It’s only at the end of the article that we see confirmation that this is actually a battery, with an electrolyte, an anode and a cathode.
Since it’s a battery we need to ask if the electrolyte will ever need replacing. It would be horribly expensive to tear down parts of a building to replace the electrolyte, or even a cell that isn’t working. The assumption here seems to be that this battery will never need maintenance or replacement.
What happens if you touch one of the charged parts, an anode or a cathode?
Will there be signs warning that when the building is eventually torn down, long in the future, that the concrete carries an electrical charge and to be careful not to get jolted?
I wonder if this is one of those research projects concocted to extract that wonderful grant money from the government and destined to be scrapped at the end with the final verdict something like “The concept has validity, and we had a lot of success in this project, but it was determined to not be justifiable economically.”
Oh, and lightning strikes to the building need to be taken into consideration. Not mentioned in the article.
Lightning strikes can be shunted to ground..................
Most early stage research never advances to a stage where it is commercially viable. This has been my experience in medical research, and I assume the same principle applies in other areas of research.
In the medical world, I've seen some truly astounding technologies that will never reach clinical use. Imagine being able to stop an epileptic seizure by shining a light into the brain. It can be done in lab animals, but I don't think we'll ever see that used in human patients.