"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.”

  • wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    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.

    • eleitl@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      42 minutes ago

      It’s still near atmospheric pressure. Liquid CO2 expanding is powering the gas turbines.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        37 minutes ago

        Ah the bubble is the expansion volume. Not the storage volume… got it. I had it backwards.

        So yes, very similar then.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      40 minutes ago

      Thats not what this is regardless of what you’d personally like it to be. You’re showing clearly that you’re poorly educated on electricity generation.

      • amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 minutes ago

        As per Energy Dome

        But the gas wasn’t captured from factory emissions, nor was it pulled from the air. It came from a gas supplier, and it lives permanently inside the dome’s system to serve an eco-friendly purpose

        these people are straight-up lying, how can CO2 be “eco-friendly” when all its industrial extraction processes involve fossil fuels as a source? notice how they didn’t mention who their gas supplier is? that’s because it would out them and their lies.

        it’s impossible to buy gas turbines without ultimately funding the fossil fuel giants. also let’s not ignore the environmental catastrophe that would happen if these were deployed en masse and a corruption scandal like the Beirut port explosion happened.

        it’s also not lost on me that this company is willing to contract with Xinjiang companies, despite the genocide that China is comitting there.

        it’s concerning whenever Google gets excited about a new energy solution because we all know how they treat the environment around their data centers. if deployed, they’d use the hot breath bubbles to excuse their seemingly infinite energy consumption increase in order to keep the AI bubble from popping. this is carbon credits all over again, they’ll use the CO2 to deploy more methane gas turbines because these would “cancel them out”.

    • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

        • sunbeam60@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours 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

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours 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.

    • Deebster@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.