What is the most efficient and powerful way to store energy?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the most efficient and powerful methods of energy storage, with a focus on anti-matter as the leading option due to its high storage density. Participants highlight that while anti-matter is theoretically the most efficient at converting to energy, current technology makes its production and storage highly challenging and energy-intensive. There is also mention of pumped-water storage as a practical energy storage solution, capable of generating significant power for several hours. The conversation touches on the inefficiencies in energy conversion processes, particularly in comparison to traditional batteries. Overall, the consensus leans towards anti-matter as the ultimate energy storage medium, despite its practical limitations.
FoxCommander
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
What is the most powerful battery or way to store energy?

I have an idea but I wanted to see what you guys would say :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Powerful by what definition and what constraints do you put on this? Matter-anti-matter energy storage is probably the most mass dense.
 
russ_watters said:
Powerful by what definition and what constraints do you put on this? Matter-anti-matter energy storage is probably the most mass dense.
Correct answer. Fusion would come in a very distant second.
 
I agree that anti-matter is the ultimate in storage density. I love the stuff, and would like some to play with. Our current technology, however, makes it just about the most difficult and energy-intensive substance to produce and store.
 
Ok good, The other day i was thinking about it and It came to me that anti matter is created when you create matter from energy so i figured it was the most powerful "battery" in the context that it stores energy

Thanks guys I just wanted to make sure :D
 
FoxCommander said:
Thanks guys I just wanted to make sure :D

When in doubt, watch Star Trek. :biggrin:
 
Fermilab usually has up to 50 (circulating current) milliamps of anti-protons stashed in the 8-GeV cooling ring. Unfortunately, no one has a magic (anti-matter) box to put them in.

There is a pumped-water storage facility in Ludington, Michigan, that stores enough water (pumped uphill from Lake Michigan) to generate about 1800 megawatts for roughly 8 hours.

Bob S
 
Danger said:
I agree that anti-matter is the ultimate in storage density. I love the stuff, and would like some to play with. Our current technology, however, makes it just about the most difficult and energy-intensive substance to produce and store.
By that, you mean among the least energy efficient storage/release mechanism, yes. Ie, a battery is better than 90% efficient at storing and giving back its energy.
 
I'm not sure if that's what I meant or not, Russ; we appear to be using incompatible terminologies. I'll explain myself more fully.
The anti-matter itself is 100% efficient at converting to energy when combined with matter, so in that sense it has the highest storage density. It's in the required infrastructure that the problem lies. A very rough analogy would be the need to build an entire factory to produce a single AA battery, an elaborate semi-trailer to lug it around, and another factory to collect the energy at the end. As if that weren't bad enough, the first factory puts 1000 volts into the battery and the second one can extract only 1 volt due to collector inefficiencies.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
To be more specific, the potential annihilation of a Planck black hole with its antiparticle.

Otherwise, the symmetry of the Higgs mechanism at the inflationary scale. (This is mostly speculation on my part.)
 
  • #11
Danger said:
I'm not sure if that's what I meant or not, Russ; we appear to be using incompatible terminologies. I'll explain myself more fully.
The anti-matter itself is 100% efficient at converting to energy when combined with matter...
Right. The inefficiency comes in the charging.
...so in that sense it has the highest storage density.
Ehh, well, no. If heat is the goal, there are lots of ways to store energy that output 100% efficiency. A car battery powering a heater is 100% efficient at producing heat, for example.
As if that weren't bad enough, the first factory puts 1000 volts into the battery and the second one can extract only 1 volt due to collector inefficiencies.
That's the part I was describing.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
Right. The inefficiency comes in the charging. Ehh, well, no. If heat is the goal, there are lots of ways to store energy that output 100% efficiency.

Ok this is completely false because the amount of energy put into heater is not the same amount of heat energy given off, you are sadly mistaken.

Anyways what is heat? Its energy. And what is pound for pound the most efficient and powerful storage of energy? Well its matter, because when you create an amount of matter the same amount of Anti-matter is created, and when you put the two together you get pure energy.

A heater produces heat. But does all of the energy it uses wether mechanical or electrical go into the heating and therefore 100% efficient? NO And on that note, A heater doesn't store energy. It converts it

Sincerly,
FoxCommander
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
34K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K