It came from a gas supplier....
Where do you think supplier got it from?
Also: WHERE ARE THE ROUNDTRIP EFFICIENCY NUMBERS???
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
280 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
78029 readers
3272 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
There's not enough minable copper or lithium to make all of the batteries we will need. So e alternatives will have to emerge if we are to reduce the need for generating power on demand with fuels.
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.
There is a thermal energy storage included as s major part. This works because compressing CO2 to 55atm adiabatically heats it up to some 450-ish C, so that heat is pretty high grade, and only the final stage cools it down with heat exchanger open to air. In discharging direction, some heat is taken from outside air to evaporate part of CO2 and heat stored is used up
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
On the downside, Energy Dome’s facility takes up about twice as much land as a comparable capacity lithium-ion battery would. And the domes themselves, which are about the height of a sports stadium at their apex, and longer, might stand out on a landscape and draw some NIMBY pushback.
This is surprisingly good! I would have figured it would have taken far more than twice the land than a Lithium battery solution.
Please let this be viable.
The more renewable energy and storage, the better.
I imagine that the bubble portion is light weight enough, one could put it on the roof of a data center, apartment building, strip mall, etc. That appears to be the piece that takes up the most space.
Another thought. I wonder if the bubble portion could be oriented vertically, maybe inside a simple enclosure to protect it from wind.
I was thinking about much larger scale bubbles in "unwanted" geological depressions such as old open pit mines or rock quarries. The depression in the ground might offer more protection allowing it to scale up higher in volume.
Sure wish they mentioned the effeciency.
Sure wish they mentioned the effeciency.
Without it you should dismiss the whole article as worthless garbage
Damned good question, and I played stump-the-search-engine for 15 minutes and it's like they're AVOIDING that question
Could be very high, even the waste heat from the compression could be used to achieve more compression and turbines get to above 90%, that all depends on the scales they're building this at. 70% overall doesn't seem unrealistic as an educated guess.
even the waste heat from the compression could be used to achieve more compression
No. Waste heat (which is always low-temperature in respect to the device in question) can by definition not be converted to mechanical work. (Edit: to uninformed people downvoting this, this is nothing else than Carnot's law in action.)
Otherwise, one could build a perpetuum mobile: Convert heat to mechanical work, use that work to generate heat, convert it to work again, and so on. You'd have a machine that generates energy out of nothing, and that's not possible because of the law of energy conservation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperator
A recuperator is a counter-flow energy recovery heat exchanger that recovers waste heat in the supply
On their website (energydome.com) they claim “75%+” round trip efficiency, so not a bad guess!
That’s a hell of a lot better than most other systems. If true, and if scalable, this is a huge innovation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Compressed air without heat recovery is more like 30%, so this is huge
Carbon dioxide can be liquefied relatively easily which is what i guess makes this efficient
load more comments
(1 replies)
I run a consulting practice around flexibility. Been around the energy space for 15 years. Boy if I had a dollar for every time I've heard "grid scale [x] will soon be everywhere"
Stockholders and aalesmen make them put that towards the end... to make investors feel dizzy I think
Eh, HRSG's got real popular in the 90s and now most major plants have them. Its not a rapidly changing space, dont get me wrong. But new shit comes around every so often.
view more: next ›