Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.1K

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

pumping air consumes more energy than is released by the air getting compressed. Net negative of energy just like electric cars, albeit, no tailpipe emissions. Furthermore highly compressed tanks of air in cars will explode when there is a car accident.

[–] • 2 pts

We should instead use the compressed air as another utility. Simply pipe all the air to our houses and we can use it in appliances, tools, etc.

[–] • 1 pt

Just another take on pumping water up the mountain to a reservoir and then releasing it to turn turbines. most aren't willing to make the investment (including California) . California requires a monopoly on technology for that particular technology to be viable. Tesla got a big portion of their seed money from California and nope, they didn't move to Texas as advertised.

[–] • 1 pt

Forty percent efficiency (you can forget about the higher numbers, they are just there for show). It's an incredibly wasteful technology.

[–] • 0 pt

Versus 0 efficiency for wasted electricity or never generated such as solar when it's sunny.

[–] • 0 pt

Ya, but you’re wasting air. So it’s fine.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

How is this supposed to compete with a lithium ion battery? It's not portable, and requires access to the grid. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MARKET. And 50% efficency is really bad. Batteries are 95% efficient.

I could see this as being useful if the market is EXTREMELY volatile, but you'd have to fill it up when electricity is cheap and then wait for the price to double before discharging. Electricity in my area is stable. It's been $0.12 / kWH for decades. So, that's decades that this hypothetical power plant has been making no money.