Energy Vault’s Rudong gravity-storage project is a particularly useful technology test because it removes many of the excuses that can surround a first-of-kind energy project. It was built in China, with deep domestic supply chains for concrete, steel, motors, power electronics and industrial construction. It had government support, grid coordination and an experienced Chinese construction partner. If stacking and lowering solid masses inside a purpose-built structure could become competitive grid storage, Rudong was about as favorable a place as possible to find out. What emerged is an extraordinary amount of machine for a fairly ordinary amount of electricity storage. Rudong is rated at 25 MW and 100 MWh, meaning four hours at full output. The structure is roughly 148 metres high, with more than 12,000 nominally 25-ton blocks, 96 lifts and thousands of bored piles beneath it. Energy Vault’s own project page still describes the system as commissioning, despite saying full grid interconnection was expected by the end of 2023. Rudong answers the easy question: block gravity storage can be engineered at utility scale. The full TFIE Strategy Briefing follows the harder one — what the gravity-density, machinery, maintenance and lifetime economics look like when the artificial mountain is compared on the same service basis with a Chinese battery plant. That comparison matters because four-hour batteries are not an exotic future technology in China. They are routine infrastructure being bought through an increasingly standardized market. A contemporary 100 MWh installation built around Sungrow’s PowerTitan 2.0, for example, uses 5 MWh of batteries and 2.5 MW of power conversion in each 20-foot AC block. Sungrow says a complete 100 MWh station requires only about 1,200 square metres. Rudong’s tower footprint alone is about eleven times that area. The public comparison in the Briefing also puts its central capital estimate at roughly eight times that of an equivalent contemporary Chinese BESS, with substantially higher estimated operating and maintenance costs and embodied carbon. Those are not comparisons between a Chinese project and an expensive Western battery installation. Both technologies are being tested against the same Chinese industrial economy. Energy Vault is right about one narrow point. The blocks themselves can be made from low-value mineral and waste material, although they do need steel plates on the bottom and a protective coating. They do not electrochemically degrade, they cannot experience battery-cell thermal runaway, and the storage medium can potentially last for decades. Those are legitimate component-level advantages. But the storage medium is not the storage system. A pile of inexpensive mass becomes useful to a grid only after adding a large structure, deep foundations, lifts, horizontal handling equipment, motors, generators, brakes, transmissions, controls, sensors and power electronics. The inexpensive mass has a low-carbon debt, but the mountain of civil engineering necessary to move it has a massive carbon debt per kWh that’s in the range of natural gas generation. The apparent simplicity of “raise blocks when electricity is cheap and lower them when it is needed” disappears once thousands of heavy objects have to move on command for decades. Energy Vault’s corporate evolution is interesting too. The company moved from its exposed six-arm crane concept to the enclosed EVx architecture and went public during the cleantech SPAC boom. Soon afterward it began announcing conventional lithium-ion battery projects, and today Energy Vault is an over-capitalized, executive compensation heavy, battery-storage integrator with gravity storage as a tiny part of a broader portfolio. Its project list now includes battery systems and a nonsensical battery-plus-hydrogen resilience project alongside the one gravity installation. None of this means Rudong is an engineering failure. Quite the opposite: getting a structure of this scale erected and coordinating its lifting machinery is a serious engineering achievement, not that Energy Vault had much to do with that either. The more relevant question for utilities and investors is why they should buy the complexity the architecture creates when batteries already provide the same four-hour service in compact manufactured modules? Read the full TFIE Strategy Briefing which goes through the physical and economic denominators that the headline comparison leaves unresolved, including what the plant’s geometry implies for stored energy, the machinery duty required for a four-hour discharge, the system-level carbon boundary, maintenance and availability reference classes, and a lifetime comparison in which the battery system is explicitly required to age and be repowered rather than being treated as immortal.
+18 others
