On Earth, gravity has a bonus of a free massive side plate. As a battery, it might work better on Jupiter and unusable in free space, but it still stores orders of magnitude more energy than we use, in abundant cheap materials. I liked the trains-on-hills project - seems easy enough to build in large quantities and stores reasonable amounts of energy.

With electromagnetic, we are barely capable of scraping a bit of energy from the surface without the device self-destructing. Even in superconductors, only a fraction of electrons whizzes around and even high-energy plasma is a mixture of both charges.

Yet, gravity is strong enough to initiate nuclear fusion at the core of stars, or create black holes... That 10^36 argument is non sensical to me.

it is strong enough at the scale of a star, on earth my foot electromagnetic repulsion against the floor is enough to counteract all of the planet pull

Are you suggesting we should build a bigger planet?

We should have been smaller people with fewer needs.

Would you say a magnetostatic (rather than gravitational) potential energy storage offer better performance?