't. They're treating it like a trade secret because they can't make it into IP.

Edit: yep, they use it in oil drilling, so they can't patent it https://glossary.slb.com/en/terms/c/calcium_carbonate

[–] Overzeetop@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is logically efficient from a technical standpoint, but from a practical perspective is a terrible idea. You're only getting 2-2.5x th energy storage out of the process, but in return you're effectively requiring that the entire fluid system be isolated from the environment. Toxicity aside, you can't do anything with the fluid outside of the system. It's probably not something you want local fauna drinking, nor do you want even the slightest chance of this leaking into the local aquifers. I presume that, if it's not fully isolated, the fluid mix balance would have to be adjusted to offset evaporation of the water. And if the plant turns out not to be as great at you hoped hat do you do with the fluid?

Some numbers - a quick google says "According to Ofgem, the typical household in Britain uses approximately 2,900 kWh of electricity annually." I'm going to round that up to 8kWh/day. For a small village of, say, 1250 homes and a three day storage capacity, that's 30MWh. 1MJ (MWs) is 1000kg (one metric ton) stored at 100m - the upper end of this project. Since 3600 seconds per hour x 1MWs = 1 MWh, and we want 30, that's 1MT x 3600 x 30 = 108,000 Metric Tons of this high density liquid needed for a small project to put a 3 power day buffer in place for a town of 1250 houses. WTF are you going to do with 108,000 metric tons of high-density fluid if you decide is isn't working? Your reservoir would only need to be 25% bigger (wider, longer, and deeper/taller) to just do the whole thing with water and you wouldn't need to figure out how to get 3500 full size tanker trucks to transport it all away somewhere for a different project for for de-slurry processing.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

If the fluid is what I'm thinking it is (calcium carbonate in water with a stabilizer), fluid loss would just be water loss and they wouldn't go to great pains to isolate it. They'd just add more water, since most of the weight they're pumping is the calcium carbonate.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

to put a 3 power day buffer in place

Hydro is used to smooth out peaks and troughs in the power supply. You're not even close to getting a useful estimate.

The fifth largest hydroelectric power station in the UK is 160MW

100MW by 2030 is a pretty big deal.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, we actually could use that damn water, for things, it's a perfect reservoir for drinking and/or irrigation.

Who in their right mind looked at this and said "You know, mercury has a higher specific gravity than water, it might even work better!!"

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's 2.5x heavier than water so can produce 2.5x the power for any given volume.

We have a lot of hydroelectric. But we don't have the mountains to build much of it.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, we can use the water for things, and water is something we can get more of one way or another.

A 2.5x multiplier doesn't seem as worth it to me, especially when we can do stuff like add hydrothermal storage to that number easily, among other things.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can get plenty of water. We can't get plenty of suitable sites.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

If the water leaks we can shrug our shoulders.

If the calcium carbonate slurry leaks we will feel more awkward.

[–] calabast@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Very cool. Do we know what the fluid is? Does it pose any health risks if it somehow leaks into the groundwater?

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's just good ol' fashioned mercury.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article claims it's 2.5x as dense as water, which according to this density chart is probably bromine.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I actually bet it's just very very fine stonedust and water in suspension.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure which would be worse for the machinery

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Supposedly it's exactly that, but stabilized by a polymer to keep it in suspension. https://online.flippingbook.com/view/1025707592/10/#zoom=true

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

They're saying it's minerals and a polymer. In that case even a leak into groundwater would just be leaking groundwater. (Depending on what the polymer is)

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is very neat. I wonder what the energy loss is, between what's required to lift the water and what's gained by releasing it. Regardless, eco-friendly high density "batteries" are a great concept.

[–] Qualanqui@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you have the system always running most of the cartage back to the top could be handled by the siphoning effect, like draining a washing machine or siphoning patrol.

You'd need energy to get it started but after that it should keep siphoning as long as there's liquid to siphon.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

I don't understand how that would work in this case; if this is true, I think I'd need to see a diagram.

My understanding is that they use energy to pump the liquid up during times of excess, and release it to generate energy when there's more demand.

I guess it's pretty good. Most hydro is >90% efficient. Losses are from friction turning the impellers and electrical circuits

[–] timtoon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Running on arbitrage of energy prices gives new meaning to 'buy the dip'.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

This is so heartening. Do things smarter and healthier. What a great idea.