>>11065050that's nice anon, but it's impractical to build pumped storage in places that are flat, which includes much of the american midwest. Water also evaporates...
>>11065124>>inefficientat the 80-90% round trip efficiency claimed by that company, it's more efficient than pumped storage.
>>inaccurateand how accurate do you really need to be for stacking blocks? Tolerances may be some fraction of the size of the block. And on the issue of construction equipment, a japanese demolition method already uses crane regenerative braking to generate electricity:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/08/news/razing-skyscrapers-from-the-inside/#.V4glVpMrK9Z>>11065512ThunderF00t completely misses the issue is that it's expensive to build pumped storage in places that are flat. 8 billion for the same capacity as a pumped storage facility in a place where we currently can't build pumped storage is pretty good. That pumped storage facility he mentions has a height difference of 380 m. Good fucking luck getting anywhere close to that in the plains. Hell, world's tallest water tower is only puts water about 73 m up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_TowersHe does have a point with wind though.
>>11065708>>Are you planning on making a crane which can lift 10 million tonnesno you imbecile
>> have some mechanism to load and unload portions of the massand that's the concept I'm referring too here baka:
>>11064349The thing about concrete is that it can support itself. For water we must build a supporting structure. In places where the ground is flat, this is impractical
