i didn't do any math tbh, i just took the 25% number from the wikipedia page for cryogenic energy storage. i assumed their efficiency would be lower of the smaller temperature differential, but maybe it will be higher because they are storing part of the energy as pressure rather than temperature
The tanks to hold liquid CO2 will likely be a lot cheaper than compressed air tanks because the required pressure is much lower. But they are going to loose a lot of energy to cooling the gas and reheating the liquid. I would be surprised if the round-trip efficiency is higher than 25%.
this reminds me of something i've observed. it seems like there is a general trend in software of doing things that look good (either in an ad or in a sprint review) rather than things that feel good to use. one example among many is nvidia's frame generation feature, which makes 60 fps look like 120 fps when you're watching somebody else play, but feel like 30 fps when you're the one playing.
somebody once said oil is too valuable to burn for fuel. the important part are the petrochemicals, but the demand for fuel is so high that's where the money is
there are reactor designs that work that way, but most civilian power plants are pressurized water reactors. it is important that the water stays pressurized or you get a chernobyl
in the long view, much of the US's economic success (prior to the post-wwii economic miracle) can be attributed directly or indirectly to cheap and plentiful food. this of course means that farming is not a very profitable business. but that could change if a handful of large corporations buy up a plurality of the farms and exert their monopoly power to push prices up. this would be very bad.
an interesting implication of this is that the government probably didn't want to issue them life insurance because then they would have to explain why they don't do that for all military personnel
exactly. all i'm saying is that if you have this problem it makes way more sense to pay the offending party to stop producing excess power (or fine them for not stopping) than it does to pay someone else to intentionally waste it.
there are no circumstances under which it makes sense for energy prices to actually be negative. it is a sign of a market behaving very badly. propping up prices by intentionally wasting energy only treats the symptom not the cause.
oh i misunderstood, i was thinking about live performances. unfortunately you do technically have to obtain a license from the composer in order to sell a recording of a cover.
sorry if this is an unpopular opinion, but i have absolutely zero problems with them reverse-engineering nintendo code, nor do i really care that much about GPL violations against a project called "Real-Time Executive for Missile Systems"
as always it's not that automation is inherently bad, it's a matter of how it is used and to whose benefit. the luddites knew this. a lot of people misunderstand, but they didn't want to destroy the mills, they wanted to own them.