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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the most efficient and powerful methods of energy storage, with a focus on theoretical concepts such as matter-antimatter storage and practical examples like pumped-water storage. Participants explore various definitions of "powerful" and the constraints involved in energy storage technologies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that matter-antimatter energy storage is the most mass-dense form of energy storage, suggesting it has the highest storage density.
  • Others argue that while antimatter has high storage density, current technology makes it extremely difficult and energy-intensive to produce and store.
  • A participant mentions a pumped-water storage facility in Michigan as a practical example of energy storage that can generate significant power for several hours.
  • There is a discussion about the efficiency of energy conversion, with some participants noting that antimatter is 100% efficient at converting to energy when combined with matter, but the infrastructure for its production and storage is inefficient.
  • One participant challenges the notion of efficiency by comparing it to conventional batteries, stating that while batteries can be over 90% efficient, antimatter storage involves significant energy losses in the production process.
  • Speculative ideas are introduced regarding the potential annihilation of a Planck black hole with its antiparticle and the Higgs mechanism at the inflationary scale.
  • Another participant asserts that while heat can be produced efficiently, it does not equate to energy storage, emphasizing that matter itself is the most powerful storage of energy due to its conversion to energy when combined with antimatter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions of "powerful" and the efficiency of various energy storage methods. There is no consensus on the best approach or technology, and multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants use varying terminologies and definitions, leading to potential misunderstandings. The discussion highlights the complexities of energy storage efficiency and the challenges associated with different methods, particularly antimatter.

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 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K