>>13971511>Moving 100k tons of water with a pump and moving 100k tons of concrete blocks up and down with a dozen cranes are two completely diffent thingsThey are only completely different in completely irrelevant ways.
The principle is the same but blocks allegedly are more efficient by 5% points and that is impossible to get around because liquid pumps inherently waste more energy compared to electric wenches and there's no way around that. They also have the huge benefit of not requiring unique and fairly extremely rare local geographic conditions
>You have to move 100k tons of concrete 200m up and down (~54MWh) to provide the daily needs of a small ~2,000 household town- , The same mass must be moved for pumped storage. Moving water requires far more long term maintenance than lifting something by wire. Pipes break and corrode. Wires basically just need grease and they're good for a decade and easily swapped out when needed.You also need to dig a tunnel through a mountain and build a dam at the bottom of it too, and if there's no valley on top of the mountain you need another damn there as well to store water.
>every fucking small suburban town must have multiple +300m skyskrapers in constant construction/deconstruction.100m and 1 or 2 is plenty and also so what? It's just a big crane and concrete. Very cheap with 0 environment impact. It's possible the sway of the crane wires may lead to stability issues via improperly stacking these blocks and that might kill the idea, but solid mass gravity energy storage is still definitely better than hyrdro.
>genuinely have to be retarded to think it's viable The only issue is the stability and if that is tolerable then from an engineering perspective stacked gravity block storage is superior in all relevant ways. You've only given boomer tier "RAWR IT"S SOOO SILLY TO BUILD A SKY SCRAPPER SO MANY TIMES RAAAAWR IM ANGRY!!!!" excuses. Stop crying about this, it's clearly a viable option
