Daishi April 30, 2021 01:35 AM So it starts. Let the storage games begin. Bob Stuart April 30, 2021 06:22 AM This would make a lot more sense if the heat of compression were used for district heating or process heat, and then the air was re-warmed between expansion stages by ambient temperature air and/or stored solar heat. As with heat pumps, efficiency can go over 100% sidmehta April 30, 2021 07:00 AM Not impressive. Hopefully we get something more elegant and efficient than 50-60%. BTW we don't need batteries to last more than 10 years because by then there will be much better batteries and much better storage. BlueOak April 30, 2021 08:13 AM We all suspected California was full of hot air. michael_dowling April 30, 2021 08:22 AM CRYOBattery is better,as it doesn't need buried air tanks,or compensation reservoir. Everything is on the surface in one compact site,and almost certainly cheaper to construct. Higher capacity would be just a matter of adding to the existing storage tanks. Aross April 30, 2021 08:48 AM I see one major problem. Their closed loop water system is not closed. Since they use a pond to hold the water I see a major loss of water through evaporation, especially in warm/dry climates. How would this work in cold climates. The concept may be sound but the overall design needs work. Seasherm April 30, 2021 09:09 AM There is no one-off solution when storing naturally generated power for use during peak conditions. I think we will be using every one we can develop. This is very interesting, especially when combined with heat capture. bwana4swahili April 30, 2021 10:26 AM Yet another (expensive) item in the green plan... Aaron J Scott April 30, 2021 11:09 AM The thought of a container failure with 4GWH of stored energy as a compressed gas spells disaster. Adrian Akau April 30, 2021 01:04 PM I think CRYO storage technology advantage is that a specific location or digging deep for the storage tanks is not required. It is not subject to damage caused by earthquakes.