this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
280 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

78029 readers
3336 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"This giant bubble on the island of Sardinia holds 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. But the gas wasn’t captured from factory emissions, nor was it pulled from the air. It came from a gas supplier.... "The facility compresses and expands CO2 daily in its closed system, turning a turbine that generates 200 megawatt-hours of electricity, or 20 MW over 10 hours."

(page 2) 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 81 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Sure wish they mentioned the effeciency.

[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] oxbech@feddit.dk 42 points 1 week ago (3 children)

On their website (energydome.com) they claim “75%+” round trip efficiency, so not a bad guess!

[–] sunbeam60@feddit.uk 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That’s a hell of a lot better than most other systems. If true, and if scalable, this is a huge innovation.

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

compressors, turbines (like steam turbines), piping, some of which heat-resistant (500C), container for liquid carbon dioxide, lots of plastic for the bubble, something for thermal storage, dry and clean carbon dioxide, these aren't unusual or restricted resources, don't depend on critical raw materials or anything like that

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We had these things called Gasometers in the UK for a long time. They expanded with the amount of gas stored in them, and they kept the pressure of the local gas supply up. A local gas reservoir, or "gas battery" if you like.

These bubbles are basically the same idea but at higher pressure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I wonder how resilient they are to big winds.

[–] Deebster 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also from the article:

If the worst happens and the dome is punctured, 2,000 tonnes of CO2 will enter the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to the emissions of about 15 round-trip flights between New York and London on a Boeing 777. “It’s negligible compared to the emissions of a coal plant,” Spadacini says. People will also need to stay back 70 meters or more until the air clears, he says.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Guilty, I only skimmed it. Thanks.

[–] sunbeam60@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago

And if there is a known high wind coming, the plant can forcefully go through the compression cycle to remove the bubble.

[–] H1AA6329S@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's really not that big of a wind. One bad storm and we have it burst

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

The article also mentions that they can deflate it in around 10 hours

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

Sounds pretty good

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wonder how small you can scale these and retain efficiency, at twice the footprint (but I'm guessing a lot more volume) of a lithium grid battery, will we see these replacing home batteries down the line?

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They are talking hectares in this and it looks like the power density is below that of batteries, but its also cheaper per MWh.

I home long term battery makes a lot of sense, I have thought for a while something that goes from water and the air into methane or even liquid fuel would be highly beneficial as it could run from a generators through the winter and act for long term storage without requiring a turbine.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

The tanks might go underground mitigating (perhaps) the pressure explosion risk as opposed to lithium fire risk, but the honking great tent is an issue. Should have a longer life than Li Ion and be repairable vs somewhat recyclable. At scaled production it could certainly be cheaper, but some of the newer immobile battery chemistries might beat it. Synthesized fuel also makes a lot of sense. We shall see. What certainly makes sense is microgrids and power self-sufficiency.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›