palmej2 t1_j69nehs wrote

Are you saying songs get stuck in these animal's heads too? Even after they're dead?

I'm guessing "we will rock you" was a Stone age crowd pleaser... >You got mud on your face, you big disgrace Kicking your can all over the place, singin'


palmej2 t1_iyolntt wrote

I'd go with a cementitious grout over the "foam", but point out that while this will correct the lean temporarily, it will not address the problem of subgrade shifting. I'd also recommend something to address that, possibly driving in a corrugated steel sheet (forget the term, but essentially similar to a coffer dam), or some sort of retaining wall type feature


palmej2 t1_iwipxcx wrote

Yes, agree. But for a system such as this I think that would be common against all alternatives, the difference might be that the CO2 could allow for more capacity, or a reduced initial cost (making it more widely feasible) and potentially having additional future scalability benefits.


palmej2 t1_iwi8qxf wrote


I would point out that my understanding is the Powerwall neglects transmission and other losses to consumers. These would likely be more proximal to where the power comes in and thus big picture may be more competitive than 77% vs 90% (though grid scale would likely have that in common and the price basis you mentioned would still drive choice). Also batteries degrade and would likely have more significant maintenance/replacement costs. I know Powerwall can do larger installations, but believe they are more suited for end user demand whereas this is more grid scale.


palmej2 t1_iwi5tzv wrote

I remember seeing this about a year ago and thinking it was BS, but looking deeper and realizing it wasn't and had competitive efficiencies as well (not finding those details in this article though).

In addition to being a viable storage solution without as much dependence on limited materials, there are a few other potential pros: scalability as adding more storage could allow for increasing storage (and the storage I expect is relatively cheap compared to the compression/extraction equipment); potential symbiotic with sequestration installations (e.g. If the storage requirements are seasonal, it could be used to liquid extracted carbon for transport/long term sequestration, you could potentially even use the heat generated in that process for other purposes (e.g. If sequestered the heat isn't needed for subsequent evaporation and could be used in industrial or generation applications). It could make sense to put these on retired coal plants where they are already discussing use of thermal batteries to make power for more cross utilization of similar systems. Even if the systems need to be different, the spring workforce would benefit from economies of scale related to the worker skill sets (and the abandoned coal storage would be suitable for the larger footprints)


palmej2 t1_iua81k8 wrote

Agreed. I use a mix of vinegar, sugary soda, a bit of dawn and sometimes even a bit of honey to refill my fruit fly traps. For fruit flies, vinegar is a more effective attractant. But I think the saying dates to times when the trap like containers and surfactants weren't available, so the honey did the actual trapping (possibly coating the sides of the jar for the flies to get stuck in, not sure if they employed vinegar as well though)...


palmej2 t1_it51h8x wrote

You should definitely address the slope so water flows away, but soil in direct contact with the foundation can also transmit moisture to the porous concrete.

If you are pouring in the effort I would also grab some crushed gravel and trench around the wall, gravel goes in the trench, soil on top... There are other considerations like grading the trench, potentially a moisture barrier or perforated drain pipe in the bottom, but the details are somewhat dependant on your situation and how much of an issue water is for you. There are plenty of videos and resources on the web.